The Money Order Bleed Thru Problem Explained

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi All,

Say, over at the Education Forum and other discussion boards there have
been a number of revelations by the likes of Sandy Larsen, Lance Payette
and Tom Scully, amongst others, as to the veracity of the US Postal Money
Order that Oswald apparently used to purchase his rifle with (CE 788):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm

One of the reservations expressed about the veracity of this document is
the apparent "bleed thru" effect of the postal stamp and other details,
given that US Postal Money Orders were actually of a computer punch card
type by this time in 1963.

However, it seems that this issue can be explained. The card was subjected
to a chemical process, which bleaches and makes inks run, in order to
establish whether or not there were latent fingerprints upon it.

After this, a process known as "desilvering" was applied to the card to
return it as much as possible to its previous state, though obviously some
effects of the fingerprinting process, like ink run, remained in place.

Fortunately, though, FBI handwriting expert James C. Cadigan examined the
card and had it photographed BEFORE the fingerprinting process took place.
This is a much CLEARER copy of the Money Order, Cadigan's handwriting
arrows notwithstanding:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152a.htm

As can be seen, the UNTREATED card, Cadigan Exhibit 11, DOESN'T appear to
exhibit the "bleed thru" problems we see in CE 788.

Relevant parts of Cadigan's testimony re this matter are here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0221b.htm

And here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0220b.htm

H/T to DVP re this, who has been fighting the good fight on the Postal
Money Order matter over at the Education Forum for WEEKS, and where it now
appears that John Armstrong has accepted that the Money Order is genuine.
Way to go DVP!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[David Von Pein]

Excellent, Tim!

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the photos of the money
order. The picture of the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 most
certainly does *not* exhibit the bleed-thru that *is* apparent in
Commission Exhibit No. 788.

Here's a direct comparison of the two exhibits:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PN42xdy1rXY/VmO7VlrAZ_I/AAAAAAABIZ4/kqhelFAz3uc/s1600/Money-Order-Comparison--CE788-Vs-Cadigan-Exhibit-11.jpg

And, as Tim pointed out, Cadigan #11 is a picture that was taken BEFORE
the money order was treated for fingerprints, per Cadigan's Warren
Commission testimony (at 7 H 434).

Here's what Cadigan said:

MELVIN A. EISENBERG -- "Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not
reprocessed or desilvered?"

JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain why the signature, "Lee Oswald" or
rather "L. H. Oswald" is apparent, while the signature "A. J. Hidell" is
not?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Different inks."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Some inks are more soluble in the solution used for
fingerprint tests than others?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Definitely."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801,
and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "That is correct."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in
their original silvered condition."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you see these items before they were treated for
fingerprints."

MR. CADIGAN -- "I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for
fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Are the photographs which you produced photographs of
the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other
words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it
is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the
treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial."

~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks again, Tim, for this discovery. It looks like you've just hammered
one more nail into the coffin of the "Money Order Is Fake" theory.

Updated webpages to include Tim Brennan's good research on this:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=15#entry319712

[Marcus Hanson]

Hey Tim,

Good to learn that David has stood his ground so well on this matter.

I've got the gist of the key points,but I've only skimmed the EF debate.

So ,indulge me if you will with an obvious question,which somebody has
probably raised already :

Did anyone locate,or attempt to locate,any MO from 1963 (preferably one
sent to KSG) which (in terms of markings - or lack of them) was more or
less identical to that one which Oswald sent to KSG?

Thanks

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Nice one, Mr. B. Chapeau. +

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/6/2015 8:34 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Excellent, Tim!
>
> Thank you for pointing out the difference between the photos of the money
> order. The picture of the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 most
> certainly does *not* exhibit the bleed-thru that *is* apparent in
> Commission Exhibit No. 788.
>

OMG! You can see that yourself? Did you check with the cover-up to see
if you are allowed to see that?

Wow. Is he brave enough to tackle Bigfoot next?

> Updated webpages to include Tim Brennan's good research on this:
>

Well, it's about time. Only 52 years too late.

And in the interval you left a huge vacuum for the kooks to exploit.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=15#entry319712
>

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi DVP,

Thanks mate! And thanks for laying out the argument(s) so well, both here
and at the Education Forum.

It has certainly been a long, strange trip since Jean Davison kicked off
her thread about this matter awhile back, but I think we can say that this
IS yet another nail in the coffin of the "fake" money order canard.

Which is now pretty much in tatters, really.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

ps Just reposting this from Jean's earlier thread as well, as it relates
to another money order "mystery":

---QUOTE ON:

Looking at this July 5, 1962 US Postal Bulletin, it appears that two of
the three remaining rectangular holes are guide holes punched into Column
16 of the card to allow proper card seating in the Print-Punch machine
before the round money holes are then punched by the PO employee (see
story column two):

http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20314_19620705.pdf#search=%22%22

QUOTE ON:

The top guide hole is circled in red for easy identification; do not
confuse with the holes representing the serial number which are punched in
Columns 1 through 10.

QUOTE OFF

So using the Corbis color image we can now see where Column 16 is and what
those two holes are used for, due to the red circle:

http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/NA014738/lee-harvey-oswald-postal-money-order

That just leaves the final rectangular hole about another fifteen columns
to the right, between the 9 and the 7 figures.

---QUOTE OFF

TB

[Anthony Marsh]

Identical? Are you insane or just making an insanely hilarious joke?

> Thanks
>
>
>
>

[tims...@gmail.com]

Thanks Mark! I don't think Ralph Cinque will be too happy now that a pet
canard of one of his heroes, John Armstrong, has been collectively shot
down!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi Marcus,

Best answer on this is to use DVP's blog spot:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

Scroll down until you see the yellow money order that was purchased by
numismatist Harry Smuckler, which is a genuine 1960s item. They seem to be
quite hard to acquire.

DVP has done a very good graphic comparing the the Oswald MO and the
Smuckler MO to show that Oswald's has been cashed, due to the presence of
a File Locator Number (138 4159796) at the top, which indicates bank
processing.

The Smuckler MO lacks this as he was a collector who apparently simply
purchased them at a small fee for his stamp collection.

Lance Payette at The Education Forum was the person who first identified
the FLN number on Oswald's processed MO, as DVP's blog shows.

Hope this helps!

[Anthony Marsh]

Isn't that the same person as Lance Uppercut? Just a cartoon character,
not a real person.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Huh? Well I don't actually vet admissions to the Education Forum, Marsh,
so I wouldn't know, though the fellow appears to have a VALID posting
profile up at Spartacus, who host the Ed Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=7231

The likelihood that he is a "cartoon character" as you suggest, Marsh,
appears quite REMOTE.

He IS, however the person who identified the "138 4159796" number
appearing at the top of the Hidell Postal Money Order:

http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Money%20Order.jpg

as being a US Federal Reserve Bank File Locator Number (FLN) (see five
pages in):

https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf

thus DISPELLING the notion that the Postal Money Order NEVER went through
the US banking system, given that the FLN is applied DURING the Federal
Reserve banking process.

That was a pretty significant breakthrough, given all the NONSENSE that
has been written about Oswald's Postal Money Order over the years by the
likes of Jim DiEugenio, Gil Jesus etc.

It's rather a shame that YOU couldn't have come up with a breakthrough
like that, Marsh, though I guess it's MORE fun to steer every thread off
topic with cheap, irrelevant comments, eh?

Sure looks THAT way to me, Marsh.

Informative Regards,