"The money order wasn't cashed" debunked

[Jean Davison]

It has long been argued that since the money order for Oswald's rifle
lacked a bank stamp on the back, it was never cashed. For instance here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Recently Brian Castle debunked that claim on the reopenkennedycase.org
forum by making an observation that seems obvious now but that no one
seems to have noticed before.

QUOTE:

The scuttlebutt is that the money order was never cashed or deposited in
any US bank.

However.... take a look at the money order. Here's a picture:

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

See the little holes in the paper? They're "punch holes", made by a
"keypunch machine". In the old days, there was no ASCII and the computer
people commonly used a "Hollerith code" for punch cards.

The idea is, that WHEN the money order or check is processed by the bank
(or a clearing house), it's run in a BATCH along with a thousand other
checks, and each batch is handled by a keypunch operator with a keypunch
machine [......]

UNQUOTE

---------------------------------------------------------
You can read the rest here:

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13267538-about-that-money-order-

Bravo, Brian Castle, well done!

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 6 Nov 2015 11:21:57 -0500, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Another Armstrong thing shot to hell.

David Von Pein destroyed the "mailed at a distant mailbox" thing.
David, if you are lucking, you might post the link (I'm too lazy to go
find it).

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

That's one thing that the new kids don't realize, the technology back
then was different. They are so used to Optical Character Recognition,
digital records and and magnetic ink that they forget about punchcards
and rotary phones. My father was one of the first to work with
developing magnetic ink.

At one ATM I have to put a check to deposit in an envelope and fill out
a form. At the other, all I do is stick it in the slot. And my bank has
an app where all I have to do is take a picture of the check with my
smartphone.

I'm still waiting for my debit card with the chip.
In a futuristic movie all your credit cards are on one card called
Multipass.

For ANY transaction you just tap the card to the receiver.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[OHLeeRedux]

Jean Davison

It has long been argued that since the money order for Oswald's rifle
lacked a bank stamp on the back, it was never cashed. For instance here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Recently Brian Castle debunked that claim on the reopenkennedycase.org
forum by making an observation that seems obvious now but that no one
seems to have noticed before.

QUOTE:

The scuttlebutt is that the money order was never cashed or deposited in
any US bank.

However.... take a look at the money order. Here's a picture:

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

See the little holes in the paper? They're "punch holes", made by a
"keypunch machine". In the old days, there was no ASCII and the computer
people commonly used a "Hollerith code" for punch cards.

The idea is, that WHEN the money order or check is processed by the bank
(or a clearing house), it's run in a BATCH along with a thousand other
checks, and each batch is handled by a keypunch operator with a keypunch
machine [......]

UNQUOTE

---------------------------------------------------------
You can read the rest here:

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13267538-about-that-money-order-

Bravo, Brian Castle, well done!

Jean

The keypunch holes were put there by hand, of course, by members of the
Vast Conspiracy to frame poor Patsy Lee.

Because that would be easier than just depositing the money order in a
bank.

[Anthony Marsh]

The kids nowadays aren't old enough to remember punchcards.
We had them in college.

[tom...@cox.net]

hey jean;
would you care to explain how the cia housed Oswald and the FPCC ALONG WITH
SEVERAL CIA SPONSORED ANTI CASTRO CUBAN ORGANIZATIONS AT 3126 HARLENDALE
AVENUE IN DALLAS ? ? ? ? ?SEE>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm
===========================================================================
=====

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

THE MONEY ORDWER WAS FOR $30.00
THE RIFLE W/ SCOPE WAS $1995/
SHIPPING WAS $1.50
DID HE PAY $8.55 FOR A "MAGIC BULLET" ? ? ? ?
===========================================================================
====

[Jean Davison]

On 11/6/2015 6:18 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> THE MONEY ORDWER WAS FOR $30.00
> THE RIFLE W/ SCOPE WAS $1995/
> SHIPPING WAS $1.50
> DID HE PAY $8.55 FOR A "MAGIC BULLET" ? ? ? ?
> ===========================================================================
> ====

Look again Tom. It's marked "Not valid for more than Thirty
Dollars." The actual amount is in the upper right corner: 21 Dollars and
45 Cents.

Add it up.

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

Jean

[Tim Nickerson]

Hi Jean,

I'd just like to point out here that Mike Giampaolo presented the punch
cancelling debunking of the "it was never cashed" claim back in July on
Duncan MacRae's forum.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12446.152.html

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, Jean. And thank you, Brian Castle.

[David Von Pein]

OSWALD'S RIFLE AND THE MONEY ORDER....

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

[David Von Pein]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17428&page=4#entry220887

"It's my feeling, too, that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit is
made which includes many checks and money orders (which would certainly
have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's Sporting
Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only the DEPOSIT
TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank after it is
received." -- DVP; March 7, 2011

[OHLeeRedux]

8:31 AMJean Davison

Ha ha. Pwned.

Put that in all caps, Tom. Then hide your face in shame.

[Anthony Marsh]

If it was an officially sanctioned hit by the CIA, why wouldn't the CIA
give Oswald an official $5000 CIA assassination rifle? You guys would not
have seen anything suspicious about that. Just because the ammo used came
from the CIA does not make you suspicious.

[Jean Davison]

Thanks for that correction, Tim, and welcome to the forum.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/6/2015 7:18 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> THE MONEY ORDWER WAS FOR $30.00
> THE RIFLE W/ SCOPE WAS $1995/
> SHIPPING WAS $1.50
> DID HE PAY $8.55 FOR A "MAGIC BULLET" ? ? ? ?
> ===========================================================================
> ====
>

Funny. But no one knows exactly how much he paid for the ammo. Why don't
you just avoid the problem all together and go FULL KOOK and claim that
Oswald never bought any ammo at all, that he bought the rifle only to put
it over the mantle like a trophy? That is what one gun expert suggested be
done with a Carcano, not actually shot. Or how about the limited hangout
route that the CIA gave Oswald the ammo? You need to try harder to get
into the Kook Klub.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/6/2015 7:13 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> hey jean;
> would you care to explain how the cia housed Oswald and the FPCC ALONG WITH
> SEVERAL CIA SPONSORED ANTI CASTRO CUBAN ORGANIZATIONS AT 3126 HARLENDALE
> AVENUE IN DALLAS ? ? ? ? ?SEE>>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm
> ===========================================================================
> =====
>

Not true. Not housed. You misuse words in English to put a pet theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

But some of us are blocked from Duncan's forum.

[Tim Nickerson]

Thanks for the welcome Jean.

A Corbis owned photo of the money order can be viewed at the following
link:

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

[Marcus Hanson]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 3:38:53 AM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> But some of us are blocked from Duncan's forum.

You are not one of the "some",however.

[David Von Pein]

RE: THE MONEY ORDER.....

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22418#entry318286


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How do you think the holes got in the money order, Sandy?

If a banking institution of some kind didn't punch those holes, then who
do you think did?

And how did Oswald's writing get on the same money order if Oswald himself
didn't put it there?

And do you really think Klein's would have shipped a $21-dollar rifle to
somebody (Oswald/Hidell or anybody else on the planet) without having
first been PAID for the item they definitely shipped to PO Box 2915 in
Dallas on 3/20/63? (And Oswald didn't use "COD" for the rifle like he did
for the revolver he bought from Seaport Traders.)


JON G. TIDD SAID:

David Von Pein,

A question. Just a question. Assume arguendo there was a high-level
conspiracy to kill JFK. I know you don't believe this, but you're a
reasonable person, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you, for
sake of argument only, to make an assumption you otherwise reject.

If you're willing to make this assumption strictly for the purpose I'm
asking you to make it, I ask for your opinion. Given the assumption, do
you think the conspirators (or some subset thereof) would stop at anything
to cover their tracks and obscure the facts of the assassination?

I don't think they would, but I'd like to know what you think. I'm not a
conspiracy-lite guy, BTW. For me, it was unbridled conspiracy or no
conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Given that set of circumstances and alleged conditions (with "high level"
being the key words), then the answer to your inquiry is probably No, they
would likely stop at nothing to try and guarantee success in covering
their tracks.

But just how HIGH (in a "high-level conspiracy") do you think it went? How
many people? And what did each of the conspirators truly know about the
assassination plot you are alleging? And how did they manage to manipulate
Lee Oswald on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 in order to make it truly SEEM like
he was a lone assassin? And how did "they" manage to get Oswald to act so
guilty after the assassination (if, that is, you think Oswald was really
innocent of firing any shots at the President)?

In my opinion, to believe in ANY conspiracy in the JFK case ("high level"
or otherwise, except for perhaps a small two-man plot involving Oswald and
one other unknown person who chickened out at the last minute and decided
not to aid Oswald whatsoever on Assassination Day), you'd have to believe
that the conspirators/henchmen/assassins/plotters were able to do
something quite remarkable --- They were able to make Lee Harvey Oswald
HIMSELF (via his own actions and the lies he told on Nov. 21 and 22) act
like a lone assassin. And a subservient puppet like that doesn't come
along every day of the week.


JON G. TIDD SAID:

I believe the whole of the official record is a fake. Why? If you're going
to kill the President of the United States and try to cover it up, you're
in a position and willing to fake whatever's necessary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Even MULTIPLE backyard photos---when faking just ONE such photo would
easily have sufficed?

And the faking of the ENTIRE paper trail linking Oswald to the rifle (and
the pistol)---when planting JUST THE RIFLE itself (with Oswald's prints on
it) would easily have sufficed?

How much of this "Fakery" crap is a reasonable and sensible person
supposed to swallow whole, Jon?

Evidently you think the answer to my last question is --- As much evidence
as there is in the entire Kennedy case.

IMO, when somebody has to resort to a belief like this --- "I believe the
whole of the official record is a fake" --- that person should probably
start to re-think his entire approach to the evidence. Because "the whole
of the official record" in this (JFK/Tippit) case is a pretty substantial
"whole". It's not just one or two items. There's a bunch of stuff that
would need to be faked by the conspirators and/or cover-up agents. And to
believe that "whole" is a fraudulent "whole" is just plain silly.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

The problem still stands that a Carcano rifle wasn't paid for with this
money order. Nor was anything else.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, Sandy, you'll readily admit (I assume) that the method of punching
holes in a deposited money order IS, in fact, a legitimate and valid
method utilized by banking institutions to process a document like a U.S.
Postal Money Order (in lieu of physically stamping each item with an inked
rubber stamp), correct?

However, you now want to move the goal posts again and play "keypunch
expert" to try and still cast some doubt over the legitimacy of Oswald's
postal money order. Right?

In summary....

It's fairly clear from some recent Internet posts I've linked to above
that the holes that are visible in Lee Oswald's money order (CE788)
provide a strong indication that that money order WAS cashed and WAS
processed somewhere after Klein's Sporting Goods deposited it into their
First National Bank of Chicago account on March 13, 1963.

Conspiracy hobbyists can now only look at the holes and complain that they
don't line up right, or aren't in the correct sequence, or whatever, in
order to still cling to their treasured belief that the money order was
faked from the ground up in an effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.

Again I'll ask --- How much of this "Fakery" crap is a reasonable and
sensible person supposed to swallow whole?

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

[TJ Scully]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:

http://jfk.education/node/11

Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money
Orders ...only the Post Offices did, at the time of, and in the amount of
each purchase

[Jean Davison]

What's the evidence for that, Tom?
Jean

[Jean Davison]

Oh, sorry, Tom. I overlooked your link. I'll comment after I read
it.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

So you say, but I was not able to confirm that.

[Tim Nickerson]

Tom, where do you get that Banks did not key-punch P.O. Money orders in
1963? I don't see that anywhere in the link you provided or in following
any of the links there.

[Tim Nickerson]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:45:16 AM UTC-4, TJ Scully wrote:

Tom,

I have to say that Sandy Larson posting on the Education Forum has
thoroughly debunked this debunking. The round holes representing 02145 is
very easy to see.

Sandy does go on to make a rather stupid remark though.

"It's impossible for LNers to explain away how bank stamps can be missing
from a canceled money order. But of course they will try."

I can think of a few possibilities. And very reasonable ones at that. I
think it would be very helpful if someone could present a US post Office
money order from 1963 with a Bank's cancelling stamp on it. Preferably a
First National Bank of Chicago cancelling stamp. That would be a good
place to start.

[Jean Davison]

On 11/10/2015 7:45 AM, TJ Scully wrote:

On 11/10/2015 7:45 AM, TJ Scully wrote:

Thanks for that research, Tom, I'm impressed. I agree that the P.O.
created the key-punch holes. However (a big "however"), I don't think that
this in any way establishes that the money order was not cashed. Your
documentation indicates that the purpose of putting money orders on
key-punch cards was to allow them to be mechanically processed. Machines
called key-punch readers would read and record the dollar amounts punched
into the card.

As you know, the official version is that Klein's deposited Oswald's
$21.45 m.o. along with a large number of others (Waldman's testimony and
Waldman Exhibit 10 showing a total deposit of $13,827.98).

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=730&tab=page

According to another document, a vice president of Klein's bank stated
that this $13,827.98 was deposited and that the $21.45 postal m.o. was
sent to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank on March 16.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=wilmouth_%22processed+by+the+bank+on+march+16%22#relPageId=672&tab=page

If this isn't what happened, what did happen? I've never seen anyone spell
out the alternative scenario if the m.o. was never cashed. The plotters
framing Oswald always seem to be all-powerful and yet incredibly inept.
They couldn't even produce a cashed money order for the murder weapon?

Other problems. If the rifle was never paid for, was it shipped by Klein's
anyway? If not, how'd it get to the TSBD? Why should I believe "the money
order was never cashed," when it raises questions like these?

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Nice to see it in color.
Are you explaining the difference between the round holes and the
rectangular holes?

[Bud]

Hi Jean!

Looking at the money order it seems clear there are two different
systems being used to process it, one using rectangle punches and one
using round.

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

[David Von Pein]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22434

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Looks like a nice big defeat for the "LN" side regarding the "punch holes".

Celebrate, CTers! Looks like you won this one.

But, I can't help but repeat....

How in the heck do CTers think the Hidell money order managed to get to
the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, if it wasn't cashed
and then processed by someone?

~big shrug~

Also worth a replay....

"As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's
postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But
I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and
non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of
that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was
manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and
intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder.
And I know that conspiracy theorists who think Oswald never ordered a
rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in early 1963 have a heck of a lot MORE
evidence to explain away than I do -- such as all this stuff." -- DVP;
October 27, 2015


BOB PRUDHOMME SAID:

You've almost given in to the possibility of a conspiracy, Dave, and it is
obvious you are now grappling with your inner demons.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not even close, Bob.

The lack of a bank stamp (or even two) doesn't prove that money order is
fake. It's got OSWALD'S writing on it and it's got KLEIN'S stamp on it.
And it's a document that perfectly aligns with everything found in Waldman
Exhibit #7 --

>> The "Hidell" name to whom Klein's mailed the rifle.

>> The PO Box number to which Klein's sent the rifle.

>> The exact dollar amount ($21.45), which is precisely the amount found in Waldman 7 as well. (And the "M.O." notation written by Klein's right underneath the "Amount Enclosed" line on Waldman 7.)

>> And the dates line up nicely too (March 12 for the M.O. purchase; and March 13 on Waldman #7) --- although CTers think it was impossible for the letter/money order to get to Chicago in just one day; but a 29-year veteran of the U.S. Post Office [Jimmy Orr] thinks otherwise....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID [IN THIS DISCUSSION]:

Jimmy, in your experience, in general, how long does it take an air mail
letter to go from Dallas, Texas, to Chicago, Illinois (provided the letter
was mailed no later than 10:30 AM local Dallas time)?

JIMMY ORR SAID:

David,

Cancelled in Dallas by 10:30 AM and flown to Chicago that afternoon.
Arrival for mail processing at a Chicago General Mail Facility during the
early morning hours of the 13th and on the street for delivery to Klein's
that same day. Makes perfect sense considering the volumes handled in
1963.

[End Quote.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So everything about the money order aligns with the Klein's internal
paperwork. So that means KLEIN'S was a major part of the plot to frame
Oswald too, if the CTers are right about this thing. And that's not a
reasonable thing to think, IMO.

=====================

And from the Amazon forums.....

HENRY SIENZANT SAID:

Why are you assuming a PO Money Order requires a bank stamp?

That hasn't been demonstrated anywhere, as far as I know.

Typically, there's a claim the MO should have one, then that's
"demonstrated" by switching to a different financial instrument, a
personal check, and a check is shown with the bank markings. But as I've
pointed out in the past, those are two entirely different financial
instruments, and there's no reason to assume they'd be handled the precise
same way.

A personal check is backed only by the amount of money in the person's
checking account. It can be overdrawn, and checks can bounce.

A Post Office Money Order is backed by the full taxation power of the U.S.
Government. It can't be overdrawn, and the government has the power to
raise taxes to pay its bills. In addition, because a Money Order is paid
for by the purchaser at the time of purchase, it is more valuable than a
personal check for the same amount. A personal check can bounce, a money
order can't.

Given those differences, I've asked conspiracy theorists on a number of
occasions why we should assume the two financial instruments should be
processed in the same way by banks, and never gotten a satisfactory
answer.

I think the problem here is that conspiracy theorists are putting forth an
assumption as a fact (that the MO should have a bank stamp), and nobody is
questioning that assumption.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, maybe you're right, Hank. I have no idea really.

But as far as my previous assumption (brought forth by other people online
in 2014 and 2015) that the punch holes that are present in Oswald's money
order were placed there as a substitute for an inked stamped endorsement
of some kind, I stand corrected on that wrong assumption. And I say that
based on the 1962 newspaper article that Tom Scully posted online today
[November 10, 2015].

But your thoughts, Hank, are interesting ones to consider as well. It's
certainly not very likely that a United States Postal Money Order, which
as you say is backed by the U.S. Government, is going to bounce. And it
was paid for by Lee Oswald when he purchased it at the Main Post Office in
Dallas on 3/12/63. So we KNOW that the U.S. Government (the post office)
got paid its $21.45 for the amount of the money order. Otherwise, the M.O.
would never have been handed over to Oswald in the stamped amount of
$21.45.

Thanks for your post, Henry. It gives me even more things to consider with
respect to the lack of any bank markings on the back of Oswald's money
order.

I have never even considered the loopy idea of that M.O. being faked by a
group of patsy framers, however. That idea is ludicrous, in my view. It's
only because these things (like "the lack of bank stamps" topic) are
brought up over and over again by the conspiracy theorists that makes me
even want to look into them superficially (let alone in great depth).

But, of course, a JFK CTer sees sinister, underhanded activity almost
everywhere he looks --- even, evidently, at Klein's Sporting Goods in
Chicago and the U.S. Post Office in downtown Dallas.

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

[TJ Scully]

Jean, thank you. I do not anticipate it will be possible to determine if
the money order in the amount of $21.45 was processed by the FRB Postal
Money Order processing system unless there is a way to track what happened
after the batch processing data including that particular money order was
recorded on magnetic tape and the data on that tape was reconciled in Post
Office system accounting. I do not think Postal Money Orders of this then
new type required an ink or other stamping on the back or front surface.
Other interesting info in this 1955 article deals with an improvement
resulting in the processing of Postal Money Orders between 1955 and prior
to fiscal year 1963.:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=19550804&id=R0wrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=itQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1320,2144626&hl=en

Oct. 1, 1955, all money orders to K.C. and no longer to the twelve
regional P.O. centers.....

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19620416&id=CoIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6805,1089049&hl=en

1962, FRB had been charging $600,000 annually to P.O. for punching amounts
on money orders during processing.

I could be mistaken, but I approached this controversy thinking it
developed over dissatisfaction with proof of Klein's depositing this
particular money order at its own bank, and skepticism about the money
order physically being located in or near the D. of C., instead of at a
regional P.O. archive, but the first link I posted above includes
information announcing a centralized archive, in K.C. in 1955. There is
also concern I have read of as to why the stub once attached to the $21.45
was known to Harry D. Holmes but was not included in WCR evidence. The
1962 article I assume you've now read, describes two stubs. Oswald seemed
to have saved many items, but not there is no mention of this money order
purchase receipt stub. David can verify my input in researching the timing
of the Dallas mailing of the rifle order slip and the money order to
Klein's. Although I do not think there is evidence determining time of day
or location of the Dallas mailing point of those items, Oswald himself
appeared to have a still outstanding alibi conflicting with his ability to
purchase that money order and mail it in time to plausibly arrive into
Klein's possession during the following day. The inability of Harry D.
Holmes, his superiors at the Dallas P.O., or of FBI or W.C. counsels to
connect the initials visible on the bottom right of the money order with a
particular postal clerk is troubling to me. The decision not to seek and
enter into evidence, activity reports related to the sale of the M.O. in
Dallas (no available record of who sold M.O.'s at Dallas, or turned in
monies on sales of stamps and M.O.'s, daily?) or the reporting of the
batch processing of the M.O. by the FRB to the P.O. department accounting
and recording FRB data is a principal cause of this ongoing impasse.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/11/2015 12:07 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22434
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Looks like a nice big defeat for the "LN" side regarding the "punch holes".
>
> Celebrate, CTers! Looks like you won this one.
>
> But, I can't help but repeat....
>
> How in the heck do CTers think the Hidell money order managed to get to
> the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, if it wasn't cashed
> and then processed by someone?
>
> ~big shrug~

Is this your first time on the InterNet?
They can just claim that it was planted after the assassination.

All of that is silly math if they think it was planted AFTER the
assassination.

[Anthony Marsh]

Right. So explain the difference. Oh, I forgot, WC defenders don't do
evidence.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Which holes? The round ones or the rectangular ones?
Show us what they mean on sample money orders.

> that this in any way establishes that the money order was not cashed.
> Your documentation indicates that the purpose of putting money orders on
> key-punch cards was to allow them to be mechanically processed. Machines
> called key-punch readers would read and record the dollar amounts
> punched into the card.
>

Yes, but the important point is to stick to the facts and not make up
stuff. That applies to both sides of any debate.

> As you know, the official version is that Klein's deposited Oswald's
> $21.45 m.o. along with a large number of others (Waldman's testimony and
> Waldman Exhibit 10 showing a total deposit of $13,827.98).
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=730&tab=page
>
> According to another document, a vice president of Klein's bank stated
> that this $13,827.98 was deposited and that the $21.45 postal m.o. was
> sent to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank on March 16.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=wilmouth_%22processed+by+the+bank+on+march+16%22#relPageId=672&tab=page
>
>
> If this isn't what happened, what did happen? I've never seen anyone
> spell out the alternative scenario if the m.o. was never cashed. The

You're not trying hard enough. They will claim that all this evidence
was planted AFTER the assassination to frame Oswald.

> plotters framing Oswald always seem to be all-powerful and yet
> incredibly inept. They couldn't even produce a cashed money order for

Yes, that's the CIA in a nutshell. Using the wrong model of B-26 bombers
for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Dropping the wrong type of ammo to the
Exiles on the beach.

Throwing Olson out of the window.

> the murder weapon?
>
> Other problems. If the rifle was never paid for, was it shipped by
> Klein's anyway? If not, how'd it get to the TSBD? Why should I believe

Silly questions. They will just claim that it was never shipped and
Oswald never picked it up. Is this the first time in your life that
you've seen these alterationists online?

> "the money order was never cashed," when it raises questions like these?
>

Foolish questions.

> Jean

[Tim Nickerson]

Anthony,

The rectangular holes give the number of that money order. That being
2,202,130,462. The round holes give the amount of the money order. The
latter being very easy to see.

[Jason Burke]

Anyone got the odds that Tony'll retract this statement:

"Right. So explain the difference. Oh, I forgot, WC defenders don't do
evidence."

?

[Bud]

The rectangle ones are squarish and the round ones are circular.

[Tim Nickerson]

Bud,

It's actually quite easy to "decode" both the rectangular holes and the
round ones. Start with the round ones. Look how they are positioned under
the *2145. From right to left, the first hole is in the 0 position, or *.
The next hole is two spaces below that. The next hole is one space above
that one. Apply the same methodology to the rectangular holes.

I'm not quite sold on what the three remaining rectangular holes
represent.

[Jean Davison]

Tom, we agree about the following, for sure:

I do not think Postal Money Orders of this then
> new type required an ink or other stamping on the back or front surface.

This is what the discovery that the money order was on a keypunch
card suggests, IMO.

> Other interesting info in this 1955 article deals with an improvement
> resulting in the processing of Postal Money Orders between 1955 and prior
> to fiscal year 1963.:
>
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=19550804&id=R0wrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=itQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1320,2144626&hl=en
>
> Oct. 1, 1955, all money orders to K.C. and no longer to the twelve
> regional P.O. centers.....
>
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19620416&id=CoIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6805,1089049&hl=en

But according to someone at the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago,
at that time 3/4 of the money orders were being sent to Washington, DC,
the rest to Kansas City:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=wilmouth_%22processed+by+the+bank+on+march+16%22#relPageId=673&tab=page

>
> 1962, FRB had been charging $600,000 annually to P.O. for punching amounts
> on money orders during processing.
>
> I could be mistaken, but I approached this controversy thinking it
> developed over dissatisfaction with proof of Klein's depositing this
> particular money order at its own bank, and skepticism about the money
> order physically being located in or near the D. of C., instead of at a
> regional P.O. archive, but the first link I posted above includes
> information announcing a centralized archive, in K.C. in 1955. There is
> also concern I have read of as to why the stub once attached to the $21.45
> was known to Harry D. Holmes but was not included in WCR evidence. The
> 1962 article I assume you've now read, describes two stubs. Oswald seemed
> to have saved many items, but not there is no mention of this money order
> purchase receipt stub. David can verify my input in researching the timing
> of the Dallas mailing of the rifle order slip and the money order to
> Klein's. Although I do not think there is evidence determining time of day
> or location of the Dallas mailing point of those items, Oswald himself
> appeared to have a still outstanding alibi conflicting with his ability to
> purchase that money order and mail it in time to plausibly arrive into
> Klein's possession during the following day.

I think David has addressed the speed of the mails and I recall Gary
Mack once suggesting that the Dallas P.O. may have been open longer
hours than people assume. (I wish he were still here to comment.)

The inability of Harry D.
> Holmes, his superiors at the Dallas P.O., or of FBI or W.C. counsels to
> connect the initials visible on the bottom right of the money order with a
> particular postal clerk is troubling to me. The decision not to seek and
> enter into evidence, activity reports related to the sale of the M.O. in
> Dallas (no available record of who sold M.O.'s at Dallas, or turned in
> monies on sales of stamps and M.O.'s, daily?) or the reporting of the
> batch processing of the M.O. by the FRB to the P.O. department accounting
> and recording FRB data is a principal cause of this ongoing impasse.
>

There's an "impasse" IMO because WC critics treat discrepancies as
clues but don't follow through and weave them into a plausible narrative
of what happened. If there's no coherent story I think it's likely the
discrepancies are "noise," each with its own explanation.

In the 9/11 section on the Skeptics forum, someone has called this
method "scatter-shot anomaly hunting" with "no rational narrative,"
featuring plotters who are "all-powerful but incredibly stupid." That
sounded very familiar to me, if you see what I mean.

Jean

[Tim Nickerson]

I just noticed that I wrote "right to left". Of course, I meant "left to
right". Sorry about that.

[Anthony Marsh]

How exactly is this a rebuttal of anyhing I said?
Are you posting just to agree with me?

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. Why couldn't the others understand that?
One additional question.
Did the customer receive one of the copies as a receipt?
Is that missing on the original exhibit?
This is why I want to see all the evidence released.

[John McAdams]

On 12 Nov 2015 14:34:23 -0500, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> There's an "impasse" IMO because WC critics treat discrepancies as
>clues but don't follow through and weave them into a plausible narrative
>of what happened. If there's no coherent story I think it's likely the
>discrepancies are "noise," each with its own explanation.
>
> In the 9/11 section on the Skeptics forum, someone has called this
>method "scatter-shot anomaly hunting" with "no rational narrative,"
>featuring plotters who are "all-powerful but incredibly stupid." That
>sounded very familiar to me, if you see what I mean.
>
> Jean

Actually, I have a whole chapter in my book on this theme. Let me
quote myself:

<Quote on>

Conspiracy books like to throw at the reader a large number of events (or
claimed events) that strike one as odd or peculiar or out of line. The
intention is to create a spooky ambience. So much is unexplained. Just why
did this event happen? Was something going on here? The cumulative effect
of this uncertainty is to make the reader think there must have been a
conspiracy. After all, there was just so much strange stuff going on.
There is a simple rule to follow when faced with these odd or strange
happenings. Ask, what exactly does this information mean? Or ask, if this
information is true, then what scenario does it imply? Quite frequently,
it implies some scenario that would seem downright silly. Following are
some examples.

<End Quote>

This is one of the most important things to remember when reasoning
about this issue.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

Good point, John, thanks.
Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

But it would help to show us on another exemplar or booklet.

> Sandy does go on to make a rather stupid remark though.
>

Give him time.

[TJ Scully]

Jean,

In addition, we now have an explanation from an original source, for the
much higher serial number on the $21.45 PMO than several numbers issued on
Dallas PMOs three months earlier, in Dec., 1962.:

See page 2, article image link is below link to 4 page .pdf document.:
http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20338_19621129.pdf#search=%22money%20order%22
Image of page 2 article announcing money order issuance changes for 5 Jan, 1963:
http://jfk.education/images/1963DallasPostalMoneyOrderSerialNumbersIofIII.jpg

Postmasters were instructed to burn 1962 issued (blue tinted) money order
forms after close of business on 4 Jan., 1963:
http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20342_19621227.pdf#search=%22money%20order%22 -pages 4 and 5
Image of .pdf page 5. Burn instructions in right column:

http://jfk.education/images/1963DallasPostalMoneyOrderSerialNumbersIIIofIII.jpg

Both the older, blue-tinted money order forms and the post Jan. 4, 1963
yellow tinted forms were also tabulator cards. The former were
individually viewed by an operator during Federal Reserve bank batch
processing and the face amount displayed on each postal money order was
maually key punched in round hole machine code on the right side of each
postal money order by an FRB key-punch operator. This process became
obsolete and discontinued for FRB processing of all postal money orders
issued by Dallas region post offices after 4 Jan., 1963.:

(a page describing FRB PMO manual key-punching, from a brief, 1960
congressional committee hearing. The term "raised" is interchangeable with
the terms "forged" or "counterfeited")

https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-375/0000AA67.pdf
Link to image of relevant page of .pdf document linked directly above:
http://jfk.education/images/1962andEarlierFRBpostalMO.jpg

So, we know the Federal Reserve Bank key-punched round holes into PMOs
issued in Dallas before 5 Jan., 1963, but as of yet we have no documents
specific to what other FRB marks were affixed to postal money orders
processed by FRB before or after 5 Jan., 1963.

[Jason Burke]

Face it, Tony. You lost this one. Badly.

Though I'm a bit surprised that you didn't claim you helped ol' Hermo
invent Hollerith.

[GKnoll]

On 11/12/2015 6:28 PM, John McAdams wrote:

You should have said "Some conspiracy books". When you say "Conspiracy
books" you over generalize and when you do that you can prove anything
you want, but it will be meaningless.

[Tim Nickerson]

Nice find Tom. Thanks for sharing it.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Looking at what Tom Scully posted, it seems that the round holes may be be
punched on by the Federal Reserve Bank when the Postal Money Order is
processed:

http://jfk.education/images/1962andEarlierFRBpostalMO.jpg

From previous postings on this thread it seems that the rectangular holes
are punched by the Post Office when the Postal Money Order is issued.

<balance of Marsh raving snipped>

It's nice when you see people like Jean Davison and Tom Scully do a bit of
REAL research around here and then present it, eh Marsh?

Looks like a GENUINE case of JFK-LN and JFK-CT cooperation, Marsh.

Quite a REFRESHING change from off topic sob stories about how some bloke
got the boot out of the NSA forty plus years ago, Marsh.

Holey Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

I think you are understating the problem. Maybe you wrote your book
before the Rise of the Alterationists. Their goal is to imagine some
anomaly and then claim that any anomaly proves ipso facto conspiracy.
It's what I've been fighting for 40 years.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Welcome to the scary world of the InterNet.
Any typo labels you as evil.

I know what you mean, but you could use a program to SHOW us how the
positions indicate numbers. Do you have a blank or any other exemplars?

[Anthony Marsh]

I call it Alterationists.

[David Von Pein]

An incredible find, Tom Scully. Thank you.

Also see:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=4#entry318750

And my own page, detailing this incredible rollercoaster ride regarding
the money order:

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

[TJ Scully]

Now, granted this was not published until 1984, but it makes a relevant
point. The purpose of Federal Reserve Bank clearing of postal money orders
had been different for Dallas region Post Office issued money orders
before 5 Jan., 1963, than it was after. The FRB was paid an annual fee by
the Postal Money order service to key-punch the face amount of each money
order, into the money order, AKA the blue tinted tabulator card. After
this operation, the money order card with its freshly key punched holes
was returned to the automated reading/sorting process and the result was
that a paper tape of the day's FRB money order processing was sent along
with the key-punched money order cards t the national money order audit
center in Kansas City. The paper tape contained machine readable data
reconciling the amount owed to each bank in the federal reserve banking
system for reimbursement by the Postmaster's money order account at the
GAO. The pre-punched rectangular serial number machine code on each money
order card determined the location of where money order had been issued
and the FRB key-punched round holes determined the amount each issuing
post office owed to the GAO account. When the FRB sent the day's money
order processing to Kansas City with the reconciliation data tape, the
K.C. money order office batch processed the 12 regional packets of money
orders the FRB processing had organized.

For Dallas issued money orders sold beginning 5 Jan., 1963, a new process
sequence began. These new yellow-tinted money orders came out of the new
P.O. sales counter Friden M.O. machines with the face amount both printed
and key punched into the money order AKA tabulator cards. When they
reached the FRB to be processed, they could be handled much more quickly
and cheaply because no operator any longer had to set each money order in
a viewer and key-punch machine code holes corresponding with the face
amount. The Postal money order service was able to cease paying the FRB in
excess of $600,000 annually for the former key-punch service. The new
style money orders were processed on new, faster machines and sorted and
sent to a new postal audit/data center with the FRB reconciliation data
recorded on magnetic tape. Unlike a check, a postal money order is a
non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than
once.

Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders - Scholarship ...
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3600&context=clr ...Legal Information Institute
by JD O'Malley - 2015 - Cited by 6 - Related articles

John D. O'Malley, Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders , 52 Cornell L.
Rev. .... are not negotiable paper; they are orders drawn by one
postmaster upon another .... LAW. BANK STAMPS ARE NOT REGARDED AS
ENDORSEMENTS. Another .

..

The $21.45 postal money order allegedly sold in Dallas in March, 1963 was
of a new type destined for a new processing method by the FRB on new
processing machinery and then it was routed to a new postal audit center
in Washington where the US goverment and US Post Office investigators
claimed it was located and retrieved and David noticed the familiar name
of the postal official who retrieved it, J. Harold Marks, the man in the
1960 congressional hearing describing the FRB key-punching of postal money
order face amounts.

A check, unlike a postal money order is a negotiable instrument of
multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required
to receive an FRB processing endorsement.:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22inconvenience+for+some+depository+institutions%2C+primarily+the+larger+institutions+that+may+receive+checks+from+several*%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22several+sources+other+than+the+Federal+Reserve%2C%22
Page 118 - 119

Federal Reserve Pricing Policy on Check Clearing Services: ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs - 1984 - Snippet view -

"Although the lack of the Federal Reserve endorsement on checks collected
through the fine sort program may be a source of inconvenience for some
depository institutions, primarily the larger institutions that may
receive checks from several several sources other than the Federal
Reserve, the fine sort program does not result in significant problems in
the return item process. We believe the fine sort program results in
improve- ments in the speed and efficiency of the nation's check
collection system"

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you even old enough to remember the old IBM punch cards and how they
were coded? I think I still have a couple of them left from college to
prove that I attended the religious events.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/krawitz/

[Jean Davison]

Wow, Tom. "The Federal Reserve Bank punches the amount as it
appears on them....They punch this amount into the money order."

So is this, then, evidence of the long-missing "bank stamp"
showing that the money order was cashed? Should we all shout "Eureka"?

>
> So, we know the Federal Reserve Bank key-punched round holes into PMOs
> issued in Dallas before 5 Jan., 1963, but as of yet we have no documents
> specific to what other FRB marks were affixed to postal money orders
> processed by FRB before or after 5 Jan., 1963.
>

Jean

[Tim Nickerson]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:34:10 PM UTC-4, Jean Davison wrote:

> Wow, Tom. "The Federal Reserve Bank punches the amount as it
> appears on them....They punch this amount into the money order."
>
> So is this, then, evidence of the long-missing "bank stamp"
> showing that the money order was cashed? Should we all shout "Eureka"?
>
> >
>

> Jean

"Wow, Tom. "The Federal Reserve Bank punches the amount as it
appears on them....They punch this amount into the money order."

So is this, then, evidence of the long-missing "bank stamp"
showing that the money order was cashed? Should we all shout "Eureka"?"

Jean, that was prior to 1963. So, Nope. No Eureka!

[TJ Scully]

My reply actually requires a 2nd part. From the time of the trials of the
new Postal Money Order point of sale pre-keypunched issuance and
processing system in the second half of 1962, a new system had been
instituted at Treasury to process the trial, yellow-tinted money orders,
and as Dallas region and other came online operationally on Jan. 5, 1963,
the newly generated, post trial yellow-tint postal money orders, AKA
tabulator cards, as well.

We know these new money orders were no longer Key-punched by Federal
Reserve Bank processing operators and we know the older, blue-tint postal
money orders AKA tabulator cards still required Fed. Res. operator
key-punching and that they still were then sent by the Federal Reserve
Bank to the Kansas City Postal Money Order center.

At this point, what we do not yet know is all of the steps the newer
issue, yellow-tint postal money order card traversed between Klein's
deposit acceptance bank in Chicago and the new Washington, DC postal money
order data center, where this happened.:

1962 report:
https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofse1962unit/annualreportofse1962unit_djvu.txt
....Management improvement program

Many changes made throughout the Treasurer's Office during the
year increased efficiency and financial savings. Several of the
improvements were developed and eftected in cooperation with other
bureaus of the Fiscal Service, other Government agencies, and
Federal Reserve Banks. The more significant are described in the
following paragraphs.

Improved programming and timely installation of computers of
advanced design and additional capabilities have enabled the
Treasurer's Electronic Data Processing Division to meet the growing
demand for its services. The Division processed 449 million checks
in fiscal 1962 as compared with 430 million the previous year and
expects to pay and reconcile about 466 million checks in 1963. Also,
late in Jmie 1962, the Division began to process postal money orders
and it expects to handle an estimated 133 million during fiscal 1963,
and 244 million annually thereafter. Although the large monetary
savings anticipated from the processing of money orders by electronic
equipment will not be fully realized by the Government until late in
fiscal 1963, improvements in accounting control and service of issued
money orders will be immediate. ..."

1963 report:
https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofse1963unit/annualreportofse1963unit_djvu.txt
....Management improvement program .....
The new equipment will enable the office to handle the foreseeable
workload of both Government checks and Post Office money orders
for the next several years, with further reductions in item cost.....
....Other significant benefits realized from the new EDP equipment
are: Larger work units and smipler controls
resulting from reels of magnetic tape with capacit^^ double that of
those formerly in use; earlier entry of checks into the system giving
the public, the disbursing officers, and the banking community better
service with respect to stoppage of payment, claims, and other matters
involving discrepancies; and earlier completion of the manual opera-
tions of balancing checks paid to checks charged by presenting banks
and to perfecting data for permanent records.

The conversion to processmg postal money orders on the Treasurer's
electronic system, which started near the end of the last fiscal year,
also was completed during fiscal 1963. In April 1963 the remaining
money order accounts were brought under the new payment system
so that, in addition to the estimated annual volume of checks (490
million in 1964 and 521 million in 1965), the Treasurer will be process-
ing, on a reimbursable basis, approximately 240 million money orders
for the Post Office Department. Improved control and servicing of
the orders and overall savings to the Government of at least $650,000
annually, are GxXpected. ..."

Hearings, Reports and Prints of the House Committee on ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=UBs4AAAAIAAJ United States. Congress.
House. Committee on Appropriations - 1966 - ......... "In March 1960,
the Post Office and Treasury Departments initiated a study to determine
the feasibility of expanding the electronic facilities in the Treasurer's
Office to provide for processing postal money orders. Conversion of the
money order operation to the electronic system was started in June 1962
and completed in April 1963...."

Only the new style, yellow-tinted postal money order AKA tabulator cards
were handled in this processing innovation, the blue-tinted money order
cards issued in the Dallas region before 5 January, 1963, continued to be
processed and manually key punched by the Federal Reserve Bank and then
sent to the Kansas City postal money order audit center until is closed in
1966. Postal money orders are honored for 20 years after issuance and
after the K.C. P.M.O. center closed, the blue-tinted, formerly Federal
Reserve Bank key-punched processed money orders were processed by deposit
banks as it they were a mutilated version of the newer, yellow tinted
postal money orders key-punched at issuance...IOW, manually.

So, we need to learn more.... we need to learn if deposit banks in March,
1963, sent both blue-tinted and yellow-tinted postal money order cards to
Federal Reserve Bank processing, or if only blue-tinted money order cards
were still sent to Federal Reserve processing and the newer yellow-tinted
ones were sent separately from deposit banks directly to the new
Washington, DC postal money order center for Treasurer's electronic
processing. If the newer, yellow-tinted postal money order cards were sent
to the Federal Reserve, it seem obvious that no investment had been made
to modify Federal Reserve Bank money order processing equipment, of these
newer, key-punched at issuance postal money orders. So, until we know
more, it seems a reasonable assumption that the Federal Reserve no long
processed, key-punched at issuance, yellow-tinted postal money order cards
of the type the one in the amount of $21.45 is confirmed now to be, since
the investment in processing had been long planned for the Treasurer's new
postal money order and US Treasury issued, check processing equipment. The
Treasurer's state of the art electronic data processing system was more
than capable of collecting and transmitting data rapidly enabling deposit
banks to be credited for postal money orders amounts due to them, and it
has already been stated that the Treasurer's processing system debited the
Postmaster's money order account on deposit at the GAO, (government
accounting office).

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 11:57:18 PM UTC-5, Tim Nickerson wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I have to say that Sandy Larson posting on the Education Forum has
> thoroughly debunked this debunking. The round holes representing 02145 is
> very easy to see.
>

> Sandy does go on to make a rather stupid remark though.
>

> "It's impossible for LNers to explain away how bank stamps can be missing
> from a canceled money order. But of course they will try."
>
> I can think of a few possibilities. And very reasonable ones at that. I
> think it would be very helpful if someone could present a US post Office
> money order from 1963 with a Bank's cancelling stamp on it. Preferably a
> First National Bank of Chicago cancelling stamp. That would be a good
> place to start.

I can verify the round holes say '02145' as noted above, and further
along there are the rectangular holes which say '0130462 P', if I'm
reading them right. I compared with an old IBM card I had. I'm not sure
what the number means, possibly a date code of some kind, or origin
location.

For general information, in 1963 there were small manual keypunch
machines that were used by some programmers to punch program 'patch' cards
at their desks. A card was slid into the frame and punched a column at a
time, then the card was added to a progam deck and a test was run with the
'patch' included. I started in 1964 and these little machines were often
seen among large company programmers. This avoided the frequent tie-up at
the keypunch machine.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, Tom Scully.

The work you've put into researching this "Money Order" topic is
staggering. Much appreciated.

[John McAdams]

On 14 Nov 2015 22:22:56 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>

Yes, this newsgroup typically hosts a lot of petty bickering, but ever
so often we get some real research breakthroughs. This is one of
those times.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

No, not quite, Jean.

As Tom Scully explained, the Federal Reserve Bank *stopped* punching the
round holes in the money orders as of January 5, 1963, two month *before*
Oswald purchased the famous "CE788" money order.

So the punch holes in OSWALD'S money order were likely placed there by the
post office at the time Oswald bought the M.O. (see Tom's earlier link
from the 1962 Palm Beach newspaper article, linked again below).

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19620623&id=2PQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Nc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,4714873&hl=en

But this remark Tom made is quite interesting, isn't it?....

"Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and

is considered void if endorsed more than once." -- Tom Scully

[TJ Scully]

Jean, it would be evidence supporting Federal Reserve Bank processing if
it had been issued in Dallas before Jan. 4, 1963. After Jan. 4, 1963,
newly issued postal money orders were face amount key-punched with round
holes on the right side of the money order AKA tabulator card at the
creation of the money order by the postal clerk collecting the customer's
funds. The evidence supporting the $21.45 amount postal money order issued
in a Dallas P.O. in March, 1963 is that it is the new-issue yellow tint
style and it was recovered at the new, Washington, DC postal data/audit
center. As I wrote before, even if it was a pre-Jan. 5, 1963, blue tinted
postal money order, AKA tabulator card, which was designed for the Fed.
Reserve to manually key-punch machine code holes representing the face
amount, do you really expect the mere presence of five round holes placed
correctly to match a REAL Fed. Res. processing operator's key punch holes
quantity and placement on a REAL Fed. Res. processed postal money order,
this would be enough to convince a skeptic that the round holes had indeed
been key-punched in during actual, routing Fed Res. processing?

I highly doubt that the presence of the holes would be anymore convincing
than the presence of the Klein's pre-deposit endorsement ink stamping
visiblle on the back of the post Jan. 4, 1963, Dallas region issued yellow
tinted, Fr iden money order machine generated, pre-key punched (round
holes on the right) money order in the amount of $21.45 entered into the
WCR evidence.

But this is the description I took issue with, and you and others can
decide the impact on this description, my research has. The money order
was indeed "found" where the date it was issued and the color tint that it
had, indicated it should have been "found".... in the new Washington
postal M.O. center. I also provided a good explanation for another
challenge, that the serial number on this particular money order was "too
high," compared to the obsolete sytle/process Dallas issued, postal money
orders dated Dec., 1962 and described in the WCR. I provided proof that
all existing Dallas inventory of those obsolete as of close of business on
4 Jan., 1963, had been ordered burned by the U.S. Postmaster.: (see
http://jfk.education/images/1963DallasPostalMoneyOrderSerialNumbersIIIofIII.jpg)

http://harveyandlee.net/

....".....The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that
supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published
by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT
link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It
does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side..... All
monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions
(1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited,
stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or
institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order (PMO)
purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago,
would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National
Bank of Chicago). The PMO would have been stamped a second time after
passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System.
Finally the PMO would have been stamped a third time when returned to
Federal Postal Money Order Center (FPMOC) in Kansas City. But the money
order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank
endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The
absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never
deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are
supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald
in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.

This never deposited money order first appeared in the hands of Robert
Jackson, an employee of the Federal Records Center, who lived in
Alexandria, VA. Neither Mr. Jackson nor any employee of the Federal
Records Center was questioned about the money order by the FBI or Warren
Commission or HSCA or the Secret Service. At 9:35 PM (11/23/63) Jackson
hand delivered this money order to J. Harold Marks, a Finance Officer for
the US Postal Service, at his home in Arlington, VA..."

Federal Reserve process marks were not required and a postal money order
is not "just like a check."

Federal Reserve Pricing Policy on Check Clearing Services: ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs - 1984 - Snippet view -

"Although the lack of the Federal Reserve endorsement on checks collected
through the fine sort program may be a source of inconvenience for some
depository institutions, primarily the larger institutions that may
receive checks from several several sources other than the Federal
Reserve, the fine sort program does not result in significant problems in
the return item process."

Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders - Scholarship ...
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3600&context=clr ...Legal Information Institute
by JD O'Malley - 2015 - Cited by 6 - Related articles

John D. O'Malley, Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders , 52 Cornell L.
Rev. .... are not negotiable paper; they are orders drawn by one
postmaster upon another .... LAW. BANK STAMPS ARE NOT REGARDED AS
ENDORSEMENTS. Another .

https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2005/html/pb22153/fin9c.html
"8> A money order with more than one endorsement is invalid, except under
6.e.

............

6> The employee may accept the verified signature of the payee or purchaser
shown on the money order with exceptions for the following conditions:
................
e. A money order addressed to more than one payee is paid to either payee
if the conjunction "or" is used to connect the payees. If no conjunction is
used, then all listed payees must sign the money order in the presence of
the accepting employee and provide photo-bearing identifications (see
section 312.3)."

[David Von Pein]

BTW / FYI....

Tim Nickerson recently posted a link to this high-quality color version of
Lee Harvey Oswald's money order that I had never seen before....*

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

Now, if Tom Scully is correct and if the Hidell/Oswald money order was
part of the "new batch" of money orders that were punched at the post
office instead of at the Federal Reserve Bank, then that money order
linked above should be yellow-tinted. The old style money orders had a
blue tint, says Tom.

But I can't really tell what (if any) "tint" that color version of the
money order possesses. Is it yellowish? Could be. (I'm partially color
blind, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to determining colors.)

~shrug~

* And I'm assuming that the above color picture of the Hidell money order
is not merely a "colorized" version that was taken from a black-and-white
photo of the document (which, I suppose, *is* a possibility).

[John McAdams]

On 14 Nov 2015 22:42:51 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

That looks to me like the real thing. Admittedly, I've never seen the
original in the Archives, but I *have* seen plenty of money orders of
that vintage, and this looks real.

Add to that the fact that I can't see why Corbis would colorize it.
Even if they had no scruples about that, why go to the trouble of
doing that for one of the millions of images on their site?

It's not IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE or MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET. (And of
course, colorizing those was a terrible idea.)

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Lost what? I never made any claim.

> Though I'm a bit surprised that you didn't claim you helped ol' Hermo
> invent Hollerith.
>
>

Oh please. It would have to be my grandfather who would have helped him.
But he did work for Western Union.
My father worked with NCR in college.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, John. I agree. I think it's a "real" color version of the money
order too.

But do you see a YELLOWISH tint there? I really can't tell. But it *does*
look a little "Yellowish" to my (partly color-blind) orbs....

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

Full credit goes to Tim Nickerson, who first posted that Corbis image
earlier in this thread. Thank you, Tim N. :-)

[John McAdams]

On 15 Nov 2015 14:05:36 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>

Paper tends to yellow over time. All the Warren Commission Exhibit
photos are in black and white. This original document was probably
photographed at the Archives in (perhaps) the 1990s.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

BTW / FYI #2....

This 11/23/63 video clip from Chicago television station WBKB-TV is quite
interesting to see (mostly because it's so rare). It deals with Oswald's
rifle purchase from Klein's Sporting Goods, which was, of course, located
in that same city of Chicago. Future ABC news anchor Frank Reynolds is at
the WBKB news desk for this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRi-TYn_uJ0

[TJ Scully]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:05:37 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:47:25 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

> > On 14 Nov 2015 22:42:51 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@xxxxx.com>

I do not understand why it matters, particularly, if a color can be
confirmed, considering the documentary support is overwhelming, and:

Tom Scully (10 Nov.) http://jfk.education/node/11

"..Can anyone earnestly make a case that the M.O. in the above image is a
match for the 1951 M.O. in the article image, and does not display the
newer features identical to those described in the 1962 (see top image,
left column) article?.."

I hope consideration will be given to exempting the following link from
"blockage" on a one time only basis because it displays a post with a most
up to date recap of my postal money order research vs. numerous claims of
government subterfuge, fraud, cover up, and other chicanery. A most
interesting detail is proof that Oswald purchased on 5 January, 1963, the
60th money order issued in the Dallas postal region, of a then, new style
yellow-tinted postal money order, # 2,202,000,060 :

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6432-Armstrong-Of-Covert-Ops-Fake-Marines-of-Classifieds-of-Cabbages-and-Kings&p=104555#post104555

Just a preview of what I believe I have (dis)proven in the post at the
above link.:

"The first 5 postal money orders (beginning with series 1,156,417,562)
purchaed by Oswald in Fort Worth and Dallas were returned to the Federal
Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City. The last 3 postal money ordrs
(series 2,202,000,060) were returned to the Federal Records Center in
Alexander, VA. Money order No. 2,202,130.462, ALLEDGELY purchased by
Oswald from the GPO in Dallas, was ALLEDGELY located at the Federal
Records Center in Alexandria, VA on the evening of November 23, 1963."

My response:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1138.pdf
Marked up image of specific page: http://jfk.education/images/OswaldBuysFirstDayYellowTint.jpg

"According to the serial numbers on these money orders, the GPO in Dallas
sold approxiamtely 1200 money orders per week (3888 from November 14,
1962-December 6, 1962; 3475 from Jan. 5, 1963-Jan. 25, 1963). Using 1200
money orders per week as a guide, the serial number of the money order
ALLEDGELY purchased by Oswald on Mar. 12, 1963, was 2,202,130,462
(***118,527 numbers higher***). This serial number indicates that this
money order came from a stack of money orders that should not have been
sold by the GPO in Dallas until late 1964 or early 1965, if sold in
numerical order."

My response:
http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20338_19621129.pdf#search=%22money%20or der%22
Marked up image of specific page: http://jfk.education/images/SuspicionsVsFacts.jpg

....and I have found this, from testimony in a hearing after the
conversion to the new, yellow-tinted, punched at issuance, postal money
orders.:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SUbVAAAAMAAJ
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations - 1964 - ?Snippet view - ?
page 143

"....Print-punch order machines

In 1951 the use of a punched card money order was adopted and in 1955 the
audit work was centralized in Kansas City, Mo., for the entire country.
Only the money order serial number was prepunched on the card. The amount
was not punched until the money order reached the Federal Reserve System.
A charge has always been made by the Federal Reserve for this keypunching
work.

In fiscal 1961, the Department was given funds to buy money order issuing
machines which could be used in all post offices and which would punch the
amount into the order at the time of issuance. Deliveries of the equipment
began late in the fiscal year 1962 and the machines were placed in
operation in two regions. Installation of the machines in the remaining
regions was completed on March 29, 1963. (Tom Scully: Dallas machines
operational on 5 Jan., 1963 ) As the money orders issued on the new
machines flow into the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve is no
longer required to punch the amounts but can process them directly upon
receipt. The annual payment to the Federal Reserve, approximately $600,000
in 1961, has now been eliminated. This saving is reflected in the
operations appropriation under the clerk account. In addition, the new
system will enable the Federal Reserve to detect raised money orders
immediately. Under the old system, these frequently were not detected
until months later when the money orders were matched with the original
records at the Money Order Center at Kansas City. This early detecting
will be of much assistance to the the Inspection Service in apprehending
persons passing raised money orders....."

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the links and the great research. I don't doubt that you are
right in what you say.

Just re the first two paragraphs, you reference a 1984 document but the
link is to a 1967 one? I couldn't find the material you posted in those 2
paras in the 1967 document so is it in the 1984 one?

Anyway, am enjoying the research you are providing on this matter!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/14/2015 10:47 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2015 22:42:51 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTW / FYI....
>>
>> Tim Nickerson recently posted a link to this high-quality color version of
>> Lee Harvey Oswald's money order that I had never seen before....*
>>
>> http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/NA014738/lee-harvey-oswald-postal-money-order
>>
>> Now, if Tom Scully is correct and if the Hidell/Oswald money order was
>> part of the "new batch" of money orders that were punched at the post
>> office instead of at the Federal Reserve Bank, then that money order
>> linked above should be yellow-tinted. The old style money orders had a
>> blue tint, says Tom.
>>
>> But I can't really tell what (if any) "tint" that color version of the
>> money order possesses. Is it yellowish? Could be. (I'm partially color
>> blind, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to determining colors.)
>>
>> ~shrug~
>>
>> * And I'm assuming that the above color picture of the Hidell money order
>> is not merely a "colorized" version that was taken from a black-and-white
>> photo of the document (which, I suppose, *is* a possibility).
>
> That looks to me like the real thing. Admittedly, I've never seen the
> original in the Archives, but I *have* seen plenty of money orders of
> that vintage, and this looks real.
>

I've made the point thousands of times that we need access to the
original exhibits. ALL the evidence. Why should have to take the word of
professional liars about anything?
When I went to the archives and looked for the HSCA tape of the DPD
radio traffic I was told that it was locked up in a vault and I would
never be allowed to see it. Same thing happened to Harold Weisberg
looking for the medical evidence. Then years later he found out the
reason why, because it had been destroyed.

> Add to that the fact that I can't see why Corbis would colorize it.

Maybe because they're idiots? Or maybe because their GIF program is
defective.

> Even if they had no scruples about that, why go to the trouble of
> doing that for one of the millions of images on their site?
>

Why not? I don't think they have, but they have decided that they have
the right to control our history and alter it as they wish.

> It's not IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE or MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET. (And of
> course, colorizing those was a terrible idea.)
>

Some scanners automatically scan in color unless you tell them
greyscale. Some times people use COLOR even on black and white because
they think it's being more authentic.
Which color WHITE? Is that Coral White or Oyster White?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/14/2015 10:42 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> BTW / FYI....
>
> Tim Nickerson recently posted a link to this high-quality color version of
> Lee Harvey Oswald's money order that I had never seen before....*
>
> http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/NA014738/lee-harvey-oswald-postal-money-order
>
> Now, if Tom Scully is correct and if the Hidell/Oswald money order was
> part of the "new batch" of money orders that were punched at the post
> office instead of at the Federal Reserve Bank, then that money order
> linked above should be yellow-tinted. The old style money orders had a
> blue tint, says Tom.
>
> But I can't really tell what (if any) "tint" that color version of the
> money order possesses. Is it yellowish? Could be. (I'm partially color
> blind, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to determining colors.)
>

I have a compromise for you. Maybe it was originally yellow and over
time faded into blue? Would that work for you?

> ~shrug~
>
> * And I'm assuming that the above color picture of the Hidell money order
> is not merely a "colorized" version that was taken from a black-and-white
> photo of the document (which, I suppose, *is* a possibility).
>

Why don't you sue the National Archives to get the right to examine the
original exhibit and then bring in the guys from History Detectives to
settle this? The way Harold Weisberg had to sue the National Archives to
gain access to the medical exhibits, which they promptly destroyed.

But of course the Nazis will point out that this is not important at all
and the WC proved everything we need to know. It's only our history.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, isn't that perfect timing? How did the Federal Reserve know that
Oswald would be purchasing a money order in a couple of month? Oh, I
remember, they're the Illuminati! Now it makes sense. NOT.

[Anthony Marsh]

Let me remind people that this is one of the important advantages of
having an open discussion like this. You never know when little gems
like this will pop up. Like the Drommer map. Or my being the only
researcher to have ordinary 8mm film showing ghost images in the
sprocket hole area.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[David Von Pein]

GIL JESUS SAID:

Not only did the FNB [First National Bank] of Chicago not stamp money
orders, I guess they never stamped deposit slips as well.

The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 (Waldman 10) has a date of
2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago, which it
should have been had it been deposited.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I just realized today [November 14, 2015] that the incorrect date on the
"Extra Copy" of the deposit ticket that Klein's filled out in March 1963
(pictured at the bottom of Waldman Exhibit No. 10) has only one inaccurate
number printed on it, instead of two slipped digits.

I had previously remarked to someone at one of the JFK forums in the last
few days that TWO digits were written incorrectly on that deposit slip
(the "2" and the "15" in the date), but when we look at Warren Commission
Document 75, which is an FBI FD-302 report filed in November 1963 by three
Chicago FBI agents, we see that the deposit that Klein's made which
included the Hidell postal money order was actually not deposited on March
13, 1963, which was the day Klein's received the order form and money
order from Oswald/Hidell in the mail.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=672

Per CD75, the deposit with the Hidell money order in it was sent by
Klein's to First National Bank of Chicago on Friday, March 15, 1963, two
days after Klein's received the Hidell order for the rifle. Here's what it
says in CD75:

"A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting
Goods, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the amount of
$13,827.98, included two items in the amount of $21.45, and was processed
by the bank on March 16, 1963." -- CD75, Page 668, Paragraph 4

So that means that only the "2" in the date--which is written as "2/15/63"
on the extra copy of the deposit ticket--is inaccurate. The rest of the
numbers are correct (per the info found in CD75). The 2 (February) should,
of course, really be a 3 (March). Someone at Klein's must have still
thought it was February when they wrote out that deposit slip on March
15th.

But the key to knowing that the incorrect date on the deposit ticket was
just a case of an innocent slipped digit is the fact that the total amount
shown on the "2/15/63" deposit slip is identical to the penny when
compared with the detailed summary sheet of Klein's 3/13/63 sales, which
is also pictured in Waldman Exhibit 10. Both items show a total of
$13,827.98.

And a probable reason for why that "extra copy" was not stamped or marked
in any way by the bank is because that piece of paper was probably never
sent to the bank by Klein's. It's an "extra copy" that might have been
retained by Klein's for its records only, and might not have gone to the
bank with the original copy of the deposit ticket.

But even if that extra copy did make it to the bank, it's also quite
possible that only the FIRST (primary) copy of the deposit ticket gets
stamped or marked by the bank. In the alternate scenario where ALL copies
of the deposit record do get sent to First National by Klein's, the top
copy is likely the only one that stays with the bank (and is marked or
stamped), while any carbon copies get sent back to Klein's unmarked.

Another possibility is: the extra copy of the deposit ticket *was* stamped
by the bank--but on the BACK side of the deposit slip, instead of on the
front of it.

Below is an example to prove my point about that. It's a deposit ticket
that I filled out and sent to my bank in October 2015. After processing
the deposit, the bank stamped only the back of the deposit slip, not the
front.

Now, yes, I'm providing an example from 2015 here, and not from 1963. But
I think it's quite possible (even likely) that the basic procedure at most
banks for stamping deposit tickets hasn't changed since 1963....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-grQP8lCNsU0/Vkj5E11u79I/AAAAAAABIIU/K0GNR6qAHjg/s1600/Bank-Deposit-Ticket.png

[David Von Pein]

Yes, that's certainly true about paper turning yellow over a period of time.

However, I have in my baseball collection hundreds of sheets of regular,
ordinary (cheap!) notebook paper that I would use as homemade "scorecards"
to score and track hundreds of Cincinnati Reds baseball games dating back
40 years ago (to 1975), and yet there's not a hint of yellow anywhere to
be found on those old papers. In fact, I even recall saying to myself: "I
wonder how these old papers can look so new and yellow-free?"

But, maybe it takes more than FIFTY years (or sixty?) for ordinary
notebook paper from K-Mart to start yellowing (if it ever does turn yellow
at all).

~shrug time~

[David Von Pein]

Addendum to my last post (Off Topic)....

I offer up this link in case there are any additional "Big Red Machine"
fans out there (let the scolding from MainFrame/Chris begin):

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/10/cincinnati-reds-index.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Fascinating. Looks like local coverage. Was Frank Reynolds just a local
reporter then? No time stamp, but sounds like very late in the day, maybe
close to midnight. Can't remember when they went off air back then. Notice
the error of the reporter trying to find Klein? He says the ad lets you
buy 6 rounds of ammunition for only $7.50. Actually $7.50 buys 108 rounds
and includes the clip. If you don't buy the ammunition you don't get a
clip. Most likely just war surplus SMI.

[GKnoll]

It is really quite duplicitous of you to complain about bickering when
you are the moderator of the forum and you, by Tony's own admission,
have no rule against trolling.

[David Von Pein]

Today's episode of the riveting CBS soap opera "AS THE MONEY ORDER
TURNS"....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

John Armstrong will be posting on this soon.

Armstrong knows more about this issue than any person alive. Or dead.

What silliness DVP produced, walking around in the dark groping here and
there, anywhere. But never doing his own original research.

Armstrong has digested the whole history of money orders in America.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now, if only Armstrong can somehow find a way to conveniently explain away
how on Earth the Klein's endorsement stamp AND Lee Harvey Oswald's own
handwriting (which was verified as Oswald's by at least 4 different
handwriting analysts) managed to attach themselves to the CE788 Hidell
U.S. Postal Money Order, then Mr. Armstrong will be home free on this
issue.

Until then, I'm afraid Armstrong is fighting an uphill battle.

Oh, I'm sure Armstrong has treated the world to his own speculative and
lame-ass "Everything's Fake" excuse to try and explain how the Klein's
stamp and Oswald's writing got onto CE788, but it would sure be nice to
see some PROOF that those two very important things that exist on the
money order were faked by evil conspirators. Any chance we'll ever see any
proof of that, Jim?

And the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the money order does not prove
that either the Klein's stamp or Lee Oswald's handwriting are fraudulent
markings on Commission Exhibit 788.


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

I admittedly skipped the Postal Money Order class in law school, but there
is only one "payee" -- here, Klein's. The money order was "drawn in favor
of" Klein's.

Klein's, as the payee, then "endorses" the money order. Klein's deposits
the money order in its bank, which is a member of the Federal Reserve
system; it is the "depository bank", but neither a payee nor an endorser.
(If Klein's had endorsed the money over to some third party, that party
would have become an "additional endorser" and could have deposited the
money in its bank.)

Klein's bank as the depository bank credits the money order to Klein's
account, as indicated by the stamp on the back. The stamp is the
depository bank's guarantee to the Federal Reserve bank that Klein's
endorsement is genuine and the money order has been paid. (If the money
order had been endorsed by Klein's over to a third party which deposited
it in its bank, that bank's stamp would have guaranteed the genuineness of
all endorsements, including Klein's.)

Klein's bank, as the "presenting bank," then forwards the money order to
the Federal Reserve bank, which credits the presenting bank and sends the
money order to the Postal Service.

I will defer to anyone who is more knowledgeable, but this is how I read
the current regulations and understand negotiable instruments to work.


LANCE PAYETTE LATER SAID:

The number of money orders has been declining, but the volume processed
through the Federal Reserve in 1963 was gigantic. A commercial customer
like Klein's typically would have been making a bulk deposit of items to
its account (cash, checks, money orders), each item requiring an
endorsement stamped with the language found on the money order.

After that, the bank's transmittal to the Federal Reserve bank would have
been a bulk transmittal. The Federal Reserve bank's transmittal to the
Post Office would likewise have been a bulk transmittal.

Are there piles of 1963 (or 1964 or 1965) money orders bearing some
evidence of processing different from the Klein's M.O. (perhaps there
are--I'm sincerely asking)? If there are not, I'm not seeing anything
inherently suspicious about the fact that the Klein's money order bears no
stamp (apart from Klein's deposit stamp) indicating processing by the
depository bank or the Federal Reserve.

Surely the definitive question has to be, "Is there something different
about this money order versus the tens of millions of other ones deposited
in local banks and processed through the Federal Reserve in 1963 or
thereabouts?"

If the answer is yes -- OK, that's extremely noteworthy.

Edit:

I just read through a very extensive paper on this at CTKA. Although the
author insists the individual money order "should" bear evidence of
processing by the First National Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve
Bank, he really provides nothing indicating why it "should."

Although he says the Klein's money order is very different from others he
examined, he provides no examples of the others. I would love to see at
least one example of a 1963-era money order bearing evidence of depository
bank or Federal Reserve processing.

It may be noteworthy that money orders really aren't considered
"negotiable instruments" in the same way as checks and that the depository
banks and Federal Reserve really perform more of a "collection agent"
function -- which could (but may not) be important to why there is none of
the usual evidence of processing.

Further edit:

I have tremendous respect for the work John Armstrong has done. However,
he states flatly (on the H&L site [HERE]):

[Quote:]

"US Postal money orders are normally deposited or cashed at a bank or
financial institution. They are date stamped, endorsed by the bank, routed
thru a Federal Reserve bank where they are endorsed and date stamped a
second time, and then sent to the postal money order center in either
Kansas City or Arlington, VA. where they are endorsed and date stamped for
a third time and placed in storage. But the $21.45 money order that was
allegedly used to pay for "C2766" did not have a single bank endorsement
or date stamp by any bank or by a postal money order center--this $21.45
money order was most certainly never deposited to a bank or any financial
institution."

[End Quote.]

I did some viewing of the relevant portions of his collection at Baylor
University and didn't find anything to substantiate the above (I certainly
could have missed it).

Subject to being corrected, my belief is that the stamp we do see on the
back of the Klein's money order would be all we would expect to see if the
m.o. had in fact been processed through the system.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Lance,

Thank you for your recent posts concerning this "money order" topic.

I'm just pleased to see that there is at least ONE other person on the
planet (besides myself) who thinks that the only real "payee" involved in
the CE788 Hidell money order is Klein's Sporting Goods.

Repeating what I said four days ago....

"All of that legalistic language can be quite confusing as to exact
meaning. But I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those
money order regulations really means what you [Sandy Larsen] think it
means.

The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in
favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor
of [a] financial organization".

And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the
"payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would
also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?

The language has me scratching my head as to WHO IS WHO there.

~shrug~

[...]

And I also just now noticed that the heading for everything that follows
in Section 762.29 of those postal regulations cited by Sandy Larsen is
this heading:

"Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by payees."

The key words there are "BY PAYEES".

Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS
certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of
Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First
National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank.

So I think that heading of that regulation--alone--makes Sandy's
assumption that the BANKS were required to endorse U.S. Postal Money
Orders to be an unproven assumption based on Postal Regulation 762.29." --
DVP; November 12, 2015

[End Quote.]

----------------

The literal definition of the word "payee" is....

PAYEE (noun) ---

1. (Banking & Finance): The person to whom a cheque, money order, etc, is
made out.
2. (Banking & Finance): A person to whom money is paid or due.

Also....

PAYEE (noun) ---

A person to whom a check, money, etc., is payable.

-- TheFreeDictionary.com

----------------

It seems to me that the BANK doesn't qualify under any of those
above-referenced definitions. The Hidell money order wasn't made payable
to "First National Bank". And the bank can't spend the money that has just
been deposited into a customer's account. Only the "payee" (Klein's) has
that right. The bank is just storing and holding the money for Klein's.
They really aren't being "paid" (in the literal sense of the word, because
it's not First National's money).

From my (admittedly) "layman" point-of-view on this, all of what I just
said above makes sense to me.

But on the other hand, I will readily admit I could be wrong when it comes
to any LEGAL or TECHNICAL meaning of the term "payee" in conjunction with
official postal regulations and the language utilized therein.

Some other people in this discussion have said that once Klein's stamped
the Hidell money order with its "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank"
stamp, that automatically makes First National Bank the second "payee" of
the money order....

"Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago
bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is
transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee
is a payee." -- Jon Tidd; November 12, 2015

But as I then said (when responding to Jon's post)....

"It still seems a bit strange to me to have the bank considered a "payee",
since it's really KLEIN'S money, regardless of where it's being stored.
But, oh well. ~shrug~" -- DVP; November 12, 2015

Anyway, thank you, Lance, for your contributions to this discussion
regarding this rather confusing subject.


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

I've been a lawyer for 35 years, and there is just no way the bank is the
payee--unless you get a money order to pay your mortgage or car loan from
the bank, and it actually is the payee.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Lance.


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

That money order sold on E-BAY on June 21, 2014 as a stamp collection item
[is the top picture below]. The money order itself was never cashed.
Compare that money order with the Klein's rifle money order:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KxqGaOXdJUI/VkprtDV7xLI/AAAAAAABII4/fvktyCk1Tig/s1000/Money-Order-Comparison.jpg


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Tim.

Perhaps that number that you've highlighted at the top of the Hidell money
order -- 138 4159796 -- does mean something as far as "processing" is
concerned. Could the Federal Reserve Bank have stamped that number on the
money order in Washington? I don't know. But it obviously got there
somehow. And it's not part of the money order's serial number. So what
does that ten-digit number mean? And who stamped it there? And when?

But I have a feeling that conspiracists like John Armstrong and Jim
DiEugenio will be doing cartwheels due to the fact that the yellow
uncashed money order, dated September 11, 1963, has a serial number that
is 1.4 billion numbers LOWER than the Hidell money order, even though the
September money order was stamped (and, I would assume, purchased by
someone) six months AFTER Lee Harvey Oswald purchased the CE788 money
order in March.

That huge difference in the serial numbers will likely cause CTers to cast
still more doubt on the legitimacy of Oswald's money order.

-------------

More of the soap opera here (sponsored by Pall-Mall Cigarettes and Niagara
Instant Spray Starch, a product of Best Foods).... :-)

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

[TJ Scully]

> > non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if yd more than

Tim, it is displayed on page 119 with this link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22inconvenience+for+some+depository+institutions%2C+primarily+the+larger+institutions+that+may+receive+checks+from+several*%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=lack

A check, unlike a postal money order is a negotiable instrument of
multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required
to receive an FRB processing endorsement.:

....and Tim, this is the longer quote.:
Page 118 - 119 : (if the page does not display using the link above, click
on the following link and you'll see a "look inside this book" search box
and just type in the word, "lack" w/out quotes......

Federal Reserve Pricing Policy on Check Clearing Services: ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs - 1984 - Snippet view -

"Although the lack of the Federal Reserve endorsement on checks collected
through the fine sort program may be a source of inconvenience for some
depository institutions, primarily the larger institutions that may
receive checks from several several sources other than the Federal
Reserve, the fine sort program does not result in significant problems in
the return item process. We believe the fine sort program results in
improve- ments in the speed and efficiency of the nation's check
collection system"

This is from a Federal Court ruling related to postal money orders cashed
in 1963 - 1964:

https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-us-69
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.·300 F. Supp. 1047
(E.D. Mich. 1969)

"STEWART V. U.S., (E.D.MICH. 1969)
James A. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. No. 30490.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D. June 16, 1969. *1048
.......... Postal money orders are not negotiable instruments and hence
are not governed by laws applicable to commercial paper, but are governed
by postal laws. Levin v. United States (U.S. Court of Claims, 1959), 170
F.Supp. 646. This court is aware of the fact that postal money orders have
limited characteristics which make them like negotiable instruments, but
these characteristics are minimal and deprive them of being classified or
considered as ordinary negotiable instruments. United States v. First
National Bank of Boston (D.C.Mass., 1967), 263 F.Supp. 298.

The operation of the postal money order system is a "sovereign function"
and not a "commercial operation", notwithstanding it may have some aspects
of commercial banking. United States v. Northwestern Nat'l Bank Trust
Co. (D.C.Minn., 1940), 35 F. Supp. 484, at

486. *1050 ....."

There is much more to consider.... I accept that the officials named at
the receiving bank, First Chicago, and at the Post Office financial
department most likely can be relied on.... the money order in the amount
of $21.45 did arrive where it was supposed to.... at the new Postal Money
Order audit/data center in suburban Washington, D.C., where the FBI named
the two responsible postal officials who made the physical, archived
$21.45 postal money order available, and this was possible because First
Chicago Bank received that money order and forwarded it to the Chicago
Federal Reserve Bank, our next stop in this research. Bear in mind when
reading the following that the new "print punch" postal money order had
been trialed in a small number of postal regions from June to December,
1962, and the bulk of Federal Reserve processing was of the older blue
tinted version which the Federal Reserve had been manually punching the
machine code representing the face value displayed on each money order,
under a contract with the Post Office. In January, a national roll out of
the new "print punch" at postal sales counter machines and redesigned
money order form went live between January and April, and the Fed. Res.
was putting both types of money orders through separate process paths.

https://www.chicagofed.org/utilities/about-us/history/chicago-fed-history-1940-1964
Chicago Fed History: 1940-1964
"...By 1956, the Bank was operating 24 hours a day to clear more than half
a billion items annually. Approximately 40 percent of the Bank's employees
were engaged in clearing checks. The operation was, according to the Bank's
annual report, the "world's largest check-clearing installation."

Complicating the Bank's task was the labor-intensive, time-consuming
nature of check clearing. Although proof machines were introduced in 1940s
to help automate the process, each item had to be individually checked by
an operator. The Federal Reserve System and commercial bankers began to
explore the possibility of automating the process in the mid-1950s. The
Federal Reserve and the American Bankers Association worked with bankers,
check printers, and business machine manufacturers to find an answer. The
eventual solution was MICR -- magnetic ink character recognition that
would enable machines to "read" and automatically process checks.

In 1961, the Chicago Fed and four other Reserve Banks began to test
automated check-sorting equipment from different manufacturers. Heading
the project at the Chicago Fed were Vice President Harry Schultz and
Assistant Vice President Carl Bierbauer. The goal was to automatically
process 1,500 checks a minute on each machine, but there were a variety of
initial problems. Bierbauer, who went on to become a senior vice president
at the Bank, recalls, "There were days and weeks when things didn't go
right. It wasn't a case where we just brought in a machine and it
worked.".."

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=carl-e-bierbauer&pid=155873924

Carl E. Bierbauer, 96, of Naperville, IL, at peace Feb. 12, 2012, -
...."Carl retired from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 1977 after
more than 43 years of service. As Senior Vice President, he was
responsible for Fiscal Agent functions, accounting and budgeting and all
administrative services for eight years. He was one of the first Federal
Reserve Officers to see the advantages of automated paper check
processing...."

[PDF]The Role of the Federal Reserve in the Payments System
https://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf45/conf45f.pdf by PM Connolly
- pg. 136 "....The Federal Reserve's Role in Developing High-Speed Check
Sorting Equipment When the ABA Technical Subcommittee talked to possible
manufac- turers of check automation equipment in 1955, it determined that
thirteen firms might have the potential for building and servicing this
specialized type of equipment. To provide operational and financial
support for this key initiative, the Federal Reserve worked with and
partially subsidized five firms that submitted acceptable proposals: the
Burroughs Corpora- tion, IBM, National Data Processing Corporation, the
National Cash Register Company, and Ferranti-Packard. The latter two firms
assembled systems using their own computers and check sorters made by
Pitney Bowes. Five Reserve Banks--New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston,
and San Francisco--participated. Each experimented with the equipment from
one of these companies. In each case the Reserve Banks paid the full lease
cost, even though the equipment was constantly being adjusted and
modified. Thus, the Federal Reserve provided a financial incentive for
five different manufacturers to participate. In addition, the Reserve
Banks devoted staff time and used portions of their daily incoming check
volumes to help the manufacturers test their new equipment. The System
hoped that, in the long run, multiple firms would succeed. This would
encourage compe- tition among manufacturers and help create a network with
common standards, benefiting all banks.

The Federal Reserve started this pilot project in 1960. By 1965, most
of its offices and branches were running high-speed check-sorting equip-
ment supplied by Burroughs and IBM. Other manufacturers that partic-
ipated in the Reserve Bank tests developed lower-speed equipment that
many smaller commercial banks adopted.

During the entire experimental period, the accumulated knowledge
of the System was made available to the banking industry. ..."

Same source, pg. 147: "..By the time the EFA became effective in
September 1988, the Federal Reserve Board had proposed for public
comment, and subsequently adopted, regulations to accelerate the return
process. A working group of banking industry and Federal Reserve
officials contributed operational expertise that supported the develop-
ment of practical and effective regulatory change.

The Board also used its new regulatory authority to propose and adopt an
essential new standard that previously had eluded the banking industry.
To accelerate the check return process, all participants in the check
system needed a ready means to identify the bank of first deposit.....As a
bank of first deposit, each institution needed to identify itself clearly
and conspicuously. A bank handling a check received from a bank of first
deposit--for instance, a correspondent bank collecting the check on behalf
of the bank of first deposit--would have to apply its endorsement in a
different format and in a different area of the reverse side of the check,
so as not to obscure the endorsement of any other bank. Even the consumer
depositing the check for collection would have to endorse the check within
a specified space.

The endorsement standard in place prior to the enactment of the
Expedited Funds Availability Act had proved inadequate to support
the clear identification of each bank involved in the collection of a check.
The banking industry, through the American National Standards Insti-
tute, or ANSI, had made substantial progress during the 1980s on a more
comprehensive standard. However, the banks, equipment manufactur-
ers, and check printers had not reached closure on an adequate new
standard, in part because of the competitive concerns of particular firms.
To support the EFA, the Federal Reserve officials who had participated in
the ANSI process took all that had been accomplished with ANSI and,
with Board of Governors staff, added the new features needed for an
effective standard...."

My research indicates that the "money order was never cashed" controversy
hinged on numerous underinformed assumptions and conclusions, ranging from
the lack of bank processing stamps visible of the reverse side, skepticism
of the claim the original of the $21.45 was found in Washington, DC
instead of in Kansas City, suspicion over the serial numbering of the
money order purchased by Oswald in Dallas on 5 Jan., 1963, #2,202,000,060,
vs. the #2,202,130,462 serial number on the $21.45 Dallas issued money
order of March 12, 1963.

I think I have provided reasonable explanations/mitigating factors for all
of that. I shared a Nov., 1962 Post Office directive advising regional
Post Offices that they would receive and allotment of new style money
orders with serial numbering consistent with the two I described above,
and not to order any more for the time being, because the local Post
Offices ahd been allotted "initial supply" would suffice for a three month
span, or until their next requistion cycle."

I began this last week because I did not accept that a proof of Federal
Reserve bank processing was that during clearing, the Federal Reserve key
punched holes in the $21.45 postal money order. I did disprove that claim,
but I also learned that there could be no better account minimizing
suspicion of fraud or other nefarious activity, related to the
investigation that produced and authenticated that money order's journey
from Dallas purchase to Washington DC audit/ data center archive, than
this one of a seeming series of coincidences all explained by the odd
timing of Dallas money order purchase between 5 Jan. and 12 March, 1963,
coinciding with Post Office and Chicago Federal Reserve Bank long planned
processing innovations.

http://www.gao.gov/products/B-149480#mt=e-report
B-149480, SEP. 26, 1962
TO BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, THE TABULATING CARD COMPANY
DIVISION:
..... "IN ADDITION, SECTION 3.2 OF SPECIFICATION POD-F-172 (RE) CONTAINS THE
STATEMENT

"THE AMOUNT WILL BE PRINTED AND PUNCHED AT THE MONEY ORDER SALES WINDOW BY
A PRINT PUNCH DEVICE WHOSE PERFORMANCE DEPENDS UPON PRECISE CARD
DIMENSIONS, ACCURATELY PREPUNCHED HOLES, AND ACCURATELY LOCATED
IMPRINTING, I.E. DOLLAR VALUE BLOCK, ETC. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS REQUIRED
THAT EACH BIDDER FURNISH WITH HIS BID A CARTON OF 2,000 FORMS TO BE
PROCURED CONFORMING IN EVERY RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN.'
......YOU APPARENTLY WERE AWARE THAT THE MONEY ORDER FORMS WERE TO BE USED
BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ON HIGHER SPEED MACHINES THAN WERE PREVIOUSLY
USED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AT THE KANSAS CITY MONEY ORDER CENTER
AND THAT, THEREFORE, CLOSER TOLERANCES AND A HIGH DEGREE OF WORKMANSHIP
WOULD BE REQUIRED. WHILE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WITH
THE MONEY ORDER FORMS FURNISHED BY YOU, UNDER THE 1962 FISCAL YEAR
CONTRACT, IS NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLY TO THE SAMPLES FURNISHED BY YOU AS TO
WHAT YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH IF AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR THE 1963 FISCAL
YEAR,"

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/16/2015 11:53 AM, David Von Pein wrote:

> You know, Tony, if you tried just a *wee* bit harder, I imagine it *would*
> be possible for you to come across as even *more* sarcastic and obnoxious
> than you are in this post of yours that I'm responding to. It won't be
> easy, but you can do it.
>

Well, I've tried, but McAdams always censors my messages.

[black...@aol.com]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 9:55:39 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Or my being the only
> researcher to have ordinary 8mm film showing ghost images in the
> sprocket hole area.

Me, me, ME!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/15/2015 10:08 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> GIL JESUS SAID:
>
> Not only did the FNB [First National Bank] of Chicago not stamp money
> orders, I guess they never stamped deposit slips as well.
>
> The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 (Waldman 10) has a date of
> 2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago, which it
> should have been had it been deposited.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I just realized today [November 14, 2015] that the incorrect date on the
> "Extra Copy" of the deposit ticket that Klein's filled out in March 1963
> (pictured at the bottom of Waldman Exhibit No. 10) has only one inaccurate
> number printed on it, instead of two slipped digits.
>
> I had previously remarked to someone at one of the JFK forums in the last

God, aren't you glad no one knows how to find all your old messages?
They might hold them against you. You once made a typo.

> few days that TWO digits were written incorrectly on that deposit slip
> (the "2" and the "15" in the date), but when we look at Warren Commission
> Document 75, which is an FBI FD-302 report filed in November 1963 by three
> Chicago FBI agents, we see that the deposit that Klein's made which
> included the Hidell postal money order was actually not deposited on March
> 13, 1963, which was the day Klein's received the order form and money
> order from Oswald/Hidell in the mail.
>

I'm no expert, but how could they possibly have deposited the money
order on the same day they received it? And why would they immediately
deposit ALL the previous payments just when Oswald's money order came in?

> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=672
>
> Per CD75, the deposit with the Hidell money order in it was sent by
> Klein's to First National Bank of Chicago on Friday, March 15, 1963, two
> days after Klein's received the Hidell order for the rifle. Here's what it
> says in CD75:
>
> "A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting
> Goods, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the amount of
> $13,827.98, included two items in the amount of $21.45, and was processed
> by the bank on March 16, 1963." -- CD75, Page 668, Paragraph 4
>
> So that means that only the "2" in the date--which is written as "2/15/63"
> on the extra copy of the deposit ticket--is inaccurate. The rest of the
> numbers are correct (per the info found in CD75). The 2 (February) should,
> of course, really be a 3 (March). Someone at Klein's must have still
> thought it was February when they wrote out that deposit slip on March
> 15th.
>

Sounds like an old Dave Letterman joke.
"It’s Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year 5768, and I’m still writing
5767 on my checks!"
Just goes to show that History is not perfect.

You're still depositing money to your bank by hand? Do you even know
what century you're in? I just deposited a rebate check with my tablet
this weekend.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
== wrong again marsh;
john Costello provided that on the internet ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 13 November 2015 06:30:51 UTC+11, Tim Nickerson wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:03:11 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> > > What's the evidence for that, Tom?
> > > Jean
> >
> > Hi Jean!
> >
> > Looking at the money order it seems clear there are two different
> > systems being used to process it, one using rectangle punches and one
> > using round.
> >
> > http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/NA014738/lee-harvey-oswald-postal-money-order
>
> Bud,
>
> It's actually quite easy to "decode" both the rectangular holes and the
> round ones. Start with the round ones. Look how they are positioned under
> the *2145. From right to left, the first hole is in the 0 position, or *.
> The next hole is two spaces below that. The next hole is one space above
> that one. Apply the same methodology to the rectangular holes.
>
> I'm not quite sold on what the three remaining rectangular holes
> represent.

Tim, Bud et al,

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.

[David Von Pein]

Congratulations! Here, have a Hydrox!

Now, if you can tell me how I can deposit a PHYSICAL PAPER CHECK to my
account without going through a "by hand" process to get it into the bank,
please give me a shout. Because that's be nice.

Will the bank just BELIEVE me and trust me when I ask them to do this
online --- "Hi Chase Bank. I have a paper check I need to deposit, and
Tony Marsh has recently berated me on a public forum for living in a
previous century and not knowing about direct deposit and online banking
and stuff like that there. So, if you could, would you be nice enough to
deposit this $9,455.99 check into my account electronically, without my
having to mail you the paper check? Tony will be so proud of me if I can
pull this off. Thank you."

[David Von Pein]

***Latest development.....***

LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

This may solve the ten digits at the top of the Klein's money order. It
appears that they are the "File Locator Number" placed by the Treasury
Department, which would seemingly be a pretty definite indication that the
money order was processed.

I found on the website of the Computer History Museum a 1966 paper
entitled "The Check Payment and Reconciliation Program of the U.S.
Treasury: Present Status and Future Prospects" by George F. Stickney of
the Treasury Department. It can be located here:

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

Five pages into the paper (page 483), the author explains what a "File
Locator Number" is and provides a specimen Treasury check with the File
Locator Number highlighted. The digits and location appear to be identical
to the Klein's money order.

The article explains that the File Locator Number "may be viewed as the
second serial number" and is added to each item as the final step of the
card-to-tape conversion process. The author describes it as a hugely
significant innovation that allows Treasury to handle each item only once,
as opposed to the previous 15-20 times. (Don't be misled by his reference
to the "new" system -- he is talking about the "new" system adopted in
1957.) Later in the article (page 494), he says that the procedures for
postal money orders are "quite similar."

I also found a February 1963 article in Computer and Automation [below] --

http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/computersAndAutomation/196302.pdf

-- (see page 42) for the IBM 1420 bank transit system which stated that
the machine would process 1600 checks or 1900 postal money orders per
minute and would also "imprint the bank's endorsement during processing
with no reduction in speed." I couldn't find a manual for the 1420, but I
did find the following for a competitive machine manufactured by GE:

[Quote On:]

"Endorser - prints a 3/4 inch by 1 3/4 inch stamp in one of nine different
locations on the back of each check passed through the Document Handler,
without reducing the input speed. The three horizontal positions of the
endorsing stamp can be changed by the operator. The endorsement stamp
contains six items:

1. Bank transit number, 2. Date (operator changeable - no tools), 3. Name
of bank, 4. City and state, 5. Pay any bank P.E.G., 6. Six variable digit
positions (0 - 9, operator changeable, no tools required)"

[End Quote.]

So now we have the mystery that the Klein's money order appears to have no
bank endorsement but does appear to have a File Locator Number that would
be added only after the money order had found its way to its final
destination at the Treasury Department.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a photo of the sample check which appears on page 483 of the 1966
PDF document Lance provided above, indicating where on a processed check
the "File Locator Numbers" are found. And it does, indeed, match the
Klein's/Hidell money order exactly, with respect to the number of digits
(10) and the format/placement of those digits (3 numbers, then a space,
followed by seven additional numbers)....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M1HcXKG12HM/Vk0DilmQPRI/AAAAAAABIKE/Ai_XQInM0co/s1600/File-Locator-Numbers.png

And here's an excerpt from the 1966 PDF with more information about the
"File Locator Numbers". The key words here are: "The file locator
number...is printed on each paid check..."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WtjACAPWYoo/Vk0IxIcHc0I/AAAAAAABIKU/ArL4nr882cY/s1600/Excerpt-From-1966-Document-Regarding-File-Locator-Numbers.png

Emphasizing these words again -- "Each PAID check..."

The check has, therefore, been PAID already before a File Locator Number
is added to the check. And as Lance alluded to earlier, U.S. Postal Money
Orders were likely being handled in a "similar" fashion to checks at the
time.

Thank you, Lance Payette, for what must have been hours of tedious Google
searching in an effort to dig up that banking information.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I explain what I did, you take a photo of the front of the check and
a photo of the back of the check and then the app deposits it
automatically. I use an Android tablet, but it also works on an Android
phone and I think also on iPhone.

https://www.easternbank.com/site/personal/banking/mobilebanking/pages/mobiledeposit.aspx

I don't remember for sure what the minimum operating system requirements
are but I think you need at least version 4.0.3 or iOS 7.0 or later.
They are now selling Jelly Bean tablets for like $20 on Black Friday.

https://www.chase.com/online/digital/mobile-banking.html

> Will the bank just BELIEVE me and trust me when I ask them to do this
> online --- "Hi Chase Bank. I have a paper check I need to deposit, and
> Tony Marsh has recently berated me on a public forum for living in a
> previous century and not knowing about direct deposit and online banking
> and stuff like that there. So, if you could, would you be nice enough to
> deposit this $9,455.99 check into my account electronically, without my
> having to mail you the paper check? Tony will be so proud of me if I can
> pull this off. Thank you."
>

Yes, exactly. Those are the exact words you should use when you call
your bank. And berate them for not giving you a free smartphone to do it!
But wait until AFTER Black Friday. Don't look for sales. Assume the
sales are all on. Don't go at midnight, it's going to be only 12 degrees.

[David Von Pein]

Well, I'll be French-dipped and hung out to dry on Oswald's Neely Street
porch!

I had no idea such a thing was possible. (Probably because, like Vince
Bugliosi, I've never owned a SmartPhone or a cell phone, and probably
never will).

So (*gulp*), it looks like I must now apologize to Tony Marsh for being so
nasty to him on this "check-cashing by electronic means" topic. Sorry, W.
Anthony. I was in the dark about it.

It still sounds a bit risky to me (for the banks, I mean). The bank never
even has to *touch* or see the paper check, is that correct? You just take
pictures of it, and the bank can verify its authenticity?

I'll be darned (and re-dipped).

/DVP

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he did not have ordinary 8mm home movies showing the ghost images in
the sprocket hole area.

[David Von Pein]

***Money Order Addendum #399***....


PAUL ERNST SAID:

And when was the above system introduced, which year David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's from a 1966 document. But the 10-digit number is also seen on the
Hidell M.O. from 1963. Same formatting....three digits, a space, then
seven more numbers.

Are you saying that the identical formatting for that number meant
something OTHER than the "File Locator Number" discussed in that 1966 PDF
document that Lance posted earlier?

Gee, there's an amazing coincidence, huh?

Plus, Lance made this comment about the "new" system discussed in the 1966
document....

"Don't be misled by his reference to the "new" system -- he is talking

about the "new" system adopted in 1957. Later in the article (page 494),

he says that the procedures for postal money orders are "quite similar." "

-- Lance Payette


PAUL ERNST SAID:

David, we are talking here about BANK CHECKS and not a MO.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

From the same 1966 PDF document Lance provided....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wqpkHtRdUwc/Vk0c52NkxTI/AAAAAAABIKk/WXcIsov1V2Q/s1600/Processing-Postal-Money-Orders.png


And this excerpt below--from that same 1966 PDF file--pretty much
indicates that the entire 1966 document is talking about procedures that
began ten years earlier, in Fiscal 1957....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XBmfO6GLLgw/Vk0duVBK19I/AAAAAAABIKw/3sOH5m2TxO0/s1600/1957-Start-Date.png


PAUL ERNST SAID:

And what about the question [regarding the first three digits stamped at
the top-left of the Hidell money order] --- 138 = Dallas???

Where can I find that back?

I found something about postal zones...but not about that 138 number =
DALLAS?

Can you help me out?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I can't. I tried searching the "138" prefix all day yesterday (in the
hopes that something might pop up to indicate that "138" did, indeed, mean
something specifically), but I had no luck in finding any info on it.
After about 1,000 Google searches, I tossed in the towel.

But maybe you'll have better luck. Or maybe Lance Payette or Sandy Larsen
or Tom Scully have some kind of "magic Google Search touch" that enables
them to dig out long-forgotten, decades-old PDF documents regarding very
old 1960s and 1950s U.S. postal procedures.

All three of them seem to have hit paydirt of one kind or another with
respect to this topic of the money order. Who knows what might turn up
next. ~shrug~


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

According to that 1966 document, the Treasury Department began converting
the money order operation to the electronic system in June 1962.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What page number of the '66 document, Tim? I want to capture it.

And that "June 1962" date is interesting, indeed, because it's the exact
same month when the new yellow-tinted money orders were being introduced,
per the Palm Beach newspaper article discovered recently by Tom Scully.


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Page 498.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you. I see it now. (See image below.)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KzGi8is0nPE/Vk02cnlQSTI/AAAAAAABILA/EfjEP9HXIXc/s1600/Procedures-For-Money-Orders-Started-In-June-1962.png

[TJ Scully]

David, you are praising Lance.... praise his research details, not the
man. "Lance, the man," is not all that popular right now....

It turns out there is more to this segment I quoted and posted a few days
ago...

on page 119 with this link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22inconvenience+for+some +depository
+institutions%2C+primarily+the+larger+institutions +that+may+receive+checks+from
+several*%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=lack

(A check, unlike a postal money order is a negotiable instrument of

multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required

to receive an FRB processing endorsement, at least circa 1984) :

....and this is the longer quote.:

Page 118 - 119 : (if the page does not display using the link above, click
on the

following link and you'll see a "look inside this book" search box and just
type in the word, "lack" w/out quotes......

Federal Reserve Pricing Policy on Check Clearing Services: ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban

Affairs - 1984 - Link to image of intro text:
http://jfk.education/images/JustifyNotPlacingEndorsement.jpg

"18. How does the Federal Reserve justify not placing its endorsement on
all items handled by it?
Doesn't this practice make the return items task more difficult for payor
institutions while making the Federal Reserve's processing task easier?

The Federal Reserve places an endorsement on all items that it processes
through reader sort equipment. However, the Federal Reserve also offers a
program, called "fine-sort," whereby depositing institutions may deposit
checks that have been presorted and packaged according to payor
institution. The Federal Reserve delivers these checks to the payor
institutions along with the checks the Federal Reserve has itself
processed.

The collection of checks in the fine sort program is accelerated because
they can be deposited later than other check deposits.

In addition, the fine sort program is the most efficient method of
collecting checks in certain instances, such as when an institution of
first deposit has a relatively large number of checks drawn on a
particular payor institution. Although the lack of the Federal Reserve

endorsement on checks collected through the fine sort program may be a
source of inconvenience for some depository institutions, primarily the
larger institutions that may receive checks from several several sources
other than the Federal Reserve, the fine sort program does not result in
significant problems in the return item process. We believe the fine sort
program results in improve- ments in the speed and efficiency of the

nation's check collection system" .....

(Here we have a large bank, Chicago First National, presumably with a
large number of checks (US Treasury) and postal money orders all destined
for the same payor, the Treasurer's ADP system in Washington, DC.)

[Anthony Marsh]

I hate to rain on the kooks parade, but I think that's all we need to
debunk their wacko theory.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Here's a photo of the sample check which appears on page 483 of the 1966
> PDF document Lance provided above, indicating where on a processed check
> the "File Locator Numbers" are found. And it does, indeed, match the
> Klein's/Hidell money order exactly, with respect to the number of digits
> (10) and the format/placement of those digits (3 numbers, then a space,
> followed by seven additional numbers)....
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M1HcXKG12HM/Vk0DilmQPRI/AAAAAAABIKE/Ai_XQInM0co/s1600/File-Locator-Numbers.png
>
> And here's an excerpt from the 1966 PDF with more information about the
> "File Locator Numbers". The key words here are: "The file locator
> number...is printed on each paid check..."
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WtjACAPWYoo/Vk0IxIcHc0I/AAAAAAABIKU/ArL4nr882cY/s1600/Excerpt-From-1966-Document-Regarding-File-Locator-Numbers.png
>
> Emphasizing these words again -- "Each PAID check..."
>
> The check has, therefore, been PAID already before a File Locator Number
> is added to the check. And as Lance alluded to earlier, U.S. Postal Money
> Orders were likely being handled in a "similar" fashion to checks at the
> time.
>
> Thank you, Lance Payette, for what must have been hours of tedious Google
> searching in an effort to dig up that banking information.
>

Isn't it amazing what you can find using Google. Ancient history.
I still can't find my father's punch cards.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

Maybe he hid them in a pumpkin.