The "OSWALD $13 GIFT"

[Tom Hume]

Hi Ian,

I haven't been able to see the Joe you mentioned yet, but I've got to say that I havent been looking forward to attempting explanations about what I think I see. I don't think I'd be exaggerating if I said I've spent thousands of hours looking at the label. I've also spent considerable time looking at similar photos, trying to get a good feel for what is photographic artifact, and what might actually be there.

I just realized that I neglected to point out the extra letters in the For that spell out F Fiorini, and I'll do that at the bottom of this post. Although I haven't been able to find the "G", "F A Sturgis" is pretty much all spelled out in the "St" at the end of the second line. I'll give you my take on that at the bottom too.

As far as faces go on this pixel-poor JPEG, it's bound to be very subjective, isn't it? Among the few people I've shown the faces I think I've found, some see them and some don't, and it might be argued that some people are good at seeing faces in clouds and some aren't.

It's for this reason that I've never posted any of what I thought were faces on the label. My goal was not to prove the faces were there, necessarily, but to know where they were, because they have everything to do with navigating the puzzle board - the label. If you get to a letter that's not in the name or word anagram you're trying to confirm, you're stuck unless you can get around it in some way, and if a letter has a face in it, you can jump over it.

I can't explain to you how I think I know these things, except to say that there are obviously rules, and he wants us to find a solution that's not bogus. If one knew nothing about the game of chess and had no rulebook, I'd bet that one could eventually learn how the chess pieces moved and what the rules must be by watching people play the game.

Black and white darkroom photography was a hobby of mine when I was Oswalds age, and Im certainly no expert, but I think that when I was 24, I might have been able to construct something like this if given enough time. Not the puzzle itself, it's a work of genius in my opinion, but the physical characteristics of the label.

Not that Oswald did it this way, but I'd start with, say, a 6 inch by 24 inch label mock-up and write in the label-letters to my puzzle. Then I'd write in my imbedded letters. Next I'd take all the cartoons and small pieces of photographs I'd been making, and carefully past them to the mock-up. Then, I'd make the whole thing look dirty and distressed, so my cartoons, pictures, in-between letters, and instruction marks, didnt appear obvious. I'd photograph the final mockup, make a negative of the proper label dimensions, and make a contact print. Then I'd carefully write over the label lettering so it would stand out, and finally I'd write over portions of my obvious lettering with special spy-craft ink, creating a whole batch of new letters that identified the bandits.

With the veritable pharmacy and photo equipment Oswald had at his apartment, some of it falling down the memory hole no doubt, he probably had the equipment, ability, and inclination, to do something along the lines of what I just suggested. But the package being Oswalds creation is just an opinion of mine, and not an argument I can make, or want to make, in this thread.

Let's try an experiment Ian. Im having trouble right now with Photobucket and can't seem to add new pictures, but here's an old one I made for a different purpose. Lets see if you see what I see.

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y520/TomHume440/ThreeFaces_zpscf7f3bb5.jpg

You might need to stand back from your screen, I usually do.

Inside the "a" in the upper right hand corner, I see a man's face. He may have a white mustache, and theres something wrong with his right eye. Dead center at the top (in the right portion of the "w"), I see the face of a chimp or something with big ears and maybe wearing shades. His right eye is obscured by the center of the "w". At the top of the "N" is a mans face. His mouth is open, and there's something wrong with his right eye. His body extends down behind the "N", and his legs are dangling between the "N" and the "a". He looks like the little cartoon man that's dancing to me.

Almost without exception, all the pictures of people and animals on the label have something wrong with their right eye. I have a theory about this, and it has nothing to do with James Files - him personally I mean.

Here's my canditate for Clay Shaw again.

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y520/TomHume440/Shaw3_zpsf2423301.jpg

There appears to be a large "C" over his right eye that has a horizontal handle headed off to the right. This same Crescent Wrench shape happens in other places on the label and could be a symbol for Shaw.

I'm just using the iPhoto on my Mac, nothing special, but the pictures I make of label detail don't do justice. I find I need to manipulate the levels, brightness, contrast, and exposure controls, and many details don't show all at once, I need to tweak back and forth sometimes.

There are two separate photo versions of the label. One is from the package itself, and one is a close-up. As far as I know, they both came from Fred Newcomb's dealings with the Archives. The two photos are quite different, apparently because of different lighting conditions, film, camera, shutter speed, etc.

There is almost no detail in the Baylor package photo and I don't use it for much, except to look at Irving Texas, which doesn't show up on Murr's label photo.

Baylor Package Photo go to page #4

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/25951/rec/3

Murr's label photo:

http://www.jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/murr.htm

"F FIORINI" in the word "For" at the front of the label.

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y520/TomHume440/nassaus_zpsd4b8f0a7.jpg

The "F", "o", and "r" are a given. There is a dark "F" on it's back at the bottom of the printed "F", and just above that, there is a black lower-case dotted "i" on the vertical shaft of the printed "F". Identical with that, is a dotted "i" on the "o", and a dotted "i" on the "r". Darken up the "o" a little bit, and the bottom disappears, turning it into an "n".

"F Fiorini".

When you darken up the "o", it also turns the printed capital "F" into a big fancy capital "I". I think theres a meaning for this, but it's pure speculation at this point.

Most all of the name "F A Sturgis" can be found on the "St" at the end of the address line. The "S" has a break at the top, and we're supposed to use the bottom portion as a "U", and the upper portion as an "i" the "i" is dotted. On the right side of the "S" in "St" there appears to be a man wearing a shirt with the number "5" on it. "5" decodes to "F". There's a horizontal "A" across the vertical stem of the "t" in "St". Just to the left of the "S" in "St" is another "s", and it's tail goes up at about a 45 degree angle, and at the end of that tail, is a capital S, and a capital R. These are small, very nicely made, shaded block letters, they almost look commercial. It's worthwhile finding these little letters. If one is unconvinced this is a puzzle, one needs to explane things like this.

Anyway, if I knew where the "G" was, I could in good conscience make "F A Sturgis", but I think I'm safe in assuming that that's what was intended.

While were in the area, we can look something else. I mentioned the break in the "S" in "St" that allowed us the make a "U" and an "i" in Sturgis. There's another example of intentional breaks in letters, and I want you to look at the last a in "Nassaus". There's a slanted break at the bottom of the "a", almost as if it had been erased. A similar break in line occurs about a quarter of an inch to the right of the first break. This creates an intentional "u", and considering it as such for a moment, we've taken away part of the "a" which turns it into a "c". Working forward from the "cu", then, the next letters are "es", giving us "cues". The next letter "S" in "St" has a person inside of it, so the rules allow us to jump over the "S" and land on the "t" which also contains that capital "A" lying horizontally across the vertical stem.

Noticing that Oswald had modified the "a" and "u" in "Nassaus", and following Oswald's rules, allowed to find and make the name, "Cuesta", and since Dallas is crossed out, the next letter we encounter is the "T" in "Texas".

"T. Cuesta".

Tom

Edited May 12, 2013 by Tom Hume

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tom

Measure me for a strait jacket too I see at least four faces

The large one on the lower right is the largest and it appears symmetrical.

I will try iPhoto on my mac!.

Ian

P.s. inside the a ...Dulles?.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Ian Kingsbury

[Thomas Graves]

Tom

Measure me for a strait jacket too I see at least four faces

The large one on the lower right is the largest and it appears symmetrical.

I will try iPhoto on my mac!.

Ian

P.s. inside the a ...Dulles?.

OK, Ian. What size do you wear?

LOL

--Tommy

PS-- I take an extra large. But then again I did see a huge number "601" in the clouds today right next to the spittin' images of Bebe Rebozo and Jim Di Eugenio! I mean, you know, I swear!

BTW, I wonder how Oswald put such small photographic images on that label? Hey! Maybe it had something to do with when he worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. You know, from 10/12/62 thru 4/6/63?

It's amazing that Oswald knew what was going down that far in advance! Or do you think maybe he did it later in his boarding house room? Hey! How about in Ruth Paine's bathroom or at the YMCA?

Edited May 14, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tommy

Did you look?.

Ian

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tommy

Blow this up............

Ian

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy

Blow this up............

Ianimage.jpgimage.jp

Ian,

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

It's Teddy Roosevelt!

OK, hmmm..., let's see. Well, there are seven different letters in "Roosevelt" and there's a double "O" in there, too.

Oh My God!

Double "O" + 7 = 007 !

That's it! That's it! That's it! Ian Flemming was THE MASTERMIND!

--Tommy

PS. Dang! They sure did make teensy-weensie photographs in 1963! Wonder how Ozzie did that. Hmmm...

PPS. Hey! Betcha it was originally a teensy-weensie photograph of Alan Dulles but that evil 'ol Harry D. Holmes done intercepted it and altered it!

PPPS. Tom's fantastic discovery of these hard-to-see photographic images of the bad guys on the label proves that the intended recipient of the package must have had really-really good eyes! Either that or a vivid imagination. Hmmm.....

Edited May 13, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tommy

Do you remember Christophe at Duncan's forum ?.

Who ran some algorithms over some of the pictures from Dealey?.

Ian

How do you think they make integrated circuits ?.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tommy

.

Can you see what it is yet?.

Ian

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdot

Scoff then read wrong

Read then scoff correct

It's your avatar!. Hahaha

Edited May 13, 2013 by Ian Kingsbury

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tom

I will try and find the posts of Christophe he was using software

To develop images taken in Dealey some pictures appears to

Clarify areas and enhance the view.

His was purely software on an image and they looked similar.

I guess it's like the 3D pictograms some can see while others look !.

Ian

[Tom Hume]

Hi Lee,

Lee: “Is he [Tom] seeing things that don’t exist?”

Tom: “As far as seeing that the “Oswald Gift” is an important puzzle that needs to be understood, No, I’m not seeing things that don’t exist. Have I incorrectly seen things that led to mistakes about what some of the puzzle piece are? Yes. Lots of them, and please accept my apology, but I’ll probable make some more.”

Lee: “I’d be willing to wager that the parcel with the non-existent address has some important meaning that no-one has even come close to explaining properly.”

Tom: “You would win the wager, and it’s true that ‘the parcel…has important meaning that no-one has even come close to explaining properly.”

I hope I’ve been fairly consistent in my posts over the last many months about a number of things. First and foremost, I’ve been saying that THE LABEL IS A PUZZLE - a complex set of interrelated messages that were carefully designed to relay information about the assassination, and doing it ways that were meant to be understood. The puzzle messages are in anagram form, in puzzle-board form, in pictogram form, in binary code form, and probably forms that I haven’t noticed.

I’ve said that the puzzle is a work of genius, and I said that I thought Oswald made it, that I couldn’t prove this, but I was going to write my posts “as if” it was Oswald’s creation.

And as I found what I thought were pieces of the puzzle, I told you all about some of them. A few of them turned out not to fit, but my goal has not been to solve the puzzle myself.

My goal was, and is, to convince enough of you that IT IS A PUZZLE, that the project of understanding, as fully as possible, what “Oswald” wanted to tell us, can be accomplished. When and if that’s done, who knows? Maybe the information will be compelling enough to be taken into consideration by researches that are trying to unravel the crime of the last century.

To show you that it is a puzzle, I’ve supplied tedious and boring explanations as to how I thought particular puzzle-pieces were constructed and being presented on the coded label, and I thought that if enough people checked my work, they would hopefully confirm for themselves that “Oswald’s Gift” was something much more than a “Mystery Undeliverable Package”, and there would be a groundswell of activity to get to the bottom of this sucker.

So far that hasn’t happened, and I’m sure it has much to do with my convoluted and muddled manner of expressing myself. But after thousands of hours studying the package label, I may know only a fraction of what it says, but I know 100% what it is. And you puzzle-masters out there will know what it is too if you take the time to just look at it.

I don’t have a handle on all of it, not by a long shot, but I think I’ve got some of the major chunks that hopefully can be a starting point for those that are good at this stuff.

I’ve got one more major post to go, and I will be following “Oswald’s” instructions, clear instructions, given so that we can accurately receive a set of messages via binary code from “Oswald’s Gift” – the package label he made for us because he though he was about to get “whacked”.

Thanks for weighing in Lee. You’ve helped me a lot, and I’m a big fan of yours.

Hi Ian,

As I’ve said, I’ve been very hesitant to post, or even mention, the faces and drawings I’ve found on the label, because of their subjective nature, largely due to the pixel-poor label photo we currently have. Actually, I think I also wanted to preserve what little credibility I had left, but maybe that was a mistake.

The faces are there, and many of them clearly put there for a reason, but some of them were probably put there for background noise - Oswald drawings and doodles that to the naked eye would give the impression of a dirty and distressed label.

I’m no good with graphics, Ian, but if I sent you my pictures of the faces on the label and told you where to find more, would you be interested in tweaking them a little and posting them in a timely fashion?

Tom

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tom

I would certainly like to try and help I will send you an email address to your pm.

Can you run classic on your mac? . If you can find a copy of NIH image for macs you may find it helpful it was developed

To distinguish the colour variances in brain cancer cells its shareware and quite a powerful tool .

I will try graphic converter as well as these have been successful in restoring some Victorian family photos .

All the best

Ian

[Thomas Graves]

[...] Oswald was a fake defector to the USSR. Do we really think he wasn't briefed in coding information? Was his interest in microdot technology a hobby? Was his relationship with Dennis Ofstein at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall a complete coincidence? [...]

Lee,

Valid points all.

And the "decoding" of the label is obsessively fascinating to say the least.

Now, if Oswald put microdot photos of the bad guys on the label, isn't it reasonable to assume that he made those microdots when he still had access to that sort of technology, i.e. before he was fired from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall on April 6, 1963?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited May 14, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Tom Hume]

Post Deleted.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Tom Hume

[Tom Hume]

Post Deleted.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Tom Hume

[Daniel Meyer]

[...cut...]

And your answers before any interpretation should be:

\OZ! M V S –

\OZ! N S –

\OZ! M V S $

\OZ! N B $

\OZ! F S $

After my decoding of selected letters/numbers to arrive at what I think is the intended interpretation:

Whack OZ! 12:21, Sturgis

Whack OZ! N Sturgis (“N” is most certainly Roy S Truly/TSBD due to other things we know)

Whack OZ! 12:21, Sturgis, $

Whack OZ! $13 $

Whack OZ! Frank Sturgis, $

I’ll have much more on this topic, some speculation, and some not - stay tuned.

Tom

You note the backslash (\) as "whack" (typographer slang); the exclamation mark (!) is "bang".

Whack OZ Bang

Firearm reference?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Daniel Meyer