Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Postal Money Order
56 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
May 10, 2017, 12:15:45 PM5/10/17
to
JON G. TIDD SAID:
I say, let's see these records:
-- the record showing the Post Office paid Treasury for the PMO [Postal
Money Order; aka CE788, the "Hidell" money order].
-- the record showing the Fed charged the Treasury for the PMO.
-- the record showing the FRB [Federal Reserve Bank] of Chicago credited
First National Bank of Chicago for the PMO.
Challenge to DVP: Provide just one of these records, just one, and I'll
back whatever you write here. Why? Because for me the Hidell PMO is a
smoking gun, perhaps the only provable smoking gun. Federal financial
records are a far different kettle of fish from eyewitness accounts,
autopsy materials, dictabelt recordings, biographies, and other matters
subject to opinion and interpretation. Federal financial records are
granite. Immutable. Pristine.
JON G. TIDD LATER SAID:
I've made a good offer to DVP. He hasn't accepted it. Not because he is at
fault. But because he cannot accept my offer.
There is no provable payment chain to the Hidell PMO.
This means the Hidell PMO never moved through the banking system to the
Post Office.
Think about it: A. Hidell allegedly sent a PMO to Klein's as payment for
an M-C rifle. Fine. Klein's endorsed the PMO for deposit into its account
at First National Bank of Chicago. Fine. End of story, except for an FRB
routing number which means nothing, that's nothing, in 1963. Nothing when
not accompanied by First's stamp. Nothing. There is no proof, none
whatsoever, First got credited for its payment to Klein's.
Sleep well, CT'ers. DVP will never produce facts showing I'm wrong.
Sleep well, CTers. The Hidell PMO is a provable fraud. Which proves the
Oswald-did-it-alone thesis of the Warren Report is provably false. Not
arguably false. Provably false.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jon,
Are you actually suggesting that you have provided PROOF that the Hidell
money order is a "fraud"?
Really?
You must be joking.
Please tell me, Jon, how the presence of a stamp placed on the Hidell PMO
by the First National Bank of Chicago would prove that First National "got
credited for its payment to Klein's"?
Even if such a bank stamp had been on the Hidell money order, it certainly
wouldn't be proof that First National got credited for the $21.45 face
value of the PMO. Such a stamp would have been put on the PMO by First
National itself, not by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Seems to me that the File Locator Number, placed on the money order by the
Federal Reserve Bank AFTER the PMO had been handled by both Klein's and
First National Bank, is a very strong indication that First National was,
indeed, credited for the money order.
I also find it very humorous that Jon G. Tidd seems to think that the lack
of a bank stamp on the back of the money order somehow completely
dismantles this huge pile of accumulated evidence that all points toward
Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy:
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
That's one hell of a powerful Postal Money Order, huh?
GREG BURNHAM SAID:
Jon ... I commend both you and Sandy for advancing impeccably cogent
arguments built on solid evidence regarding the PMO issue.
Again, the application of Occam's Razor to the equation is instructive.
The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to
that which is unnecessarily complex.
In my experience with LN's, I have found that they will cling to
unreasonably complex solutions in order to avoid conceding even the mere
possibility, let alone reality, of conspiracy, irrespective of facts to
the contrary.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
This is hilarious (in the usual Pot/Kettle sense of ironic arguments
advanced by conspiracy theorists).
Greg Burnham is actually suggesting via the above quote that the LNers who
believe that the Hidell money order is a real and genuine document are
placing their belief in something that is "unreasonably complex".
So Greg is actually saying in this instance regarding the Postal Money
Order that the belief that something ISN'T fake is far more of an
"unreasonably complex solution" than the belief that the item in question
IS a fake.
Greg has things backward (as per the CTer norm). Because in order to
believe that the PMO is a fraud involves believing in a FAR more
"unreasonably complex solution" than the LNers' belief that the Postal
Money Order is simply what it appears to be -- i.e., a perfectly normal
and legitimate and non-sinister financial instrument that was utilized by
Lee Harvey Oswald to pay for a rifle that he ordered from Klein's Sporting
Goods in March of 1963.
But the belief that the PMO is a fraud means that virtually everything
connected to the money order was manufactured by conspirators --- from
Oswald's handwriting, to the Klein's stamp, to the 10-digit number stamped
on the front of the PMO, etc.
And yet I'm supposed to think, per what Greg Burnham just said above, that
such mass fakery is MORE of a reasonable conclusion to reach—and a
LESS complex one—than a conclusion that involves *no fakery at
all*.
Incredible topsy-turvy logic there.
William of Ockham just had a stroke!
GREG BURNHAM SAID:
There is (almost literally) nothing that DVP has ever written that I hold
to be true.
In order to accept that the PMO was handled properly, we must choose to
reinvent the entire financial instrument practices of the US banking
system! Now THAT is complex.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, Greg. Either that, or we could....
Merely accept the amazing and incredible notion that Gregory Burnham doesn't know as much as he thinks he does about the process by which United States Postal Money Orders were handled and processed by U.S. banking institutions (like the First National Bank of Chicago, Illinois) in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
Guess which option is more likely to be the accurate one?
JON G. TIDD SAID:
Awhile back on another thread, DVP agreed that if there was a conspiracy, that's a big if, the conspirators would stop at nothing.
Now DVP argues that because falsifying the Hidell PMO involved many falsifications, it's ludicrous to believe the PMO was falsified.
DVP can't have it both ways. If anything, falsifying the PMO is proof the conspirators would stop at nothing.
What indicates the PMO is falsified? Certainly not the front of the PMO. Certainly not Klein's stamp. Those things look for real. Maybe they were forged, but they look for real. What's not real is the absence of First National Bank's stamp.
[...]
Why is a bank stamp or individual endorsement important?
The stamp or endorsement warrants to all higher in the payment chain that all signatures prior to and including the stamp or endorsement are genuine.
Breach of warranty = liability. Thus, if you endorse a forged PMO, you can be stuck with a loss = PMO amount.
Financial institutions never have exposed themselves to such losses. They have for ages required an endorsement of the party asking for payment of an instrument such as a PMO or a check.
Don't subscribe to "conspiracy lite". Don't buy the idea there was a limit to what the conspirators would or could do.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet they forgot that very important First National bank stamp on their forged PMO.
My, how careless.
BTW, Jon, who do you think it was who managed to plant the forged PMO in the exact place it needed to be planted in order to make it seem like the PMO completed a normal and non-conspiratorial journey through the American banking system?
Or do you think the man who found the processed money order at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia—an employee of the National Archives and Records Service by the name of Robert H. Jackson (see Commission Document No. 87)—merely pretended to find the Hidell Postal Money Order at the Records Center near Washington?
Was Robert Jackson of the National Archives a big part of the plot to frame Lee Oswald with that $21.45 money order that you are so convinced is "a provable fraud" which "never moved through the banking system"?
Mr. Jackson must have been a huge part of the plot and frame-up, right Jon? Because if he wasn't, then Jackson really did find a Postal Money Order for $21.45 with the name "A. Hidell" on it at the Records Center storage facility near Washington on 11/23/63. And how could it have ended up there if it "never moved through the banking system"?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey never asks any questions about all the steps to go ahead and mail the money order, or to process the money order or deposit the money order.
And BTW, that is really the giveaway in all this. Because the WC, if you can buy it--and you can--never asked any of those questions either!
I asked John [Armstrong] about this once: Is there any interview with the accounts receivable department chief? That is, the person who took on all the mailed-in checks and money orders and cash and sorted it and processed it and then sent it over to the bank?
He said no there is not. At least I cannot find it.
I said then, how did they know how often the messenger was sent over to make a deposit? I mean was it every day? Every other day? Was it when they hit a certain amount? And who was their contact there? Since they had seven stores, they must have been VIP clients. Therefore, there must have been a protocol. John said, I have never seen any of that.
I said, John, you know what makes that so odd? Belin and Liebeler were not criminal lawyers. They were business lawyers. They had to have known all this and yet they never did any research to find out the answers to these questions. John said, yep I know Jim, it's really unbelievable. But it's the WC.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, it's just that David W. Belin and Wesley J. Liebeler had the common sense (and rational way of thinking about the evidence) that people like James DiEugenio and John Armstrong sorely lack.
I.E.,
Belin and Liebeler knew that there wasn't even the SLIGHTEST chance that the paper trail for Oswald's rifle purchase had been faked or artificially manufactured by a band of brain-dead conspirators.
How did they know this for certain?
Because of the many things that prove the paper trail was legitimate and genuine. Such as: Oswald's verified writing on various pieces of that paper trail (including the money order and the CE773 order form). Plus, the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp on the back of the money order. Plus Waldman Exhibit No. 7. Plus the fact that Belin and Liebeler knew for a fact that the money order had been located in just exactly the place where it should have been found if it had been processed properly--in Alexandria.
Therefore, why would David Belin and Wesley Liebeler (or the WC) have felt there was any NEED to jump through the ridiculous hoops that DiEugenio is suggesting those men should have definitely jumped through?
Answer -- There was no need for such hoop-jumping, because of all the things that just SCREAMED out **Lee Harvey Oswald purchased this rifle from Klein's**!
Lots more here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html
I say, let's see these records:
-- the record showing the Post Office paid Treasury for the PMO [Postal
Money Order; aka CE788, the "Hidell" money order].
-- the record showing the Fed charged the Treasury for the PMO.
-- the record showing the FRB [Federal Reserve Bank] of Chicago credited
First National Bank of Chicago for the PMO.
Challenge to DVP: Provide just one of these records, just one, and I'll
back whatever you write here. Why? Because for me the Hidell PMO is a
smoking gun, perhaps the only provable smoking gun. Federal financial
records are a far different kettle of fish from eyewitness accounts,
autopsy materials, dictabelt recordings, biographies, and other matters
subject to opinion and interpretation. Federal financial records are
granite. Immutable. Pristine.
JON G. TIDD LATER SAID:
I've made a good offer to DVP. He hasn't accepted it. Not because he is at
fault. But because he cannot accept my offer.
There is no provable payment chain to the Hidell PMO.
This means the Hidell PMO never moved through the banking system to the
Post Office.
Think about it: A. Hidell allegedly sent a PMO to Klein's as payment for
an M-C rifle. Fine. Klein's endorsed the PMO for deposit into its account
at First National Bank of Chicago. Fine. End of story, except for an FRB
routing number which means nothing, that's nothing, in 1963. Nothing when
not accompanied by First's stamp. Nothing. There is no proof, none
whatsoever, First got credited for its payment to Klein's.
Sleep well, CT'ers. DVP will never produce facts showing I'm wrong.
Sleep well, CTers. The Hidell PMO is a provable fraud. Which proves the
Oswald-did-it-alone thesis of the Warren Report is provably false. Not
arguably false. Provably false.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jon,
Are you actually suggesting that you have provided PROOF that the Hidell
money order is a "fraud"?
Really?
You must be joking.
Please tell me, Jon, how the presence of a stamp placed on the Hidell PMO
by the First National Bank of Chicago would prove that First National "got
credited for its payment to Klein's"?
Even if such a bank stamp had been on the Hidell money order, it certainly
wouldn't be proof that First National got credited for the $21.45 face
value of the PMO. Such a stamp would have been put on the PMO by First
National itself, not by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Seems to me that the File Locator Number, placed on the money order by the
Federal Reserve Bank AFTER the PMO had been handled by both Klein's and
First National Bank, is a very strong indication that First National was,
indeed, credited for the money order.
I also find it very humorous that Jon G. Tidd seems to think that the lack
of a bank stamp on the back of the money order somehow completely
dismantles this huge pile of accumulated evidence that all points toward
Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy:
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
That's one hell of a powerful Postal Money Order, huh?
GREG BURNHAM SAID:
Jon ... I commend both you and Sandy for advancing impeccably cogent
arguments built on solid evidence regarding the PMO issue.
Again, the application of Occam's Razor to the equation is instructive.
The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to
that which is unnecessarily complex.
In my experience with LN's, I have found that they will cling to
unreasonably complex solutions in order to avoid conceding even the mere
possibility, let alone reality, of conspiracy, irrespective of facts to
the contrary.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
This is hilarious (in the usual Pot/Kettle sense of ironic arguments
advanced by conspiracy theorists).
Greg Burnham is actually suggesting via the above quote that the LNers who
believe that the Hidell money order is a real and genuine document are
placing their belief in something that is "unreasonably complex".
So Greg is actually saying in this instance regarding the Postal Money
Order that the belief that something ISN'T fake is far more of an
"unreasonably complex solution" than the belief that the item in question
IS a fake.
Greg has things backward (as per the CTer norm). Because in order to
believe that the PMO is a fraud involves believing in a FAR more
"unreasonably complex solution" than the LNers' belief that the Postal
Money Order is simply what it appears to be -- i.e., a perfectly normal
and legitimate and non-sinister financial instrument that was utilized by
Lee Harvey Oswald to pay for a rifle that he ordered from Klein's Sporting
Goods in March of 1963.
But the belief that the PMO is a fraud means that virtually everything
connected to the money order was manufactured by conspirators --- from
Oswald's handwriting, to the Klein's stamp, to the 10-digit number stamped
on the front of the PMO, etc.
And yet I'm supposed to think, per what Greg Burnham just said above, that
such mass fakery is MORE of a reasonable conclusion to reach—and a
LESS complex one—than a conclusion that involves *no fakery at
all*.
Incredible topsy-turvy logic there.
William of Ockham just had a stroke!
GREG BURNHAM SAID:
There is (almost literally) nothing that DVP has ever written that I hold
to be true.
In order to accept that the PMO was handled properly, we must choose to
reinvent the entire financial instrument practices of the US banking
system! Now THAT is complex.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, Greg. Either that, or we could....
Merely accept the amazing and incredible notion that Gregory Burnham doesn't know as much as he thinks he does about the process by which United States Postal Money Orders were handled and processed by U.S. banking institutions (like the First National Bank of Chicago, Illinois) in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
Guess which option is more likely to be the accurate one?
JON G. TIDD SAID:
Awhile back on another thread, DVP agreed that if there was a conspiracy, that's a big if, the conspirators would stop at nothing.
Now DVP argues that because falsifying the Hidell PMO involved many falsifications, it's ludicrous to believe the PMO was falsified.
DVP can't have it both ways. If anything, falsifying the PMO is proof the conspirators would stop at nothing.
What indicates the PMO is falsified? Certainly not the front of the PMO. Certainly not Klein's stamp. Those things look for real. Maybe they were forged, but they look for real. What's not real is the absence of First National Bank's stamp.
[...]
Why is a bank stamp or individual endorsement important?
The stamp or endorsement warrants to all higher in the payment chain that all signatures prior to and including the stamp or endorsement are genuine.
Breach of warranty = liability. Thus, if you endorse a forged PMO, you can be stuck with a loss = PMO amount.
Financial institutions never have exposed themselves to such losses. They have for ages required an endorsement of the party asking for payment of an instrument such as a PMO or a check.
Don't subscribe to "conspiracy lite". Don't buy the idea there was a limit to what the conspirators would or could do.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet they forgot that very important First National bank stamp on their forged PMO.
My, how careless.
BTW, Jon, who do you think it was who managed to plant the forged PMO in the exact place it needed to be planted in order to make it seem like the PMO completed a normal and non-conspiratorial journey through the American banking system?
Or do you think the man who found the processed money order at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia—an employee of the National Archives and Records Service by the name of Robert H. Jackson (see Commission Document No. 87)—merely pretended to find the Hidell Postal Money Order at the Records Center near Washington?
Was Robert Jackson of the National Archives a big part of the plot to frame Lee Oswald with that $21.45 money order that you are so convinced is "a provable fraud" which "never moved through the banking system"?
Mr. Jackson must have been a huge part of the plot and frame-up, right Jon? Because if he wasn't, then Jackson really did find a Postal Money Order for $21.45 with the name "A. Hidell" on it at the Records Center storage facility near Washington on 11/23/63. And how could it have ended up there if it "never moved through the banking system"?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey never asks any questions about all the steps to go ahead and mail the money order, or to process the money order or deposit the money order.
And BTW, that is really the giveaway in all this. Because the WC, if you can buy it--and you can--never asked any of those questions either!
I asked John [Armstrong] about this once: Is there any interview with the accounts receivable department chief? That is, the person who took on all the mailed-in checks and money orders and cash and sorted it and processed it and then sent it over to the bank?
He said no there is not. At least I cannot find it.
I said then, how did they know how often the messenger was sent over to make a deposit? I mean was it every day? Every other day? Was it when they hit a certain amount? And who was their contact there? Since they had seven stores, they must have been VIP clients. Therefore, there must have been a protocol. John said, I have never seen any of that.
I said, John, you know what makes that so odd? Belin and Liebeler were not criminal lawyers. They were business lawyers. They had to have known all this and yet they never did any research to find out the answers to these questions. John said, yep I know Jim, it's really unbelievable. But it's the WC.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, it's just that David W. Belin and Wesley J. Liebeler had the common sense (and rational way of thinking about the evidence) that people like James DiEugenio and John Armstrong sorely lack.
I.E.,
Belin and Liebeler knew that there wasn't even the SLIGHTEST chance that the paper trail for Oswald's rifle purchase had been faked or artificially manufactured by a band of brain-dead conspirators.
How did they know this for certain?
Because of the many things that prove the paper trail was legitimate and genuine. Such as: Oswald's verified writing on various pieces of that paper trail (including the money order and the CE773 order form). Plus, the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp on the back of the money order. Plus Waldman Exhibit No. 7. Plus the fact that Belin and Liebeler knew for a fact that the money order had been located in just exactly the place where it should have been found if it had been processed properly--in Alexandria.
Therefore, why would David Belin and Wesley Liebeler (or the WC) have felt there was any NEED to jump through the ridiculous hoops that DiEugenio is suggesting those men should have definitely jumped through?
Answer -- There was no need for such hoop-jumping, because of all the things that just SCREAMED out **Lee Harvey Oswald purchased this rifle from Klein's**!
Lots more here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html
Anthony Marsh
May 10, 2017, 11:07:24 PM5/10/17
to
carbine and they mail him a short rifle. Bait and Switch? Or free upgrade?
David Von Pein
May 11, 2017, 1:35:10 PM5/11/17
to
36-inch rifle and a 40-incher were "CARBINES"? ....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s1600/Klein's-Ads.png
IOW---why do CTers still insist that a "Carbine" is DIFFERENT from a
"Short Rifle"? They are, in fact, exactly the same thing (via the
dictionary definition of "Carbine").
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/carbine
But maybe all the online dictionaries are part of the enduring JFK
"conspiracy" too, huh?
BOZ
May 11, 2017, 1:37:22 PM5/11/17
to
0 new messages