Ron Ege

Jim, thanks. I'm aware of everything you say in your post. Including, Sandy's work, the link and H & L, in its entirety. I respect all the hard work you've done over the years.

Sandy, thanks. I hope you don't think I'm debating whether or not Oswald was a CIA operative. I've been on that page for decades. I only sought to clarify - if there was something entirely new. I am a huge fan of your work!

Paul and Sandy, thank you. Paul - for all the additional Oswald's discharge paperwork and sundry information. Sandy - for your comments about Oswald and Powers being employees of the CIA. Powers - I was aware, and, therefore, yes, it follows he would've been issued the DD Form 1173. Point taken. Oswald - By your statement, I gather evidence has arisen that confirms, beyond all doubt, that he was a CIA employee. I've always believed that everything, for just about forever now, points to him being an ONI and/or CIA low level operative. Anyway, if I am following you correctly, you are saying that Oswald's DD Form 1173 "DOD ID Card" (for which there may have been a "handshake agreement" between the DOD and CIA allowing the agency to issue one to any of its employees), dated 09/11/59, the same date as all of Oswald's discharge paperwork, and prepared/signed by the same person (A. G. Ayres, 1st Lt, USMC) was issued to Oswald that day because he already WAS or was ABOUT TO BECOME imminently, a bona fide CIA employee and would need the DD Form 1173 for personal identification, facilities access, etc. As much as Oswald's entire history of behavior/actions in the military and after bespeaks of "being undercover", as well as the CIA always denying that he was one of theirs - well, as the late FSU Head Football Coach, Bobby Bowden would've said, "I'm bumfuzzled." Nothing new, for me.

Jim, thank you for the refresher. I do have a question, in your provided link, near the end, there is this: " . . . On September 11 HARVEY Oswald was given a Department of Defense photo ID card. . ." As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, if for nothing more that the "OF SPONSOR" being amateurishly blacked out on block 10, I believe that the card is problematic. Are you able to further refresh my memory and share the hypothesis as to who/what entity may have made up the card and also as stated in the link - the reason - that it "was given" to Oswald? I find it interesting that the 09/11/1958 date on the card is the same as the date on Oswald's Discharge Certificate, signed by the same USMC officer. Also, the expiration date, 12/07/1962, coincidentally, well covers that year for Oswald's eventual return from Russia, on 06/01/1962.

Paul, thanks. The DD 217 Form 217 MC is Oswald's discharge certificate. Whilst on active duty, he should've been issued a DD Form 2 MC ID card, surrendered to the USMC upon his active-duty discharge. If Oswald then, indeed, entered Inactive Reserve status, one would think the USMC would've issued him a DD Form 2 MCR. For me, the DD Form 1173, purported to be "Oswald's military ID card" is problematic. That form is issued by the DOD to military dependents, civilian employees, contractors, and other authorized persons for the purpose of identification, facilities admission, benefits eligibility, and so on. Oswald was none of these. Also, as noted above Oswald's DD Form 1173 was "monkeyed with", as indicated by the blacking out of the "OF SPONSOR" in the lower left corner of the front of the card and the insertion of "MCR INACT", i. e., Marine Corps Reserve Inactive. It would be interesting if someone here could share with us if the service number on the card IS actually Oswald's USMC service number. Typically, in that era, the service number would have a prefix. In the USAF it was "AF"; in the USA, I believe, it was "US". If memory serves, it seems that it was long ago determined that the DD Form 1173, "Oswald's military ID card", as noted at the beginning of this thread, was a forgery - by Oswald and/or person(s) unknown for whatever the reason was at that time. And yes, A. G. Ayres, 1st Lt, USMC, signing both the DD Form 217 and the "Oswald's military ID card is quite a stretch of the believability continuum. Don't have the USMC regs/manuals in front of me, but yes, it is difficult to believe that when Oswald's discharge was changed from honorable to undesirable, that he would've been allowed to continue his USMC Inactive Reserve status, along with his ID card, identifying him as such. So, in the end, if all of this is just "old ground recovered" for everyone here, apology herewith.

Re post directly above: Note that the lower left hand corner block of the military dependent ID card below, reads: "SERVICE AND STATUS OF SPONSOR", i. e., the military member who is "sponsoring" the dependent. In this case, the "USA AD", indicates that the military member sponsor of the dependent is Active Duty, United States Army. The "Oswald's military ID card" image below is the same DD Form, but the lower left had block on it has the "OF SPONSOR" portion blacked out. I believe that the "SERVICE NUMBER OF SPONSOR" most probably would've had a prefix before it. The USAF used "AF", and we see the USA, used "US". My take is that the card is an unprofessional forgery. Era appropriate military dependent ID card: http://munozfamily.homestead.com/ID_Card.GIF And "Oswald's military ID card":

Gil, thanks. I'm probably way off base and going from memory, so apology herewith. Here goes. Re "Oswald's military ID card", directly above. Long ago, I thought that there was a discussion that that type of ID card (have not been able to establish the actual DD Form number of it) was traditionally used to identify military service dependents. In particular, I can vouch for that, as I was in the USAF, from 1961-1990 and was married. My spouse, as well as all dependents (even as a minor, over a certain age) were issued that type of card. Further, still from memory, I thought there was also a discussion that established that that same type of ID card was also issued to civilians in the DOD's employ. After his alleged defection to the USSR, Oswald's discharge was changed from honorable to undesirable. Thus, subsequently, he could not have been in the USMC inactive reserves. How could he be classified as "Reserve/Inactive" on any USG, DOD, or Military Service ID card? Here is an image of a USMC inactive reserve ID (DD Form 2MCR) card from that era. The USMC Active Duty Card (DD Form 2MC) from that era looks the same, other than color reading "ACTIVE", where the DD Form 2MCR reads "RESERVE (INACTIVE)". Bottom line, I cannot fathom how the "Oswald's military ID card" can be legitimately classified as such. I served in Okinawa in '62-'63 as a Morse Intercept Operator and each year, there was a tri-service (USMC, USA, and USAF) "contest" - to establish who was the best, as we called ourselves, "ditty-bopper". I can assure you that an active duty Marine's military ID card in that era was the DD Form 2MC, as directly above, and he been honorably discharged, he would've been issued the DD Form 2MCR - and not the the DOD Card, "N 4, 271, 617". I also so not think that the photo on the fake SS card or the photo on the DOD card is "military", per se. Oswald's photo on his DD Form 2MC would've pictured a 17 years old youngster with a "buzz cut". The picture would be similar to this: Considering Oswald's brief length of service, he probably would've retained his original ID card, until he was discharged. My ID card with the "buzz cut" pic was not updated, with a new picture (with longer hair) - until I four years after I enlisted - when I reenlisted. The DOD ID card picture, if Oswald, shows an older man, with a full head of hair.

Sandy, Re this above: "As for the surveillance photos.... the CIA used them to implicate KGB accomplices to the Fake Conspiracy. For example, this one." To my 80-year-old eyes, the profile photo under the verbiage above looks suspiciously just like Louie Steven Witt, The Umbrella Man. https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=louie+steven+witt+-+photographs&fr=yfp-t-s&im If so, I'd think that would be a pretty good "find".

Joe, thanks. "Assuming", would be the word. Taking away LHO shooting at Walker, IMO, leads to him not shooting JFK and then Tippit. Just Gil Jesus' fine work (see below), I believe, would have exonerated Oswald for the Walker shooting. There have been reams written with regard to the improbability of the government's official story. Most are aware of the almost surreal "party line" story of Lee taking his rifle on the bus, burying it/picking it up later, etc. I've come to think that the Walker "incident" was simply integral to the building of "the legend", for Lee. Gil, thank you. Was Lee Harvey Oswald Really Guilty ? (gil-jesus.com) Also, a fairly good summary here - outlining, IMO, much reasonable doubt that Oswald was involved. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Shoot at General Edwin Walker? : The JFK Assassination (22november1963.org.uk)

Ben, thanks. Or maybe? Gun Shot Residue Evidence - Not Always A Smoking Gun! (ohiocrimelaw.com) From the article: " . . .Studies in major metropolitan areas around the country have determined that there are an alarmingly high number of GSR particles on handcuffs, the back seats of police cars, holding cells, interrogation tables and chairs, as well as on police officers themselves. See BALTIMORE SUN TIMES SPECIAL REPORT , STEPHANIE HANES, EVIDENCE UNDER SUSPICION , Jan. 23, 2005 (noting Baltimore testing of police departments revealed GSR in interview rooms, on tables, on chairs, and in the air and also that an internal Los Angeles Police Department test found that police cruisers were contaminated by GSR and that the particles transferred onto people who hadn’t fired anything); Berk et al, GUNSHOT RESIDUE IN CHICAGO POLICE VEHICLES AND FACILITIES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY (2007), 52 J. Forensic Sci. 838); Thompson & Nethercott, “Forensics”, The Champion(June 2005), at 50; FBI Symposium (Report of Dr. Jon Nordby). These studies determined that defendants may easily be contaminated with GSR residue when held in police custody prior to testing. . . ." Probably old news to the more enlightened here, but "new news" for me.

Ron/anyone - any validity to the following? Gordon Arnold JFK Kennedy Assassination new grassy knoll enhanced photo: The Grand Subversion ignoring the "enhanced photographs", there are these: Verification of Gordon Arnold's presence on the grassy knoll comes from Senator Ralph Yarborough who was riding with Vice-president Johnson and Mrs. Johnso (two cars behind the Presidents car) "My eye was tracked to the right and I saw a man just jump about ten feet like an old time tackle in football and land against the wall." (* The same Ralph Yarborough, by the way, that thought he smelled gunpowder near the grassy knoll, And yelled, "My God They've shot the President.") Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Yarborough did also say something like, " . . .I did see somebody hit the ground in military style, that man must have been in the military. . . " And also, from the link: "Senator Yarborough has said, the man he saw jump "LANDED AGAINST THE WALL" he was not talking about the Newman's, he knows what he’s talking about." Worthy of note, there is included the well-known photo of Newman - "He is covering his young son on the grass near the street."

Ron, thanks. It has been a long, long time - but didn't some official in the motorcade (Ralph Yarborough?) - report seeing a guy on the grassy knoll (and I am paraphrasing as best as I can) say, " . . . there was a guy on the knoll, and when the shots occurred, I saw him hit the ground, and I thought he might be a combat veteran . . . " Or was the individual he saw, maybe Bill Newman? I don't remember if "the guy" was uniformed.

Gerry, thanks. I do see you point, but I see Gene's, also. And thanks to Steve for his superb essay on the subject. Assume some of these off-duty SS agents were, indeed, not part of presidential security. It does seem odd that they would arbitrarily and independently determine that the other law enforcement agencies "had everything in hand" and then summarily leave the area, and not offer their ID and simultaneously, their assistance. Even if were to have only been as mundane as interviewing and recording the name, address, and telephone number of those who were still milling around Dealy Plaza after the shooting. Surely, there were civilians who left the area before other agencies could get to all of them. Seems any help, in that regard, would be better than no help. I find it suspicious that there is no official record of a list of names of SS agents, other than that of presidential security, assigned to the Dallas area. Also, it seems odd that there is no record, anywhere, of at least one of these off-duty agents bothering to submit some sort of an "after action" report to their immediate boss, stating that they rushed to Dealy Plaza and offered help, but were turned away. Such a report would've been basically saying, "Hey boss, even though it wasn't part of my job, just wanted to let you know that I did my best to aid our colleagues". I rather believe that any SS agent, regardless of job title, would want to willingly insert himself into that day's picture, if not out of a sense of duty/dedication, then for nothing more than some subtle self-aggrandizement, illustrating his initiative and dedication to "all things SS", for its possible inclusion in his upcoming annual performance report, which is paramount for promotions/assignments. And I would think there might have also been some sort of correspondence from the "Chief of the Dallas SS Counterfeit Division" to Chief Sorrels, saying, "Just so you know Forrest, my boys were on it", if nothing more than for FYI/FYE and interdivisional relationship building. Imposter SS agents with forged credentials (heretofore much discussed and not without merit) certainly is more than a distinct possibility. What better way to delay/divert/fend off authorities in pursuit of suspicious persons? Steve opines that the library and back of the TSBD "agents" were imposters - most likely, I would guess, to deflect the investigation so as to enhance the ultimate success of the conspiracy. Steve, has it ever been determined what the exact number of "agents" were at those two locations? If they were imposters, more than two each would seem to have been a bit of a hindrance to maintaining secrecy. Legitimate agents? More than frightening.

Gerry, thanks. I would gather. But who knows?

Excerpted from: FAKE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS (whokilledjfk.net). Thank you, Michael T. Griffith. " . . . Explained Officer Smith: He looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic's hands. And afterwards it didn't ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn't snap on it. (Summers 50) Former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry stated in 1977 that the man encountered by Officer Smith "must have been bogus." Said Curry, "I think he must have been bogus--certainly the suspicion would point to the man as being involved, some way or other, in the shooting since he was in an area immediately adjacent to where the shots were--and the fact that he had a badge that purported him to be Secret Service would make it seem all the more suspicious." (Summers 51) . . ." And: " . . .Often overlooked in discussions on phony SS agents in Dealey Plaza is the disturbing account of Sergeant D. V. Harkness, (Posner, for example, does not even mention it.). Sergeant Harkness went to the REAR of the Texas School Book Depository Building within a few minutes of the assassination. When he arrived there, he encountered several "well-armed" men dressed in suits. These "well-armed" men TOLD Harkness they were SS agents (Hurt 110-111). It's not hard to understand why the presence of the armed, well-dressed men at the rear of the Book Depository did not make Harkness suspicious. Police officers were beginning to seal off the area, and just six minutes after the shooting Harkness himself identified the Depository over the radio as a possible source of gunfire. The problem, of course, is that the men encountered by Harkness could not have been legitimate SS agents, nor is it credible to suggest that Harkness somehow "misunderstood" what they said to him. . . ."

Cliff, exactly. Maybe, in order to go off topic so as to distract/muddy the waters, and/or fill up empty space on the threads, or ? You name it. After decades, it does seem akin to a "fool's errand" - just my two cents.

Gil, remarkable! You accomplished in one post what GP's book did not - "Case Closed", i. e., a conspiracy.

Jim, thanks. And we have this. Did Ozzie just go, out of the blue, to some compendium of overseas' colleges, becoming enthralled with attending ASC? https://www.theotheroswald.com/post/the-mystery-of-albert-schweitze

Jeremy, thanks. What you've written is certainly legitimate. I would buy Oswald biding time in the TT until a shoe shopping/reuniting with his family rendezvous - but only if, as some have theorized, that the gun "taken" from him by the police in the TT was not his and was, in fact, a police plant. On the other hand, if the gun was really Oswald's and unless he was always in the habit of after work each day - going home and picking up HIS pistol before going out in public, that day in particular to the picture show, then not quite so much. IOW, assuming the gun did belong to Oswald and if not "carrying" was Oswald's typical M. O., what was so different about that day that he believed he needed to? Others may not find it a bit puzzling; I know!

Tom, thanks. I knew I read it somewhere. Jonathan, thanks. Agree, at least as far as I know. I don't know a lot of guys who look forward to a shopping trip with their wife and her friend. LOL. So, where does that leave us, given Greg Parker's WAS THERE A WEDDING RING" on the K & K website (thanks, Jim D. for the link)? Oswald ever owning/wearing a wedding ring, seems much in question by the author. And the wallet being "left" on the dresser is also addressed. If Oswald did not really, purposely leave both at Ruth's that morning because he thought he'd not be returning to his family, do you think that gives any credence to his somewhat suspicious (unusual) actions, almost immediately subsequent to the assassination? IOW, is there room for discussion about him doing what he did because he did in fact realize that he had been duped badly and would be implicated, and therefore, as has been theorized, went to the TT to meet a contact?

Paul, thanks. Exactly. Paying or not paying - if Oswald did indeed sit right next to Jack Davis, who seems very credible), that in itself is very odd. Then Davis noticed Lee "moving around in the theatre", plus the report (from whom?) that Lee then sat next to at least one other person, a pregnant woman at that - which is really much more than odd. If all factual, Oswald's behavior bespeaks of a guy very focused on identifying a particular patron because he believed that he, Lee, believed that he was in some sort of "trick", and it was fairly imperative to him to locate that "contact" for help. Would anyone here be interested in opining, assuming the above, if Oswald had the opportunity to make a phone call before leaving the TSBD? Or was it more likely that the "meet" was a contingency that was prearranged?

Jeremy, interesting. Could you please expand on your line of thought - re your last paragraph? Thanks.

Jim, thank you for the confirmation, relating exactly why Lee left the money; I do recall, now. Relative to the ring, I always thought that was odd. I'll read Greg Parker's piece.

Joathan, I may have been misspoken/misremembered? What I meant to convey was that I thought that someone in one of the threads had surface the idea that Oswald may have been biding time in the TT, until he was to meet Ruth and Marina, somewhere. I hope I did not imply that was any kind of a theory by me, let alone a truism Relative to the money left, didn't the WR also mention Oswald's wallet as being left on the dresser, too? If so, then we get into "how many wallets did he own" discussion. Arrgh! I will admit that for me, if what we've read about the number of 'em is factual, even if he had just one additional, that seems a little suspicious, in and of itself. No Sherlock am I, but if Lee left just the $170/$180 cash, that would be understandable to me - for family support. Ostensibly, he still had enough money that day for a coke, bus/cab ride, and popcorn (if we believe that part of the TT visit). And maybe also, he saved a few bucks for himself for incidentals? He did not necessarily have to be dead broke. Admittedly, I don't remember how much money was found on his person after his arrest. If Oswald left the wallet too (much discussion about that, for sure), maybe he simply forgot it? I've forgotten mine, many times. I don't believe that it's totally out of the question. The wedding ring left. Good question. Over the years, I removed mine many, many times for various reasons - swollen finger from an in home/at work injury, undertaking a task where it would be dangerous to wear one, especially if I had been made aware the previous day of certain work tasks the next day, and then forgetting to put it back on, etc. More than once I removed my ring to clean it, got distracted, didn't, forgot, and left home that day - or even after the next day for work, without it. "Stuff happens" category, I guess. There were rumors that Marina and Lee were not getting along. Did they have a tiff, and he was making a point? Dunno. Theorizing was not the intent of the post - more like supposition, reviewing the "this happened that day/no it didn't" reports/evidence and the therefore, still apparent confusion as to what was really taking place on 11/22/63, causing Ozzie to take the actions/make the trip he did. IOW, thinking out loud that there's a lot of "stuff" out there that's been waded through over almost 60 years, leaving us with so many unanswered questions - leaving in their wake, hypotheses, theories, suppositions, ruminations, etc. - along with now decided facts, IMO, those due to a lot of hard work, by many here. I do not have a theory. I attempt to read and learn from others more learned here than am I (including you), asking questions and surfacing suppositions for comments, hoping to learn more. Relative to your question - I cannot know for sure, of course. Maybe all the stars aligned negatively that day for Lee, and regardless of what we know/think we know and/or has been reported/put in evidence - that Oswald was actually just an innocent, unsuspecting "Joe Blow" (no military intel/CIA/FBi affiliations) going to work that day, as usual, no nefarious deeds in mind - or at the other extreme, he really was the "Lone Nut Assassin" that some believe him to have been. It seems that most here believe him to have fallen somewhere in between, I'm gathering. I'm inclined to agree. Of course, I'm obviously just guessing, but again, I've come to believe that very shortly after the assassination, Ozzie came to realize that there would be some sort of previously unanticipated trouble for him, soon ahead - the amelioration/obviation of which - was not completely in his hands.

A point was made earlier that perhaps Oswald went to the theatre, killing a little time if I remember, before meeting Marina and Ruth to accompany them on a shopping trip. So, one would posit that the rendezvous has been prearranged the evening before, right? Did not Lee leave that morning before anyone else was awake? I guess Marina and he could've quickly discussed it that morning. If so, arriving at the theatre at one to one-thirty for a double feature, he probably would've finished watching the flicks around his usual TSBD quitting time, which would coincide with a late afternoon shopping trip with the ladies. But it that was the case, why did Oswald determine it important to take his "Pistola" with him? Expecting trouble during the shopping trip? Of course, then we get into - whether or not the gun was his or was it planted? We have the second-floor encounter/no encounter, outside the TSBD/inside during the shooting, the "Rambler Man"/or not, the bus/no bus, the cab ride and dropped off "here or there", the DPD cruiser "toot/no toot", standing on the corner/or not, walking east/walking west when stopped, witnesses reporting look alike/not look alike shooter and/or more than one, the mysterious, discarded jacket subsequent to the Tippit shooting, Oswald's wallet found/not found at the scene, arriving at the TSBD very shortly after one (didn't shoot Tippit)/arriving later (was the shooter), theater ticket/no ticket, popcorn/no popcorn, sitting right next to others and then moving on/or not, his gun/not his gun. Seemingly, it goes on and on, and I am sure I'm missing some. The shells, the bus transfer or not . . . . Oswald's overall behavior/actions, almost immediately following the assassination, until the moment that he was arrested, appears, upon review. anomalous, at best. The question is why. IMO, the answer is that Lee realized he didn't know what he didn't know and was trying to determine exactly what that was - whether or not he was there at the TT to meet someone (handler?) or he just reasoned that it was a convenient quiet, dark place to ruminate, collecting his thoughts before making his next move. Matthew, you make a great point, which I believe, is key. Prior to Oswald's arrest, other "actors" were "pulling strings" - which were invisible - and still, to the greatest extent, still are. Once Ozzie was in custody, the already established phony "evidence" would be surfaced by the "players", along with more of the same, conveniently supplied by the DPD, FBI, and the CIA, just to name three. Thank you.