(PART 1077)


DVP's reality gets weirder and weirder. Now he's suggesting that there has never been an occasion where somebody has ever had their signature forged.


I never suggested any such thing. And why you say I am suggesting such a silly thing is beyond me.

But in this (Kennedy) case, I'm saying that there was positively no "forgery" of the Oswald documents, because of the testimony of the experts in the field of identifying writing on questioned documents (e.g., Alwyn Cole and Joseph McNally).

Naturally, though, expert testimony means zilch to people like Lee Farley (especially if it means having to admit the obvious--that Farley's favorite patsy actually ordered rifle C2766).






The whole business about the bank stamps is actually a situation where CTers are attempting to close the barn door after the horse has already escaped.


Since we know Oswald definitely signed the 3/12/63 money order (verified by multiple handwriting analysts for the Warren Commission and the HSCA)....and since we know that that money order was definitely RECEIVED and STAMPED FOR DEPOSIT by Klein's Sporting Goods (verified by the stamp on the money order and by Klein's Vice President William Waldman, who CTers must certainly think is either a huge liar or as dumb as a stump about his own company's procedures and operations)....and since we positively know that Klein's DID ship Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell on 3/20/63.....

It, therefore, doesn't make any difference what happened to the money order after First National Bank in Chicago received it from Klein's. Whether the bank stamped it or not is immaterial for the purpose of determining whether Klein's handled that money order and whether Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald.

The main point is: We know Klein's received that money order in the mail from Oswald. And as a result of receiving payment (in full) for the ordered rifle, Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to LHO (as confirmed for all time by Waldman Exhibit #7, which is a document that CTers must ALSO believe is a total forgery).

Do you see the sheer outlandish NUMBER of hoops and contortions a conspiracy theorist must go through in order to take that rifle out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald? I sure do, whether any conspiracist sees them or not.

With respect to the bank stamps that conspiracy theorists insist should be on the back of Oswald's money order (CE788), I'll offer up the following thoughts and observations:

This question suddenly popped into my head today:

I wonder if my bank puts stamps or other markings on the back of every one of my checks that I have deposited into my personal bank account?

This question became very easy to answer (at least as far as my last several deposits are concerned), since I can check my recent deposits online and I can even see (and enlarge) the front and back of every cancelled/processed check that has been a part of a recent deposit.

I found that only SOME of my cancelled checks have ANY bank markings on them at all, while some others are COMPLETELY VOID of any and all bank stamps.

This discovery suggests to me that it's quite possible that this same "hit and miss" type of activity regarding the stamping of cancelled checks (and money orders) could have been the reason we find no official bank markings on the back of CE788.

For proof of this, I offer up the following two images of the front and back of one of my own cancelled checks from November 2010. This check was deposited (by mail) into my account at a major U.S. bank. And please note the back side of the check, which doesn't have any bank markings on it whatsoever (nor does the front). It merely has my own signed endorsement (much like what we see in CE788, which has just the Klein's rubber stamp marking and account number on it).

And, btw, in case anyone wants to accuse me of "faking" or "whiting out" some of the markings on this cancelled check--I have not altered this image in any way (other than to remove my account number under the words "Deposit Only" on the back side of the check):

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.

That last part about "bulk deposits" with a lot of checks and money orders shouldn't be too hard to verify at some point in the future. (Are there any bank employees posting at this forum?)


So, this is a "cancelled" cheque? Not a "processed" cheque? What do the back of your "processed" cheques look like? I just find it strange that you chose a "cancelled" cheque. At what point in the transaction did you cancel it?

Or are we at cross-purposes as to what terminology you are using here? Plus I think it best if we stick to the evidence from the time period, Dave.



You misunderstood my terms. When I said "cancelled" check, I didn't mean that I had literally CANCELLED it. I meant "processed". It's a check from late last year that I deposited, and it was positively PROCESSED and added to my personal account by a major U.S. bank via a Bank By Mail deposit ticket.

And that's not the only example I have either. I can dig up at least one or two more "processed" checks that went into my bank account that don't have a single marking or stamp on them from the bank where it was deposited.

But, as I also said, SOME of the checks DO have a stamp on them from my bank, but not all of them.

It's possible (I suppose) that the check in question was stamped by my bank only AFTER they had taken a digital image of it to put online for me to see. I'll admit that's possible. But all I can go by is what the digital image shows right now--and there's no bank stamp on it anywhere.


I did work in a bank back then, but here in Canada. .... I do not know if the process was the same, in the states, but here, every cheque, money order, [or] whatever, in a deposit was stamped, as it was also with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented, on the back.



Thank you, Bernice. I appreciate the info on that.


Here is what Davey is ignoring and it's crucial:

The FBI never found the money order in that 13,000 [dollar] deposit.

So in addition to never being stamped, it was never found, period.

This is what I mean by taking things in isolation.


Then what is this a picture of, Jimbo? A figment of my imagination?....

In short:

DiEugenio doesn't have the PROOF that Oswald's $21.45 money order [CE788] is a fraud. In fact, the BEST EVIDENCE tells us just the opposite -- OSWALD'S WRITING IS ON THE DAMN THING.

Naturally, this BEST EVIDENCE means zilch to conspiracy mongers like DiEugenio. He WANTS Oswald to be innocent (for some reason), so he'll jump through every impossible hoop and turn himself (and the evidence) into an unidentifiable pretzel in order to achieve that silly goal.

Another great example of DiEugenio's Mister Salty pretzel twists comes in the form of what he's done to totally misrepresent and mangle the "paper bag" evidence.

There's way, way more evidence to tell us that Oswald WAS carrying that paper bag on the morning of November 22 than there is to suggest a reasonable doubt that he didn't. But DiEugenio WANTS that paper bag to vanish off the planet--so, by God, he'll do and say anything to make that happen. Even to the point of accusing two completely innocent people (Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old kid Buell Wesley Frazier) of just MAKING UP the bag from whole cloth.

This, you see, is the fantasy world DiEugenio lives in every day regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. And he relishes it. He basks in it daily. Well, he can have it. I like EVIDENCE instead of silly speculation about people like Buell and Linnie Mae.


Okay. I thought I may have mistook your terminology. As I added to my previous post -- I think it best if we stick to evidence and procedures from 1963 here unless you can identify and list the procedures followed in the 1960's and the difference and similarities of those that exist in 2011. What with computers, logistics, timescales and all...

Not quite apples and oranges but still...

Why not just give in? There are soooooo many problems with the order and the delivery that it's getting a bit embarrassing for you to have to defend it all.


Because Oswald's handwriting is on the money order.

Why that extremely powerful fact isn't good enough for you is a mystery. But it IS good enough for me (and probably for most other reasonable people).

Plus, there's the fact that Klein's positively had that money order in its possession in March 1963. We know that to be the case, because if they didn't, they would have never processed the sales order for Rifle C2766 to "A. Hidell", as seen in Waldman #7. (Oh, yes, Waldman 7 is yet another fake document, isn't it, Lee?)

And Klein's STAMPED the money order with their own company stamp, for Pete sake.

Why do you think EVERYTHING is a fake--even that Klein's stamp on the back of the Oswald money order?

Nothing is ever what it seems to be, is it Lee (and Jimbo)?


I mean when you have to flash forward a half century to 2010 and online banking, I mean that takes the cake.


Sorry I had to use 2010 stuff to illustrate my point, Jimbo (my simple point being: not all processed checks that are deposited by bank customers have bank markings on them), but all of my 1963 cancelled checks are currently locked up at CIA headquarters in Langley until 2039. (Hoover ordered it; I didn't.)


The Money Order was not the only item that was void of bank s[t]amps. Look at the Bank Deposit slip dated Feb 15 (not the tally of the various deposits, but the Bank Deposit slip). It has no Bank Stamp. Have you ever deposited money, check, MO, etc to a bank without the bank teller stamping the date on the deposit slip??


That is very likely because that was merely an "extra copy" of the deposit ticket, and my guess would be that that extra copy never made it to First National Bank at all. Or, if it did go the bank, perhaps the bank only stamped the FIRST copy, and not the "extra copy". But if it never went to the bank in the first place, of course it wouldn't have any "First National Bank" markings on it.

[EDIT: Other possibilities abound as well, as discussed HERE and HERE.]


Finally, after the microfilm was taken from Klein's at about 5:00 am on 11/23/63, it was in FBI custody. Now, without showing the microfilm to Klein's or getting any additional help from Klein's on Nov 23, how did the FBI determine that payment to Klein's had been made with a postal money order??


First off, how does Armstrong know that Klein's provided no "additional help" at all regarding the money order?

But even if Armstrong is correct here, it could have merely been an educated, logical guess on the FBI's behalf. By that time on early Saturday morning, the FBI likely knew a whole lot about Oswald's financial state, and they likely knew he had no personal checking account at all. And they certainly knew that the rifle was ordered via MAIL ORDER. That left only CASH and a MONEY ORDER for the most likely methods by which Oswald would have paid for the rifle. (And we know he paid for it, because Klein's wouldn't have had a record of the SALE [Waldman 7] if the rifle had not been paid in full by the purchaser.)

So, to the Post Office the FBI went.

Pretty simple tracking method, IMO, given what the FBI likely knew about Oswald and his finances as of early on November 23, 1963.

But I'd like to also know where Armstrong got the info about Klein's providing the FBI no help at all regarding the money order on 11/23/63 AM. Can that be documented somewhere in the record?

[EDIT: Plus, Waldman Exhibit No. 7 provides the information the FBI would have needed to determine that Oswald/"Hidell" used a money order to pay for the rifle, because the initials "M.O." [for "Money Order"] are written right on Waldman #7 below the box marked "Total Amount Enclosed". And almost anybody could have easily figured out what the initials "M.O." stood for.]


Please note how the number of LIARS continues to grow upon reading these John Armstrong book excerpts that Jack White posted in 2005.

Start counting up the number of people who surely must be liars in the eyes of the conspiracy mongers when it comes to just the issue of Oswald's money order alone, including the various people from the banking institutions and the post office and the FBI and the Secret Service who saw and/or physically handled the Oswald money order.

The FBI must have been doing a lot of strong-arming at the banks and at Klein's and at the post office regarding JUST this money order thing alone, in order to get various people to say they saw and handled a money order that many conspiracy theorists think is a total fraud.

Another question -- Did the Feds PLANT a fake money order somewhere (after perfectly mimicking Lee Oswald's handwriting on it too, of course--and all within less than 24 hours of the assassination), so that a legitimate banking employee or a post office employee could conveniently "find" it later on? Or did the FBI just MAKE UP all the names of the bank officials and post office people that Jack White mentions in his 2005 post?

I'll reiterate this FACT one more time --- Waldman Exhibit No. 7 (which has never been proven to be a "fake" document by any conspiracy theorist in the world) proves for all time that Klein's received a paid-in-full rifle order from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas (who was really Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) in March 1963, and Klein's shipped a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to Oswald's Dallas mailing address on 3/20/63.

Any other conclusion is pure speculation that is not supported by the known documentary evidence connected with the JFK murder investigation.

~Mark VII~


Gil Jesus [who started this thread at The Education Forum on March 10, 2011] knows damn well that Oswald ordered, paid for, and was shipped Rifle C2766 from Klein's. He's merely pretending that ALL of the paper trail concerning that rifle purchase is phony/fake/worthless (which would be virtually impossible, given the sheer number of documents and PEOPLE who would have to be "in" on such fakery from the get-go).

The item that demonstrates for all time how completely void of relevance and validity Gil's theory is about the ENTIRE paper trail leading to the rifle is Waldman Exhibit No. 7 -- which (of course) is another document that Gil must pretend is a fraud in order to take that gun out of Lee Oswald's hands.

Waldman No. 7 is the completed order form that was filled out in March of 1963 by the people at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and it's a document that includes the important date of "MARCH 13, 1963" at the very top of the document -- which is a stamped date on the order form that indicates, per Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman, that that was the exact date when Oswald's/Hidell's $21.45 money order [signified by the letters "MO" on the same order form, btw] was put through the Klein's cash register, indicating that the PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED from the purchaser, Oswald/"Hidell".

Waldman Exhibit No. 7, all by itself, makes EVERYTHING that Gil Jesus has ever said totally moot and irrelevant concerning his claim that everything associated with Oswald's rifle order is phony/fake/forged.

Why is this so?

Because William Waldman himself testified in front of the Warren Commission while he was looking right at a copy of that completed order form for Oswald's rifle purchase (Waldman #7). And Waldman pointed out, in detail, what all of the various markings and stamps indicated on that document, which is a document that has a "Klein's Sporting Goods" logo in the upper-left corner.

So, unless Gil Jesus (and other conspiracy theorists who also think there's something phony about Oswald's rifle purchase) is prepared to provide some kind of proof that William J. Waldman was lying through his teeth when he talked about all of the details associated with Waldman Exhibit No. 7, then (IMO) Gil Jesus doesn't have a (reasonable) leg to stand on when it comes to the topic of Oswald's rifle order and the money order which paid for that rifle.

David Von Pein
March 6, 2011
March 7, 2011
March 11, 2011
March 16, 2011
December 21, 2015