You see the time machine-stamped on the back: 11:16.
But, how could the receipt be stamped before the money order itself?
So, it is stamped NOV 24 AM 11 17, a minute later. But, how is that possible? I have sent money WU many times. You go in; you fill out the application; the clerk goes over it and makes sure it is completed correctly. Then, he or she goes to the computer and calculates the fees. Then, he or she comes back and informs you of the total cost: principal + fees. Then, you pay the whole amount in cash. After counting it, the clerk then puts the money away; locks it in a drawer. He or she gives you change if there is some coming. Then, he or she goes back to the computer and sends the money. Then, he or she gets you squared away with a receipt. The processing of the money transfer occurs before anything is done about a receipt. But, here we are expected to believe that Jack Ruby handed the clerk the completed request form, and Doyle Lane responded by creating and issuing a receipt. How could that happen? Nothing had been done yet, so why would he be issuing a receipt?
The only time that really mattered is the transaction time- the time the money was sent on its merry way. That's what started the clock ticking. How long would it now take until the money was available to the recipient? The time the receipt was issued didn't matter at all. Who really cares about that? The one you would want to get right is the former.
But, in this case, the receipt had an earlier time than the transaction order. So, what does it mean? Does it mean that the clerk delayed running the transaction form through the time register? That he waited until he wrote out the receipt by hand? And then he ran everything through, starting with the receipt?
Here's what one apologist wrote on McAdams' site:
The first link is the money order, the second is presumably the receipt
for said money order. It looks like the timestamp on each was created by
an automated stamper that operated just like an old factory punch-clock.
Asssume the money order was created first, time-stamped, and then the
receipt written out, and time stamped. Then the internal clock on the
stamp would have had more than enough time to roll over to the next minute
in the time it took to write out the receipt.
The problem with his analysis is that the receipt has an earlier time than the money order. So, how can we assume that the money order was created, time-stamped, and then the receipt written out?
There is only one time that mattered; the time of the transaction. That is the time the money was sent, the time it was entered into the Western Union system, however they did it in 1963.
I am looking at a Western Union receipt that I have where it states Time of Transaction. There is no time for when the receipt was issued, and again, who cares about that? You want to know when the money was sent. You can't convince me that after sending the money that Doyle Lane didn't time-stamp the order form immediately to show when it was sent.
Note that in his testimony, the WU clerk Doyle Lane was asked about the 11:17 time-stamp and what it meant, but it was never acknowledged that the hand-written receipt was time-stamped before that at 11:16. However, Lane must have been aware of it because he very cagily said that the money order isn't time-stamped until EVERYTHING is done, including writing and handing over the receipt.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, explain when and how that stamp is placed--placed upon that document?
Mr. LANE. This stamp was placed here when I handed Mr. Ruby back his receipt for his money and his change, because in our language that is the accepting a money order for transmission at that time.
But, that is ridiculous. The time the money order was sent was not when he handed Ruby a receipt. It was sent when he sent it, whether he faxed it, or however they did it back then. That's the time you would want to know, and that is the time you would go by. The time the receipt was issued was of no importance, and it had no significance.
When in your life have you received a receipt and someone made a big deal about the time the receipt was handed over? It's ridiculous.
The fact is that, in this case, the receipt got time-stamped before the money order itself, and that is NOT OK.
Note that there was also a carbon copy of the receipt which got time-stamped 11:17, which is a different time than the original.
Hmm. Let's do a comparison of the original and the carbon copy. The handwriting should be exactly the same, right?
In the lower right of each, look at the "L" in Lane, his signature. Are they the same? In the original it looks smoother and more fluid, whereas, in the copy it looks more jagged and interrupted.
Now, if you are going to blame this on the fact that it was copy paper, then why aren't there errors like this galore?
Do you want to know what I think? I think it's all fake. I think Ruby got his receipt at 10:15, or thereabouts. That's the time he cited to the Warren Commissioners- until he was corrected. And, I bet that's the receipt he had in his pocket at the time of his arrest, but they swapped it out for this one. And, when they made these phony documents, they just got sloppy in time-stamping the receipt before the money order.
There is NO WAY that Jack Ruby was in that Western Union office at 11:17. Because if he was, then indeed, he would have gotten to the DPD garage just in time for the Oswald shooting with which we are familiar, and the real Jack Ruby was not in the DPD garage for the Oswald shooting with which we are familiar. No way, no chance, no how. That was Bookhout.