The Stamp on the Military ID card

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You think that a damaged plastic-laminated card could look like this?

 

 

Sorry, I don't buy it. That card has no lamination.

Below is an example of a card with plastic lamination. This shows that, unlike today's ID cards, the plastic was thin. The plastic would prevent the surface of the card stock from rubbing off. On the other cards we see the surface of the card stock rubbed off at the edges.

Instead, here the plastic layer begins to peel back due to rubbing.

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This shows that, unlike today's ID cards, the plastic was thin

This is an assumption on your part and you have no evidence. On the other hand, I have my grandfather's OWI Military style ID issued in 1943 and the lamination actual appears thicker and less flexible to me.

You can google "Military ID" and see plenty of examples.

[Chris Newton]

Sandy,

One of the constants with Military ID's, in my own personal experience, was that they were "always" falling apart and coming apart at the seam of the two pieces of plastic. As a junior NCO it was often my mission to see that my soldiers got new "serviceable" ID cards.

Note: "new" above might mean just taking it over to HQ Company for re-lamination or actually getting a new card (if it was liquid (i.e. beer) damaged).

Edited September 2, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

You're wrong.

 

I don't think so. And I will tell you why . . . .

 

9 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

The Powers ID has a pattern in the background. Look at the bottom left corner.

 

 

 

What we are looking at (above) is the rounded corner of the paper stock card, not the lamination. The card uses coated paper, which means it is coated with a polymer to give it a shiny surface. (All shiny papers, like those in magazines, are coated.) The coated surface has been rubbed off from repeatedly removing the card from the wallet. The coating has flaked off and pulled the printed pattern with it.

 

 

Notice how the coating (and pattern) have been rubbed off IRREGULARLY around the edge of the card (above). The card has been rubbed so much that even much of the paper on the upper edge has been rubbed off! This is indicated by the fact that the card is no longer a perfect rectangle. (The height of the card is greater on the left than on the right.) This couldn't have happened if the card were laminated with plastic. The exception being if the plastic were peeled back so far as to expose the paper. But if that were the case, we'd see the rolled back plastic, as we do in this laminated card:

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

FYI: the standard machine that the military uses to laminate IDs produces a curved laminated corner.

 

The Powers photo above shows that the card stock itself has rounded corners.

 

9 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

I have three actual expired military ID that are laminated, all have rounded corners. Take a close look, Powers Card is both laminated and damaged.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

54 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This shows that, unlike today's ID cards, the plastic was thin.

This is an assumption on your part and you have no evidence. On the other hand, I have my grandfather's OWI Military style ID issued in 1943 and the lamination actual appears thicker and less flexible to me.

 

Well the card below certainly has thin, very flexible lamination. It is very apparent in the photo (which is my evidence). We can see it peeling apart and curling along the top. A thick/rigid laminate would not do that.

 

 

Keeping in mind your insistence that the cards at the time all had a thick/rigid lamination, I can't understand how you can believe the Powers card is laminated. I mean, how could it possibly have gotten torn up like that had it been laminated with a thick, stiff plastic?? I would expect to see the thick plastic layers all bent up and maybe cracked all over the place. And I wouldn't expect to see wrinkles in the card.

What I see are the wrinkles and tears I'd expect to see in plain card stock. And the rubbed-off edge surfaces of coated card stock.

 

 

[Chris Newton]

On 9/2/2017 at 5:10 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The Powers photo above shows that the card stock itself has rounded corners.

Yes and so do the lamination machines. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong.

<image removed by CN>

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Chris Newton]

I could not find the '50-'60's manual but I believe this is a similar unit. You will find that there is a press involved that is part of the process called a (I kid you not) "Corner Rounder".

https://archive.org/details/TM11-2369

this is the spec from the same era:

http://www.easy39th.com/files/Pam_20-9_Preparation_of_Identification_Cards_1944.pdf

Edited September 3, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Note:  The part about the "4" not matching has been found to be incorrect.

This is Oswald's passport application form, side 2.

In the block of text below Oswald's signature, we see that the application was submitted to the Santa Ana clerk on the 4th of September, 1959. In that block of text we also see that Oswald's "dependent" ID card was submitted. This is impossible because the ID card wasn't issued until exactly a week later.

Note, however, that the typeface of the application date does not (precisely) match the typeface of the ID card information. The dead giveaway is the "4" used in each one. The "4" used for the application date is very curvy. The "4" used for the ID card number isn't.

I believe this discovery solves the mystery. The ID information on the passport application was typed in some time after the ID card was issued.

What other choice do we have? If the ID information was typed in on the 4th, Oswald had to have had the card. And the card would have been post dated the 11th. That presents two big problems... how did Oswald get the card before its issuance date, and why did the Santa Ana clerk accept a post-dated ID card?

I personally don't think that ID information was supposed to be typed there. I looked through as many passport applications I could find and found no identification numbers typed on them. (Admittedly I found only a few.) The nearest I got to the 1959 application was a 1956 application for JFK and the 1963 application for Oswald. The 1956 application was considerably longer. Sometime between then and 1959 the form was simplified. Below is Oswald's 1963 application. It is much the same as the 1959 application. Note that there is no ID information printed on it.

So why would somebody later type that ID information onto Oswald's passport application, and state that the ID was "SUBMITTED?"

 

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

That is a really good point Sandy.

I don't think anyone ever noticed that numeral 4 previous to this.

What do you think it means?

[Chris Newton]

I think there is evidence that the "affidavit" that Oswald presented to the passport agency is a forgery.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98552#relPageId=4&tab=page

It's noted that other researchers have investigated this and pointed out no one has been able to identify "1st Sgt. Stout" who signed for Lt. JG. Ayers, including Ayers himself who should have remembered who the senior NCO (the 1st Sgt. i.e. "Top") in his own company at the time.

Additionally, I question why the affidavit is not on official letterhead, why whomever typed it would call their own unit "MCAS" instead of the correct "MACS" and why LT. JG. Ayers was identified as a "1st Lt." when he was in reality a Lt. "J.G." ie "junior grade".

 

Note: I have since found MACS shown as MCAS they seem interchangeable

Edited September 3, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is a really good point Sandy.

I don't think anyone ever noticed that numeral 4 previous to this.

What do you think it means?

I think it's an "artifact" of the poor digital copy.

You can "zoom" on the document here and you will see the same "4" in both instances.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98552#relPageId=6&tab=page

[Chris Newton]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So why would somebody later type that ID information onto Oswald's passport application, and state that the ID was "SUBMITTED?"

Hey Sandy,

I don't know why it says that either.

Do you think the County clerk meant that's what Oswald 'submitted" or that the word "SUBMITTED" in caps like that had something to do with the status of the ID card? When do we think Oswald got the ID? I think we agree that Oswald showed an ID with that number to the County Clerk on the 4th, no? The affidavit written by "1st Sgt. Stout" is dated Sept. 4th, as well. Did Sgt. Stout give him the ID?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Really good questions.

And who the heck was Stout?  How did Ayers not know him?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/3/2017 at 3:25 PM, Chris Newton said:

I think it's an "artifact" of the poor digital copy.

You can "zoom" on the document here and you will see the same "4" in both instances.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98552#relPageId=6&tab=page

I agree Chris, good catch.

I studied the two copies of the document carefully and found convincing evidence on yours (from Mary Farrell, which is the better scan) indicating that the "4" key wasn't hit as hard when the ID number was typed. When mine (from History Matters) was scanned, it was done so at such a high contrast level as to lose the parts of that "4" showing its curvature.

Oh well, so much for that.

Still, having gone through that exercise (the initial one where I thought the 4s were different), I still believe that the military ID information was typed in at a later date. Also, I think that that may have something to do with the affidavit Oswald gave to the passport application clerk. I need to put some more thought into it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/3/2017 at 2:30 PM, Chris Newton said:

I think there is evidence that the "affidavit" that Oswald presented to the passport agency is a forgery.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98552#relPageId=4&tab=page

It's noted that other researchers have investigated this and pointed out no one has been able to identify "1st Sgt. Stout" who signed for Lt. JG. Ayers, including Ayers himself who should have remembered who the senior NCO (the 1st Sgt. i.e. "Top") in his own company at the time.

Additionally, I question why the affidavit is not on official letterhead, why whomever typed it would call their own unit "MCAS" instead of the correct "MACS" and why LT. JG. Ayers was identified as a "1st Lt." when he was in reality a Lt. "J.G." ie "junior grade".

 

Note: I have since found MACS shown as MCAS they seem interchangeable

Perhaps the affidavit had a cover letter.

If the affidavit was forged for the eyes of the State Department (for whatever reason), it seems that there must have been something accompanying it indicating it was an official document.

If, on the other hand, the affidavit was forged for the eyes of FBI investigators, I can't think of any purpose the forgery might serve.

Note that there is a stamp on the document indicating the State Department received the affidavit. FWIW.