Lee Harvey Oswald's Social Security No.

[Guest]

Nothing 'wrong' here.....

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

dont see the relevance. SS numbers are issued based on post office locations. two people filing same day from same PO would likely have consecutive or close #s. but if filed from different POs, might not be close....

[Ron Bulman]

Why was every other one on this page issued in 1954 but only LHO's issued in 1955?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

dont see the relevance. SS numbers are issued based on post office locations. two people filing same day from same PO would likely have consecutive or close #s. but if filed from different POs, might not be close....

Please educate me, as an EU citizen who has probably missed something then. How can someone in 1955 get a lower no. when someone else applied in 1954 can have a higher no. all inside the same state. I find the whole allocation a tad confusing.

THX

 

[Ron Bulman]

I guess there's a method to their madness but I don't understand it.  Just glancing at the sheet the concentration of birth dates seemed odd.  The great majority of them coming from the 1890's to early 1900's. Only one from the 1920's (1921) and one from the 1940's (1940).  But eight from the 1930's including Oswald, at age 16.  Why so many 50-60 year old's getting a number?  Approaching retirement age?  But if they didn't already have one, not already contributing to the system under it, could they draw anything?

A web search tells me they started issuing SS #'s in November 1935, 25 million in 3 months.

It may well all mean nothing but Oswald being the only one on the page getting his in 1955, with all the rest in 1954 seems odd.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[Guest]

This comes from the H.L. files and he got it from from Canadian researcher Peter Whitmey who did a lot of research on this.

 

So Larry Schnapf do you have anything to add?

[Joe Bauer]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I guess there's a method to their madness but I don't understand it.  Just glancing at the sheet the concentration of birth dates seemed odd.  The great majority of them coming from the 1890's to early 1900's. Only one from the 1920's (1921) and one from the 1940's (1940).  But eight from the 1930's including Oswald, at age 16.  Why so many 50-60 year old's getting a number?  Approaching retirement age?  But if they didn't already have one, not already contributing to the system under it, could they draw anything?

A web search tells me they started issuing SS #'s in November 1935, 25 million in 3 months.

It may well all mean nothing but Oswald being the only one on the page getting his in 1955, with all the rest in 1954 seems odd.

Yes Ron, it is odd to see " one" issue year date different than every other one on that entire list.

Guess it's just another oddity to add to the already huge stack of other's regards Oswald.

[Guest]

On 2/12/2019 at 9:19 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

dont see the relevance. SS numbers are issued based on post office locations. two people filing same day from same PO would likely have consecutive or close #s. but if filed from different POs, might not be close....

Still waiting for a reply Lawrence Schnapf.

Thank you.

[Bill Simpich]

This is important material.

Here is one hypothesis - these predominantly middle-aged men in Louisiana are being used wittingly or unwittingly in some kind of operation in 1954.

After this operation is set up in 1954, someone decides to set the 16-year old Lee Oswald right in the middle of it in 1955.

Next question:  Why?

[Tony Krome]

Marguerite Oswald stated that her son Lee "joined the Civil Air Patrol" at "age 15 1/2 or so"

Was this SS issued while he was involved with Ferrie etc?

[John Kozlowski]

On 2/11/2019 at 5:04 PM, Bart Kamp said:

Nothing 'wrong' here.....

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

 

Any clues as to who the other numbers belong to?

[Guest]

The following is from Kate Willard who contacted me and Malcolm with her findings.

She has issues with her email address and cannot become a member for some odd reason so she contacted us instead.

 

I've been looking at the Lee Harvey Oswald's Social Security No. post on the Ed. Forum and decided to find the identities of the holders to all the other social security numbers (SSNs) on the list.  The info that I found on the Geneology Bank search engine is in the attached Excel doc. I'll call this list the subset.

 

There's a bit more data on each name online, namely, day, month, year birthdate (as opposed to just the birth year)and City/County information and where there is no last known residence listed there is Last Address Where Last Benefit Paid information.  I haven't yet entered this info in the Excel doc but can do if it would be helpful.

 

I also went in search of information to decipher, as it were, SSNs. I had done this many years ago but decided to to do it again afresh.

 

Even though Oswald's SSN Year of Issue appears out of order in this subset that you posted, Bart, it may not be for any sinister or nefarious reason.

 

If you haven't already researched SSNs, each set of digits has a meaning in the xxx-xx-xxxx string.  The sets are:

 

1. the first three digits are the Area code
2. the next two digits are the Group code
3. the last four digits are the SSN serial number

 

AAA-GG-SSSS for short

 

Attached is also a short 2-page explanation of the meaning and bit of history of each of these sets of numbers found at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v45n11/v45n11p29.pdf

 

Basically, prior to SSNs being issued randomly (ie. prior to 25 June, 2011) a range of area codes was assigned to each state based on the expected number of registrations.  The group number  in the middle, though it appears as the year of issue in the subset posted, has no data significance and is instead used to group blocks of numbers issued to states.  Though SSNs can sometimes appear to conform to the year of issue such as in the subset, this phenomenon could simply be an artifact of the subset and not true of the entire data set from which the subset is pulled.

 

In the subset found by Malcolm, not all the sequential numbers are listed within that range (this would be the whole dataset from which this subset is taken.) By this I mean that they are only a selection from a much larger sequence so there are SSNs missing in the sequence -- the numbers between the numbers already on the list.  In the Excel doc I've attached, I entered the first and lowest number in the subset and generated every possible number to the last and largest number in the subset.  I've populated the subset with the names I found online.  I've sorted the doc so these names appear at the top in green with Oswald's in blue. (BTW: Oswald's SSN no longer appears in a search of the Master Death File in Geneology Bank which is the search engine I used. I searched for it on another engine and it appears to have been removed from the Master Death File on 25th March, 2014)  The remaining SSNs that I generated to help fill out the subset are in black.

 

Leaving the Excel doc aside for the moment.  I decided to select an SSN from a set I found on line. By doing a verification search on an online verifer using the number I selected at random I was able to find other SSNs whose group code did not necessarily match the Year of Issue. I grabbed a number at random from a list on https://www.ssn-records.org/ssnrecords/43952xxxx.html

 

Eg. I grabbed SSN 439-52-4159.  This number is for an Elmer R Odell.  I put that through the verification tool at https://www.ssnvalidator.com/results.aspx and got this result: 

 

 

DOWNLOAD THE SPREADSHEET HERE.

 

As you can see, the 439-52-4159 has "52" as the group number but the date of issue was 1954. So in this case it is clear that the "52" does not represent the Year of Issue. Incidentally, the area numbers that were assigned to Louisiana are between 433 and 439.

 

In the posted subset, not all the sequential numbers are listed (my numbers in black in the Excel doc). If all those numbers were to be examined other SSNs might be found that appear out of sequence with the Year of Issue like Oswald's. 

 

I wonder if we searched all of the missing numbers from which this subset is taken we might find other SSNs with the same issue as Oswald's SSN. Basically, you combine enough numbers enough times you will eventually find combos that match and combos that don't.

 

Then again, even though I've demonstrated that a SSN group number does not necessarily reflect Year of Issue, there could be an exception to the rule and there might well be a hidden reason for the Oswald number to appear this way while still satifying the  group number as having no data significance. That is the wonder of number!

 

Anyway, I just wanted to send this info in the event you find it helpful.

 

Cheers,

Kate

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Bart Kamp

[Guest]

An addendum from Kate:

Basically, what I'm saying is the sample in the document is too small to discover whether there is anything amiss with Oswald's SSN and going in search of random SSNs online yielded other numbers that also show the Group Number/Year of Issue "anomaly" (which according to the US Government's own explanation of the function of the two digit group code has no bearing on the Year of Issue.)

 

Do we know whether all the SSNs on the list were issued from the same office? If the group code is used to rollout SSN across an area perhaps Oswald's was issued from a different location within the Louisiana 433 area. That might explain why his particular number which falls between numbers issued earlier was actually issued later?

 

Here's a more in-depth explanation of the 2 digit group number.  Perhaps someone with a more mathematical and analytical mind can work out based on the explanation below why Oswald's "54" SSN was issued in 1955 in light of the fact that others before and after him, including all the numbers on the list in the document appear to be from an earlier grouping -- could it simply be a case that they were possibly issued from different a location or office from Oswald's? 

 

If I can find an online contact to ask about this, I will do so and I'll get back to you with any information I find.  In the meantime here's the extra group code info:

 

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

 

Within each area, the group number (middle two (2) digits) range from 01 to 99 but are not assigned in consecutive order. For administrative reasons, group numbers issued first consist of the ODD numbers from 01 through 09 and then EVEN numbers from 10 through 98, within each area number allocated to a State. After all numbers in group 98 of a particular area have been issued, the EVEN Groups 02 through 08 are used, followed by ODD Groups 11 through 99.

 

Group numbers are assigned as follows:

ODD - 01, 03, 05, 07, 09------EVEN - 10 to 98  EVEN - 02, 04, 06, 08------ODD - 11 to 99

 

Cheers,

Kate

[Cory Santos]

Interesting, I was looking at https://archive.org/stream/nsia-WarrenCommissionDocumentsHoch/nsia-WarrenCommissionDocumentsHoch/Warren Commission Docs 210_djvu.txt

I see they had tax withholding statements for 1955-56.

Perhaps this has something to do with the number issued in 1955?

Curious, what was c234, a piece of metal found in Dealey Plaza?

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Curious, what was c234, a piece of metal found in Dealey Plaza?

You mean C324

Specimen C324 is an aluminum alloy plug from the end of a piece of tubing. C324 appears to have been lying in a street

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59645&relPageId=139&search="C324"