JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Everything you never wanted to know about the Klein's Postal Money Order

<< < (2/3) > >>

Tim Nickerson:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 11, 2025, 02:21:25 AM ---I would say that I discourage anyone from paying any attention to anything that I or anyone else previously said about the processing of PMOs and the "bank stamp" issue. It may not appear so in my post here, but it took me a GREAT DEAL of work in late 2024 and early 2025 to reach clarity on those issues. The previous discussions are total and utter confusion, which is precisely how Sandy was able to declare this his greatest triumph and why I said the hell with it. I have nailed those issues here, and you can take what I have said to the bank.

--- End quote ---

I'm sorry but, how does it get much clearer than your discovery of what that 10 digit number was on the money order?

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 11, 2025, 02:39:01 AM ---I'm sorry but, how does it get much clearer than your discovery of what that 10 digit number was on the money order?

--- End quote ---
It's more in the vein of dispelling factoids. The File Locator Number should conclusively establish, one would think, that the PMO was processed through the Federal Reserve System without bank stamps. Period, end of discussion. When CTers then shift to the "no, it was fabricated (or planted)" argument, however, you are back to having to deal with bank stamps. Either the conspirators stupidly forgot to include them on the PMO they fabricated or planted, or bank stamps simply weren't necessary on PMOs that were processed through the Federal Reserve System (as they weren't). When CTers shift to "it should have been at the auditing center in Kansas City," you are forced to explain the distinction between the auditing center and the records retention center and why the PMO was at the records center. I know I had no rock-solid understanding of these issues at the time of the Ed Forum debate, and I guarantee you no one else did either. It takes a complete understanding of the process, from 1864 to the mid-1880s to 1913 to 1942 to 1951 to 1955 to 1963, to really understand PMOs and why the CT arguments are bogus.

Before someone leaps on the fact that the article about the File Locator Number is dated 1966, it is discussing a system that was implemented in 1957.

Good Lord, I see that my original posts on this issue at the Ed Forum date back to 2015. Unbelievable.

Tim Nickerson:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 11, 2025, 03:25:23 AM ---It's more in the vein of dispelling factoids. The File Locator Number should conclusively establish, one would think, that the PMO was processed through the Federal Reserve System without bank stamps. Period, end of discussion. When CTers then shift to the "no, it was fabricated (or planted)" argument, however, you are back to having to deal with bank stamps. Either the conspirators stupidly forgot to include them on the PMO they fabricated or planted, or bank stamps simply weren't necessary on PMOs that were processed through the Federal Reserve System (as they weren't). When CTers shift to "it should have been at the auditing center in Kansas City," you are forced to explain the distinction between the auditing center and the records retention center and why the PMO was at the records center. I know I had no rock-solid understanding of these issues at the time of the Ed Forum debate, and I guarantee you no one else did either. It takes a complete understanding of the process, from 1864 to the mid-1880s to 1913 to 1942 to 1951 to 1955 to 1963, to really understand PMOs and why the CT arguments are bogus.

Before someone leaps on the fact that the article about the File Locator Number is dated 1966, it is discussing a system that was implemented in 1957.

Good Lord, I see that my original posts on this issue at the Ed Forum date back to 2015. Unbelievable.

--- End quote ---

Ok. I haven't visited the Ed Forum much since 2016. I've never seen any of the "no, it was fabricated (or planted)" argument over there. Your understanding of the whole issue is beyond my pay grade, no doubt.

David Von Pein:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 11, 2025, 02:21:25 AM ---I'm glad Tim posted the page from the 1966 article on the File Locator Number. When I did my original research, the article popped right up as a PDF. Now, as I recall, it's not available at all, even at the link.

--- End quote ---

Yes, that's right. The original link to the 1966 PDF now does not include the full PDF. It disappeared several years ago. But, fortunately, that PDF file is still fully available through that great invention known as the Wayback Machine....

https://web.archive.org/web/20160121141437/https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf

David Von Pein:
Here are a few excerpts that I've archived from the various three-year-long online "Money Order" discussions.....

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

LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

I don't purport to be any postal money order expert; I could be wrong about what I am seeing. Frankly, I'm pretty surprised at what I have managed to turn up with some minimal Internet sleuthing while I sit home with the flu, and even more surprised that it would be causing any controversy here.

Perhaps the question should be, "Why did Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and Ray Gallagher not find in literally years of research, going back to the nineties, what Barely Interested Lance has found in a day and a half?"

Truly, if the money order is bogus, I'll be delighted -- this would be way more interesting than the alternative. If it isn't bogus -- well, surely, no CT stands or falls with the money order. I'm just trying to follow the evidence where it leads.

Just in my posts, I have publicly waffled from thinking (1) the money order didn't require bank endorsements, to (2) the money order did require bank endorsements, to (3) the money order appears to show evidence of final processing by the Treasury Department. This is [as Jim DiEugenio suggested in an earlier comment] a "rush to find closure," in your view?

(The File Locator Number, if that's what it is, does strike me as "closure," I'll have to admit. It seems to me to be a deal-killer, simply because of what a File Locator Number is. If I learn beyond question that your car was sitting in your garage at the time of the accident, all of my other "evidence" it was involved in the accident pretty much falls by the wayside. If this is a File Locator Number and someone wants to persist with a new and improved theory as to why the FLN is just part of the conspiracy, be my guest.)

Where is John Armstrong? I thought he was going to be educating us in short order.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What struck me was that once you assumed you knew what the File Locator number was and what it represented, you then said, that was it. Either it's closed or everyone is nuts. Period. As if nothing else mattered. Without interviewing any bank presidents or supervisors etc. Which John [Armstrong] just did.

And that interview will have a very much divergent view than yours. I think a 35-year bank president would be a pretty good court witness. But that does not mean anything to you, it seems. And you did not think it important to call one, did you?


JAMES DiEUGENIO ALSO SAID:

So we have this rifle, which as you must know is the wrong rifle -- in both classification and in length and weight. It was not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim's above comment about the "wrong rifle" is just outright nonsense. And I think, deep down, Jim knows it's pure nonsense.

Quoting from a discussion I had with DiEugenio in April of this year [2015] at Amazon.com:

"As for the assassination rifle being the "wrong rifle", as Jimmy likes to constantly say, DiEugenio knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer to that "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy is. I've pointed it out to him on several occasions in the past. But since he likes the idea of Oswald having never touched Carcano Rifle #C2766, Jim will forever ignore the logical answer to the "wrong rifle" topic.

But, of course, that's why we have had professional investigators and real detectives looking into these matters over the years, instead of relying on clowns like Jim DiEugenio to try and solve a Presidential assassination. If James had been in charge, Oswald would probably have posthumously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize instead of being officially labelled what he was---a double murderer.

Re: the rifle....

"Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman magazine from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e., "36 inches" vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's shipped a rifle with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963. The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman Exhibit No. 7) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766")." -- DVP; September 21, 2008"


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. It's the wrong rifle. Period. He [DVP] can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi. He's been doing it for years, decades actually.

None of that will erase this fact. It's the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.

And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they used Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this, see Stewart Galanor's book called, appropriately enough, Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.

Harry Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these fantastic solutions to their evidentiary problems.)

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney [Lance Payette] isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say it's valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it--from A to Z--is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO [Money Order] mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.

By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim,

It's a thing called: Being able to properly and reasonably evaluate and assess the evidence in the JFK murder case without resorting to calling everybody under the sun a liar or a cover-up agent or a conspirator.

And as I have pointed out so many times in the past, that is something that James DiEugenio has never been able to do. And I think that becomes blatantly obvious when we look at the sum total of the many, many things that Jim is absolutely positive fall into the general category of "everything about it--from A to Z--is dubious" --- and I'm not talking about JUST the rifle evidence, but virtually EVERY SINGLE THING that points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the murderer of President Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit.

DiEugenio thinks ALL of the evidence pointing to Oswald is "dubious". All of it. It's ridiculous.

Just last week, I asked Jim:

"I'll be happy to rewrite that 20th item [on this list], Jim, if you can tell me JUST ONE single piece of evidence that leads to Oswald that you think was NOT faked, tainted, or manufactured. Is there one such piece? I don't think there is." -- DVP; November 12, 2015

I never received an answer.

The silence was (and is) deafening.

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

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page