You're just once again repeating your argument without dealing with the responses to it. Why didn’t you address my point about Stovall’s WC testimony and the nature of Oswald’s job and the work environment at Jaggars-Stovall? Why didn’t you explain how Oswald could have falsely claimed he did nine print jobs without anyone noticing, especially given the fact that all his work, like that of other junior associates, was periodically checked by senior associates? Why didn’t you address my point that in the Jaggars-Stovall work environment, he could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, much less 2 hours, without someone noticing?
I've read Stovall's testimony. You're going to have to highlight the part of it where he offers, or even hints, that Oswald could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, or even longer, without someone noticing. Because I don't see it. All I see is him noting that Oswald never took any days off. He also noted that Oswald was a slacker. He was not very productive at all.
Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery.
Who were the three renowned handwriting experts who examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald? Name them.
The HSCA handwriting experts were unable to render a decision on the note because they only had poor quality photoreproductions of it at their disposal. However, they pretty much dismissed it as fake anyway.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0120a.htm41) VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 4-7) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I [signatures judged to be Oswald's].
.......
(43) From the examinations of item 4-7, it was determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.
(44) I would like to note, however, that the quality of the original photoreproductions of the Hunt note was poor. Under the best of circumstances, reproductions lack clarity and detail. Here, as can be seen from the copies, the original photoreproduction was out of focus, giving the document a fuzzy appearance. Accurate analysis was difficult. The note is highly suspicious. The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.Your attempt to discredit handwriting identification done by real experts has flopped. Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law. The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
David Von Pein. . . . Yeap, I suspected that's where you were getting your weak arguments and why you were (and still are) avoiding the readily visible evidence on the money order itself. Did you not notice that Von Pein does not explain or show where a bank endorsement stamp can be seen on the money order? Why do you suppose that is?
How are my arguments weak? Did you even read what I posted? Members of the "Machine Cancel Society" and a senior Postal manager confirmed that the 12 represents a canceling machine, not a Postal zone.
Could you not gather up the courage to check out the Armstrong link, where Armstrong provides numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 to show us what we should see on the back of the money order?
How does Armstrong know that the numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 show us what we should see on the back of the money order?
You're not going to post an image of the money order that shows any kind of a bank endorsement stamp, are you? Nor are you going to post an image of the money order that shows the stamp it would have received at the PMOC after it was cashed at an associated bank or processed through the Federal Reserve, are you? Do you know why you're not gonna post any such image? Because no such image exists. Because anyone can look at the money order and see what is and is not there.
Not one of the money order images you just posted shows any kind of bank endorsement stamp on the money order that Oswald allegedly mailed to Klein's.
As I've said, and as anyone can confirm with their own two eyes, the only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.
The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Remove your damn CT blinders and answer the question that I have asked you repeatedly.
HOW HAVE YOU DETERMINED THAT THE MONEY ORDER SHOULD HAVE HAD A BANK ENDORSEMENT STAMP ON IT?You completely ignored what I posted that shows that the money order was cashed. Why?
So let me ask you again: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html"The purpose of the "12" is to distinguish the mail from any other machine that cancelled mail from Dallas. Each post office uses these methods to track workers assigned to cancelling, to distinguish mail from one station from another, to identify the machine that applied the cancel, and the list goes on." -- A.J. Savakis, "Machine Cancel Society" member
And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?
And I would again point out that we don't have to guess here. We have the Post Office's own website telling us that postmarks are . . . well, let's read it again:
The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:
Your link does not back you up. It does not say that postal zones were included on postmarks in the 1960s. Let me ask you this: Where was Postal Zone 2B located in Dallas in 1963?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0147b.htm From your link:
A “local” postmark shows the full name of the Post Office, a two-letter state abbreviation, ZIP CodeNow take a look at the following:
What areas of Dallas fell under the Zip Codes 3B and 1B in the late 1960s?
And did you notice that Von Pein doesn't explain why the deposit statement that Klein's provided to the WC is dated February 15, 1963, nearly four weeks before the money order was supposedly purchased?
Notice that the amount on the deposit slip ($13,827.98) is the exact amount to the penny as that of the itemized deposit document dated March 13, 1963. How would you explain that?
