Armstrong: Of Covert Ops, Fake Marines, of Classifieds, of Cabbages and Kings

[Tom Scully]

We must graciously permit presentation (and consideration) of newly obtained information from continuing research results. This is not happening. The "new" thread on this same topic, begun yesterday, seems a result of my discovery of new information too heretical to even appear on the same page with orthodox belief, and determined defense of such belief.

Other evidence of this is this seemingly "uncalled for" series of reactions substituting for debate, culminating in.:

Posted Today, 09:38 PM

We know what your definition of common sense is Lance.

Last week, I read something touted by David Von Pein, attributing Jean Davison. Naturally, I thought I know what I know, and I will look into it, push back against it. And, I did that, and Von Pein even conceded

http://jfk.education/node/11
"Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders"

[size=12]Unfortunately for some, and quite unintentionally, in the research I did disproving the claims of Von Pein and Jean Davison, I also found that this was unreliable, and this led to other details that have made some uncomfortable, putting it mildly. The "expert" witness relied on here, was out of the loop, as far as ongoing changes of that time.:


[/SIZE]
[URL="http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20338_19621129.pdf#search=%22money%20order%22"]
http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol...20order%22[/URL]

https://books.google.com/books?id=z2...lic%2C+and*%22
page 144 ( "banks, federal reserve, the public, and*" )
Closeout of Kansas City Money Order Center

Coincident with the installation of the print punch machines, the audit of the
money orders was transferred to a computer technique and consolidated with the audit
of Treasury checks at Washington, D.C., and the closeout of the Money Order Center at
Kansas City moved into its final phase. The Money Order Center was discontinued on December 1, 1963, except for three caretakers for the files, and all reports of money order issues now go to Money Order Audit Division in Washington, D.C....

When I began this presentation, a few posts back, I did not really expect any questions to be posted here. The members who should be asking questions, already know what they know, and this brief presentation certainly reinforces that, and that is a problem if we are intent on determining what really happened.

Now.... I already shared this, but it has had no effect. They maintain that they know what they know.....so, I'm
adding a bit more to it. That should spur everyone's interest in exposing themselves to emerging evidence....sure!

Earlier on page 119, the same cite as in my original post, yesterday.:

on page 119 with this link:
[URL="https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22inconvenience+for+some+depository%20+institutions%2C+primarily+the+larger+institutions+that+may+receive+checks+from%20+several*%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=lack"]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[/URL]

(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 -

"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" .....

A talent for googling turns out to be a two edged sword. 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. - Questions ?