The Stamp on the Military ID card

[Chris Newton]

6 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Looking at Gary Powers' ID card, his states "SELF" as a sponsor - different methods for different arms of the  military?...

No. That's an example of exactly what Lt. jg. Ayers was describing. Look at his service status box. It is DAF CIV.  He is not in "Inactive" ...anything. His civilian grade is GS-12 and he is an active CIA employee.

Inactive Service Members (Oswald) do not get ID's that let them walk onto US Military bases.

I have no problem if you want to try to establish that Oswald was "working" for the US government in some fashion after he finished with the Marines. What I'm telling you is that I am almost 100% certain Oswald did not get issued that ID card when MACS processed his exit paperwork from the Marines.

[Chris Newton]

17 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Was it usual to strike through "sponsor" on the card?

normal:  typed "X" 's   : xxxxxxxxx

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I understand. That whole post, with my hypothesis, is predicated on the possibility that Lt. Ayers was correct about civilian contractors getting that dependent card. Which may be wrong. Or may be right. 

I don't think you understand how serious security is to the military. He is saying who gets the card -not saying he's going to issue it.

Right, Lt Ayers said a person who is a "DoD civilian employee contractor and needed access to a US facility overseas" could get the card. The Oswald he knew wouldn't get it because he hadn't been a "DoD civilian employee contractor."

 

19 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Lt jg. Ayers said he would NOT have issued that card to Oswald.  I agree with him.

Did he say why he wouldn't have issued the card to Oswald? Maybe the reason was because the Oswald he knew hadn't been a "DoD civilian employee contractor."

 

[Chris Newton]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Did he say why he wouldn't have issued the card to Oswald? Maybe the reason was because the Oswald he knew hadn't been a "DoD civilian employee contractor."

https://books.google.com/books?id=ymfQdYoqKyEC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Fontaine+ayers+oswald&source=bl&ots=8sAekSxvNx&sig=fsS6iR3gudwvF7qzl0FOacu3stg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEsMS71oPWAhXGilQKHahMDFkQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=Fontaine ayers oswald&f=false

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

I'm in the UK so missed the recent posts but it's good to see that I got you all thinking along the same lines that my thoughts were starting to take me...

Looking at Gary Powers' ID card, his states "SELF" as a sponsor - different methods for different arms of the  military?...

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/military-identification-card-of-francis-gary-powers-pilot-news-photo/170987364#military-identification-card-of-francis-gary-powers-pilot-of-the-u2-picture-id170987364

Isn't that a military dependent ID card?

So Gary Powers was eligible for that because he was a CIA employee?. In other words, a "DoD civilian employee contractor [who] needed access to a US facility overseas?"

Notice that the card isn't laminated. Notice that the date isn't in strict military format. Though it is in the format I earlier described as being used by the CIA.

Could this be the way the CIA issued the card? (And, as an aside, could Oswald's military ID card be evidence that he worked for the CIA?)

Great find Ian!

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Apparently, Francis Gary Powers' dependent ID was issued by the DoD to Powers though his employer, the CIA. Powers was eligible because, at the time, he was doing contract work for the Air Force. In other words, Powers was a "DoD civilian employee contractor [who] needed access to a US facility overseas."

 

 

Now, let's talk about LEE.  He was working for the CIA, and as a part of his job he enlisted in the Marine Corps. In other words, he was contracted out to the Marine Corps. (Please don't get bogged down on that statement, as it is irrelevant to the post.) As a Marine he didn't need a dependent ID card to get PX privileges. But when he became inactive, he did need the card for privileges. As an inactive serviceman he was no longer eligible for the card. But as a CIA employee, he was eligible as long as he was doing contract work for the military.

Let's assume that LEE indeed was doing contract work for the military after he left the marines. If so, he would be in almost the same position as Gary Powers, who we can see did have a dependent ID card. Let's compare what is typed in the various fields/boxes of the two ID cards and see if we can make sense of them.

• First we note that neither card is laminated.  CHECK!
• Then we note that the Expiration Date for both do NOT comply with the standard military format. They both have 4-digit years. (And so they must have been prepared by an outside body.)  CHECK!
• The date for Oswald's Date of Birth is in strict Military format, but not so with Powers'. So if Oswald's card is legitimate, it must be the case that the producers of these cards were not always consistent with date formatting.
• The Heights in the two cards are given in different units (inches vs. feet). So again we see an inconsistency in formatting between the two.
• There are significant differences in three of the fields, Service Status, Grade, and Service Number. We need to explore these.

I want to propose that the three fields, Service Status, Grade, and Service Number, are different only because Powers was at that time a civilian, whereas LEE was Inactive military. This means that LEE could have been called up for active service again. With that in consideration, lets look at those three fields:

Service Status

Powers:  Civilian
Oswald:  Inactive

We just discussed this.

Grade and Name of Sponsor

Powers:  Self
Oswald:  Private First Class

Presumably, Powers' grade isn't given because he is a civilian at that time. "Self" means that he is his own sponsor.

Oswald's grade is given because he isn't a civilian. So why doesn't the field list his name as "Self," like it does for Powers? I don't know.

Service Number

Powers:  N/A
Oswald:  1653230

Powers doesn't have a service number because he is a civilian. The field is not applicable to him.

CONCLUSIONS

For Oswald's card to be a legitimate one for LEE, the following must be true:

• LEE must have been an employee of the CIA doing contract work for the military (as we assumed).
• The preparing body was inconsistent with formatting dates and heights. This seems possible considering the fact that they didn't even bother protecting the cards with the plastic lamination that the military used. In other words, they weren't as regimented as the military.
• It wasn't important to the preparing body that the word "Self" be typed in the "Grade and Name of Sponsor" field. Again, this is a sign that the preparing body wasn't as regimented as the military.

IMPORTANT QUESTION

Both these cards seemed to have been prepared by a non-military body. Is it possible that Lt. Ayers would have signed a dependent card prepared by a non-military body? That's an important question because Lt. Ayers did sign the one issued to Oswald.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Ian Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ymfQdYoqKyEC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Fontaine+ayers+oswald&source=bl&ots=8sAekSxvNx&sig=fsS6iR3gudwvF7qzl0FOacu3stg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEsMS71oPWAhXGilQKHahMDFkQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=Fontaine ayers oswald&f=false

Wow!! interesting read, thanks Chris (as you've no doubt probably realised, I am no military person and am asking these questions in order to learn)...

[David Josephs]

Am I reading this wrong?

Powers card # is 1,288,068 while Oswald's is 4,271,617?

3 million cards in between?

Does that seem possible and correct Chris?

(edit) let me rephrase...  do we have anything beyond that number to show it was part of a sequence of DOD cards given out?

Edited September 1, 2017 by David Josephs

[James DiEugenio]

Are we now saying, based on the Powers card, that it might be genuine?

[David Josephs]

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Are we now saying, based on the Powers card, that it might be genuine?

Not sure if you're addressing me...  This screams the same SOP as the Money Order... at least to me.

It's a real item used to incriminate via ID and association.  It's just not genuine.

Another example is the Mexican Tourist Visa...  William Gaudet of the CIA could easily acquire blank forms... problem for them was they chose the wrong application for the visa in evidence...

[James DiEugenio]

I wasn't addressing you.  I was addressing Sandy.

 

I fully understand the Money Order for the wrong rifle, but why would it be necessary to create this?

[David Josephs]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:00 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I wasn't addressing you.  I was addressing Sandy.

 

I fully understand the Money Order for the wrong rifle, but why would it be necessary to create this?

The Money Order was also created to establish a transaction that never occurred, separate and distinct from the rifle situation.

These are created to connect one man's history to this man's face... as I see it.

How many photo IDs of Harvey's face connected Lee's information do we have Jim?  the Folsom and Donabedian Exhibits have only the induction photo... if you Google "Oswald Military ID" you only get this and the SSS card...

If we accept the premise that this person was not Lee, how can the plan establish the relationship between the face and the military record after 1956's photo of Lee's ginormous head as he enters the Marines.  How do we connect this man to those 3 years in the Marines when Ely, Jenner and Leibeler are aware of the conflicts presented by the exposure of witnesses to 2 different people.

I believe these are photos of Lee... the larger man.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

[Chris Newton]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Notice that the card isn't laminated

Powers' card is laminated. It is also damaged.

[Chris Newton]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Am I reading this wrong?

Powers card # is 1,288,068 while Oswald's is 4,271,617?

3 million cards in between?

Does that seem possible and correct Chris?

(edit) let me rephrase...  do we have anything beyond that number to show it was part of a sequence of DOD cards given out?

David my understanding is that there are "books" of uniquely numbered cards given to each service branch . Therefore, I assume that the numbers could be duplicated between different services. Oswald's card begins with a "N" - Navy,  Powers' card begins with "AF" - Air Force. There's no correlation between the numbers on each card. I also believe that the number of the card issued correlates to the book it was taken out of, they are not issued from a central location so a Card issued at EL TORO and a card issued the same day at Pearl Harbor would be issued from two different "books" and could have wildly different numbers.