The Stamp on the Military ID card

[Chris Newton]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Perhaps the affidavit had a cover letter.

If the affidavit was forged for the eyes of the State Department (for whatever reason), it seems that there must have been something accompanying it indicating it was an official document.

This case, on a whole, would be a lot easier if we could invent documents that we have no evidence ever existed. Lets try to stick with the actual evidence we have.

I have grave doubts about that "1st Sgt Stout" was part of Lt. Ayers unit.

In George Evica's book, "A certain Arrogance" he mentions that Lt. Ayers command was 10 men. A 1st Lt. commanding a unit of 10 Marines sounds, to my ear, a normal thing. This is the equivalent of an Army Platoon commanded by an Army Lt., not a Company size element which is normally commanded by a Captain. Does a Marine unit of ten soldiers normally have a Marine 1st Sgt. (E-8)? I think it does not. I would expect an E-6 or E7 to sign for Ayers not an E-8.

I have been trying to find this 1st Sgt. Stout without any luck. I did find Sgt Maj. James G. Law who was the SGt. Maj. of MCAS, El Toro from 1959-1961 and all the 1st Sgt.s in MCAS would have reported to him on a frequent basis and so, he would have been familiar with "1st Sgt. Stout". He retired from the Marine Corps after 30 years service in 1967 (went on to work for North American/Rockwell in the Apollo programs) but unfortunately he is now deceased.

still looking...

Edited September 5, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/3/2017 at 9:02 PM, Chris Newton said:

Do you think the County clerk meant that's what Oswald 'submitted" or that the word "SUBMITTED" in caps like that had something to do with the status of the ID card?

Chris,

I believe that the word "SUBMITTED" meant that the military ID had been submitted to to the issuer of the passport, the State Department.
 

Quote

When do we think Oswald got the ID? I think we agree that Oswald showed an ID with that number to the County Clerk on the 4th, no?

I don't believe Oswald had his Inactive Military ("dependent") ID card on the 4th. Because I don't believe the passport clerk would have accepted a post-dated identification. I believe instead that the ID information on the passport application was typed in the 11th.

Let me present a hypothesis that shows how this could have come about.

Hypothesis

The CIA wanted Oswald to get his passport right away so he could defect. For some reason they were in a rush.

There was some kind of problem with Oswald obtaining his civilian passport before he was released from the military and given the Inactive status. I don't know what the problem was, but I will throw out some possibilities:

• Maybe the ID of an Active serviceman wasn't accepted for a civilian passport.
• Maybe an Active serviceman wasn't allowed to get a civilian passport, but an Inactive serviceman was.
• Maybe if the ID provided by an Active serviceman was a military one, a Military Passport would be provided.
• Maybe an Active servicemen had to surrender his military passport in order to get a civilian passport.
• Maybe if a Active serviceman provided a military ID, the passport would bear a mark indicating that the bearer was Active military.
• etc, etc.

(In bold is my preferred guess, based on Chris's comment on these items.) In any event....

The CIA was in a hurry, and so they had the military create (or created themselves) the affidavit for Oswald to give to the passport clerk along with his Active military ID. Located on the other side of that affidavit, or on a separate cover letter (typed on official military letterhead), was a request for the clerk and State Department to allow Oswald to apply for the civilian passport, and make its delivery to Oswald contingent on his producing his Inactive  ID card.

Here's the wording of the affidavit:

4 Sept 1959                 

Separation Section, H&HS., MCAS., El Toro, Santa Ana, California

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that PFC (E-2) Lee Harvey OSWALD, 1653230, U.S. Marine Corps is scheduled to be released from Active Duty and Transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve (Inactive) on 11 September 1959.

                           [signed by P(?) Stout 1st Sgt]
                           A. G. Ayers, JR
                           1stLt.    USMCR

(There is no known cover page.)

So Oswald presented his Active Military ID and the affidavit to the passport clerk on the 4th, and applied for his civilian passport. The application, affidavit, and cover letter were sent to the State Department (a processing station in Los Angeles BTW). The passport was issued on the 10th and expedited mailed to the passport clerk. He received the passport on the 11th along with the a copy of the application, and a note stating that passport delivery to Oswald was contingent on his producing his Inactive Military ("dependent")  ID Card.

Oswald received his Inactive Military ID on the same day, the 11th. He presented this ID to the passport clerk. The clerk handed the passport to Oswald and typed the following on the application:

MCR/Inactive I. D. Card
#N4,271,617 SUBMITTED

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

58 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Perhaps the affidavit had a cover letter.

If the affidavit was forged for the eyes of the State Department (for whatever reason), it seems that there must have been something accompanying it indicating it was an official document.

This case, on a whole, would be a lot easier if we could invent documents that we have no evidence ever existed. Lets try to stick with the actual evidence we have.

 

If I can't hypothesize that there was an official military cover letter, I have no choice but to conclude the affidavit was one of the following

1. An informal note to someone.
2. A very, very poor forgery alleged to have been issued from "Separation Section, H&HS., MCAS., El Toro, Santa Ana, California."

And I can't believe it is #1 because it is "certifying" something. So it must #2.

Therefore, I conclude that the affidavit was either 1) a really poor forgery, or 2) authentic and accompanied by an official cover letter that we no longer have.

(I suppose a third possibility is that it was a forgery accompanied by an forged cover letter that we no longer have.)

 

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• Maybe the ID of an Active serviceman wasn't accepted for a civilian passport.
• Maybe an Active serviceman wasn't allowed to get a civilian passport, but an Inactive serviceman was.
• Maybe if the ID provided by an Active serviceman was a military one, a Military Passport would be provided.
• Maybe an Active servicemen had to surrender his military passport in order to get a civilian passport.
• Maybe if a Active serviceman provided a military ID, the passport would bear a mark indicating that the bearer was Active military.
• etc, etc.

 

Active Duty soldiers of my era didn't need passports. We had orders, an official document that directed a serviceman/woman to a certain location/unit by a certain date and we had our active duty ID card. An example: In 1983, I flew from Philadelphia, PA. to Frankfurt, Germany on a commercial flight, in uniform and when I arrived in Germany I was escorted straight to my transportation, I never went through customs and had no passport and needed no Visa.

speculation: I believe that active duty Servicemembers cannot apply for a US passport until after discharge. The rules may be different now but I think that's what they were then.

speculation: I think that the DoD ID and the affidavit were created at the same time so that Oswald could apply for the passport early enough to get it back in time for his trip.

Other things wrong, in my opinion, with the affidavit:

the date format in the upper right is completely wrong for a military document but the order is correct. It should look like a close variation of:  04 SEP 59

"MCAS" (and maybe one for Ayers, himself) stamps are used pretty liberally on the other ID cards issued but none were used on this document, but they were made in the same office?

nitpicky: I'm pretty sure that the unit designations, "H&HS" and "MCAS", indicated as the issuing authority do not get a period ".".  I've only seen a period in a unit designation when something is actually getting abbreviated like in "Co." for Company. Another words I might call "DELTA COMPANY 3/64 ARMOR", "D Co. 3/64 AR".  "MCAS." seems very wrong to me. Go find someone somewhere else on the internet that types "MCAS." where MCAS doesn't end a sentence.

 

 

[Chris Newton]

Does this report indicate that Lt. Ayers first day of commanding H&HS, MCAS was 9/11/59?

It seems like it's saying he may have gotten his commission on 9/11/59 and that doesn't sound right.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58964#relPageId=12&tab=page

LT Ayers statement to FBI: "I know nuthink"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58977#relPageId=105&tab=page

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

speculation: I think that the DoD ID and the affidavit were created at the same time so that Oswald could apply for the passport early enough to get it back in time for his trip.

So you think (speculating) that the DoD ID card and affidavit were both made on 9/4/59? If so, then the ID card was post-dated "9/11/59."  And the passport clerk would have been presented a post-dated ID, right?

Doesn't that give you pause? Or do you have an idea on how that could have worked out?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Does this report indicate that Lt. Ayers first day of commanding H&HS, MCAS was 9/11/59?

It seems like it's saying he may have gotten his commission on 9/11/59 and that doesn't sound right.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58964#relPageId=12&tab=page

LT Ayers statement to FBI: "I know nuthink"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58977#relPageId=105&tab=page

FWIW I use the phrase "as of" to mean on that particular date.

Nevertheless, I think Ayers himself answers your question in your second link. He had been the OIC of Separation Section for at least six months prior to November 21, 1959. So, since May 1959 at least.

 

[Chris Newton]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So you think (speculating) that the DoD ID card and affidavit were both made on 9/4/59? If so, then the ID card was post-dated "9/11/59."  And the passport clerk would have been presented a post-dated ID, right?

Doesn't that give you pause? Or do you have an idea on how that could have worked out?

I think so.

I don't think the US Passport Application gets returned from LA to the County Clerk. So the ID card must have been presented on the 4th and maybe the affidavit is proffered as an explanation of why the ID is postdated?

Oswald still has his Regular Marine Active Duty ID in his wallet, he could not return to base without it. How did he know that he could not get a passport showing that legitimate ID?

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

I don't think the US Passport Application gets returned from LA to the County Clerk. So the ID card must have been presented on the 4th and maybe the affidavit is proffered as an explanation of why the ID is postdated?

Hmmm.... I didn't consider that possibility because I didn't think the military would post date an ID card. But maybe they would with some persuasion from the CIA.

On the other hand, I think it is quite possible the military handed over a blank ID to the CIA for them to fill out. We have evidence for such a thing occurring, in Gary Powers' ID. It was issued to him as a CIA employee and notably the expiration date printed on it is not in strict military format (it shows a four digit year). Plus it has no lamination as would be required by the military. (Yes, I know you disagree with that.)

The CIA handling the ID and passport issue could also explain the non-military date on the affidavit.

With that in mind, I'm inclined to accept your idea. It's nice and tidy.

It's possible that there was no Lt. Stout and that the CIA signed the ID card and affidavit just because it was the easy way to get things done. It's possible that Oswald used the card only to get his passport, and then turned it in to his handler. Would he need it for any other purpose? His visiting a commissary could have blown his cover.

 

3 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Oswald still has his Regular Marine Active Duty ID in his wallet, he could not return to base without it.

How did he know that he could not get a passport showing that legitimate ID?

Oh, I think his handler was instructing him on what to do.

 

[Chris Newton]

I have been researching DOD Form 1173 and its application form 1172 today.

I may have some charts and instructions to post later that will severely cast doubt on the Oswald 1173 as far as how it's filled out.

 

In the meantime, a former servicemember posted this years ago in another forum and it confirms my feelings about a restricted & numbered ID card:

Quote

There is no way Oswald could have grabbed a few blank DD1173 cards!  If he
had tried he would have had one less hand.  There are usually two people
who have access to these cards, there are numbered, counted each time they
are removed from the safe, listed on a separate form by number when
issued, balanced by number and name of receiver and person issuing the
card each day.  Two people have to sign when a card is issued.  If a card
is missing at the end of the day, bells and whistles go off, and there is
an investigation.  The missing numbers are voided and all the places where
they could be used are issued a list of missing card numbers to watch for.
Any personnel involved in stealing or helping to steal these forms would
get caught and spend a lot of time in a federal lockup.  It would not be
worth taking that chance.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I hope so Chris.  This is getting maddening.

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I hope so Chris.  This is getting maddening.

Jim,

I think Sandy and I, Mary La Fontaine, Jack White, Harold Weisberg, Sue McDonough of the National Archives and Dept of Defense Historian Daniel Vetock all agree that Oswald was never issued that card by the Marine Corps. That the FBI essentially withheld it's existence from the WC and didn't produce the card for the Nat. Archives until 1966, ( in the damaged format we see today),  is probably an indication that they didn't know where it came from. If the FBI did have a "clue" they weren't going to go down that road either.

I think an unknown third party supplied the card to Oswald. In it's "original" format it probably had a different photo of Oswald and probably did not have the fake postage stamps.

I think the card and affidavit sole purpose was to provide identification  for the passport application that Oswald made on Friday, Sep 4, 1959. The card and affidavit only needed to be "good enough" to fool the County Clerk, and that tasks seems to have been successful.

In its un-laminated form it would never have been regarded as "valid" by Military Authorities.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Tom Hume]

I think you all have done a first-class job of digging up and analyzing the available information, and your conclusions, many of them, appear to fit the information.

Opinion: From my point of view, however, you might be ignoring an important possibility. The possibility that Lee Oswald was under cover, and working with a small team of other undercover spies - Angels that were pretending to work with the assassination team, but in reality were trying to thwart the attempt. The possibility that for roughly six years Richard Nagell was running Oswald and his doppelganger in a secret Intelligence program. And as a sideline for his own protection, and the protection of his crew, Nagell did something he was naturally good it, he built clever letter puzzles into all of his activities and the activities of his two Oswalds, and he created baffling enigmas surrounding Oswald’s patsy bona fides ordered by Nagell’s bad-guy superiors. 

Nagell was too close to Oswald and the other team members, and he needed to take himself out, which he did, leaving his crew to finish the job he’d planned. His plan failed.

I think that as an Army Intel person, and then an undercover CIA type, Nagell had access to all the forms and technology he needed to pull his stunts, and I think the DD Form 1173 is just one of many seemingly baffling stunts that have been both interesting and baffling us for over 50 years. 

In my opinion, Nagell wanted Oswald to go to trial. Properly informed, a team of experts for the defense could have easily  analyzed Nagell work and testified to the years he skillfully dedicated to telling the unfolding saga of the two Oswalds. 

I think that if there was one assassination expert that was also as good at solving letter puzzles as Nagell was at creating them, you all might be convinced. While I think I might know the basics, unfortunately I'm not that person - I’m just trying to attract him or her. 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Tom Hume

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Tom Hume said:

From my point of view, however, you might be ignoring an important possibility. The possibility that Lee Oswald was under cover, and working with a small team of other undercover spies - Angels that were pretending to work with the assassination team, but in reality were trying to thwart the attempt.

Hey Tom,

Thanks for the encouragement and jumping in with a theory.

I'm not trying to speak for everyone participating but I think Sandy and I are leaning toward an intelligence "connection" here between Oswald and whomever is facilitating his attempts to get a passport. I don't know yet about a "team" but at least one person with access to these restricted ID's and a means to "mock" up a forgery. As far as the timing goes, this early "operation" probably is not part of an assassination attempt. JFK was merely a candidate for the election and just started debating Nixon in September 1959. I don't even think he was polling ahead at this time.

We haven't yet fully explored how this ID re-appeared later in his "Tippet" wallet. We're trying to figure out how it came "to be" on 04 SEP 59.

[James DiEugenio]

We have gone way beyond where  the LaFontaines and Doug Horne did.

And much further than where I was at when this started.