David Josephs Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 29 minutes ago, Tom Hume said: “They are actually parts of a stamped “JUL(y)” Your opinion, David. You win - I give up. Just how I see it Tom... how would "IUL" relate to a postal stamp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Sorry David, you’re probably right and I still give up. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, David Josephs said: Here's a bit more detail on those circles... I'm not so sure about the 3rd circle and please notice the "JUL" within the original appears to have been stamped onto the original version or some intermediate version... that circle doesn't appear to extend into the card... Thanks David, nice improvement. I see a circle portion in the yellow area that looks like part of the original stamp that has overlapped the corner portion (through the "IUI". Do you see that mark that's under the corner of the photo? Might that mark correspond to the faint yellow circle portion on my original mock-up? There's also something going on above the "PF" in "PFC" that might be related to that yellow circle portion. Last night while studying this, I observed the perforations along the top edge of the ID. These indicate to me that the original ID was part of a "book" of blank IDs. This lends credence to the thought that the ID itself (but not necessarily the contents), is in fact an actual ID. After the card is torn from the "book" a stub remains with the same number, as a record of to whom the card was issued. It makes no sense to have "numbered" IDs if there is no means to track them. Is there a Navy record of these IDs that were "cancelled" anywhere? If Oswald was given a dishonorable discharge from the Inactive Reserve, and he possessed this card, how does the Navy rescind it? Edited August 30, 2017 by Chris Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) On 8/30/2017 at 2:31 PM, Chris Newton said: Last night while studying this, I observed the perforations along the top edge of the ID. These indicate to me that the original ID was part of a "book" of blank IDs. Like the Postal Money Order taken from a "book" that left a stub indicating the amount and # per Holmes... except there was never a book and this PMO was created as needed. On 8/30/2017 at 2:31 PM, Chris Newton said: If Oswald was given a dishonorable discharge from the Inactive Reserve, and he possessed this card, how does the Navy rescind it? The card is actually Lee's with Harvey's face pasted in... There is nothing for them to rescind... plus the card had expired in Dec 62 yet it was found and mailed in Oct 63 ?? In FOLSOM exhibit 1 page 28 we are informed that Oswald's Reserve service ends 8 December 1962, the day after this DOD card expires. FWIW Guess he never made it to Illinois... 3124 W 5th is Marge's address. Edited April 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Here's the date stamp I was referring to in my Post about stamp from yesterday : Costco date stamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) On 8/29/2017 at 5:10 PM, Mark Knight said: Back in the 1960's and before, you could go to the "five-and-dime" store I any town in America and pick up a rotary stamp and inked stamp pad. The rotary stamp had separate rubber "belts" that could be rotated with the months of the year, numbers to make the date, and the year...and usually separate words like PAID, REC'D, etc. There were also blank spots on each band that could allow you to stamp ONLY the month, ONLY the day of the month, ONLY the year, etc. The date and the words on the bands would ONLY print in a straight line. I had one when I ran a newspaper route as an 11-year-old, and I just KNEW I'd made the big time! So whoever made the ID had one of those stamps. That's why the month, the date, and the year have the words and numbers in a straight line as they're stamped around the circle. It's NOT a postmark, but it may be an uninformed person's attempt to simulate a postmark or some other "official" date stamp. Put yourself back in 1963, and the answer to the source of the date stamp is blatantly obvious. It's the PURPOSE of the stamp that raises questions. Here's the results of Oswald's infamous Stamp Kit - seeing you've brought up a good point... those marks ARE in a straight line... (well done!) I also think this vaccination form was created using the same stamp kit (a vaccination cert like this relieves the traveler from getting a shot and being recorded as they enter back into the US) IMO Oswald took an active part in his clandestine life creating some of what we see to help him in his FBI work. But most of the evidence was created by the FBI. Edited May 24, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, David Josephs said: The card is actually Lee's with Harvey's face pasted in... There is nothing for them to rescind... Thanks for the posts, DJ. it also looks to me like this whole fabrication was simply to put a photo of the shorter Russian-speaking Oswald on the ID card of the 71” American-born Oswald. So... I assume you’d think that the true image on the original ID card was of the taller Oswald. Since Nagell’s fuzzy card shows a different image and signature, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Nagell's copy may have been made before the alteration, and it therefore shows the taller, American-born Oswald? Does it look like some of the pix we assume are Lee (the widow's peak, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 6 hours ago, Tom Hume said: Jim Hargrove, In the fourth post on page #1 of this thread, you posted Exhibit No. 50, which I assume is both the front and the back of Oswald’s DD 1173. Why do the front and back appear to be quite different in shape? Tom You're right, Tom, the dimensions appear quite different, with the back side appearing MUCH wider proportionally than the front side. I can't explain it, and I'm not sure where John got the images, although he got a ton of material directly from the National Archives. Does this make you suspicious of something? With digital imaging, obviously, it is extraordinarily easy to deliberately or accidentally change the aspect ration of a photo. One wrong click and drag with a mouse can do it. Do you see something more sinister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 A little too far out on the assumptions limb for me Jim... The signature on the Nagel version is definitely not Lee's. You'll notice too that Nagel's doesn't have the official seal watermark. Finally, since it's a copy, the whole thing could have been pasted together with little if anything left of an original... IDK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Thanks Jim, No, I don't suspect anything sinister, but it just didn't seem to make sense, like so many other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Tom... The signature is cut off on the image of the front... add that back and the shapes are the same... But how come all that fingerprint gunk did not bleed to the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) Shouldn't the back of the card have the same stains? It appears not to have any stains at all... the amazing FBI of 1964 Edited May 24, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) David, you seem to be a pretty good hand with graphics and there’s something you might want to try sometime. I suspect that the photograph on the DD Form 1173 and the one that passes for its twin on Oswald’s phony Selective Service card are not identical. What I suspect is that they are a pair of 3-D images taken with a Stereo Realist camera tilted 88 degrees to the right (90 degrees is close enough), and when properly sized, rotated to the right, and properly aligned side by side, a 3-D image can be perceived with the aid of a Stereoscope. https://www.etsy.com/listing/508387211/antique-bent-wood-stereoscope-viewer?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_b-art_and_collectibles-collectibles-other&utm_custom1=4378eead-1330-4031-8102-87175185688f&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs8jnlYyA1gIVTZF-Ch2Bwwt0EAQYAyABEgI_bPD_BwE I can only do crude graphics and I can’t post photos right now, but it seems to me if one found the best examples of each photo, sized them properly, etc., and did a transparent overlay, one might be able to decide if they are slightly different in the up-down plane or not. I made some slightly crude image pairs and sent them to Sandy the other day but unfortunately he wasn’t able to perceive the 3-D that I thought I was seeing. The 3-D, if indeed it is present, is not breathtaking like some of the old commercially made Stereoscope image pairs, but I’m seeing enough to keep me interested. Sandy Larsen, would you be willing and able to post that group of four photos I sent you? If so, it would be nice if the image pairs ended up being 6 to 7 inches wide on a typical monitor. An experiment. If I’m wrong, please accept my apology in advance. Tom Edited August 31, 2017 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Price Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 I have a question about the pictures of the ID card posted in David's post of a couple hours ago. If this is supposed to be the front and the back of the card, why is the print running backwards (mirror writing). This, to me appears to be almost like a view of the back of the card taken through the front. It's almost like it was translucent. A picture of the back of the card should be readable and not in mirror print. Also if the picture attached to the card is actually a photo attached to it, you should not be able to see through that area at all. The problem with the translucent properties is that if the card is that transparent, the front should also show (in see through fashion), info on the back in that image. Even Oswald's signature on the right edge can be vaguely seen on the back image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 31, 2017 Author Share Posted August 31, 2017 That appears to be a sound point Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now