Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Stamp on the Military ID card


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

Just thinking aloud, random thoughts...

Could the "postage stamps" on the extant Oswald DD 1173 been put there to obfuscate or hide a real stamp that wasn't a "postage stamp"?


Chris,

Several days ago I discovered -- on the white corner of Oswald's DD 1173 Minsk photo -- what I believe are remnants of an old Russian security stamp. I pointed that out in a post and I said that the photo must have previously been attached to some ID card Oswald had used while in Russia, as that would explain how it got stamped. I said that, some time after Oswald's return to the States, somebody must have removed that stamped photo from the Russian ID card, and swapped it with the photo that was originally attached to Oswald's DD 1173.

And since then I've been saying that the fake stamps ("silly stamps") were put there to hide the white part of the Minsk photo as well as the part of the security stamp remaining on the photo.

So now I am quite surprised because you seem to be asking if what I just described might be the case, as though it is a new, unexplored idea.

 

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

How does Nagell, the decorated Army Capt., get an Air Force DD 1173?


I didn't know that Nagell had a DD 1173. Are you sure he did?

 

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

In my own experience the most important document a soldier receives when they ETS from the service is the DD 214. So 2 questions, where was the Oswald copy of his DD 214 when he was in the USSR and are the signatures on that document, (the DD 214), of Lt. Ayers and Oswald real, or do you think they are forgeries as well?


It seems to me that the dependent ID card would be an entirely different issue than separation from active duty. You separate first. Then as a CIA contractor or whatever, you get the dependent ID card. If I understand that correctly, then it seems to me that the DD 214 would be legitimate. Because there would have been be no need to forge it.

 

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

ozzy-dd214.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

If someone has a copy of The Man Who Knew Too Much you might want to check into some remarks I think I recall Nagell having made to Russell.  Its a vague recollection of Nagell saying that during his brief contacts with Oswald in 1963 he gave him some tutoring on forging documents.  Not really good ones but training class stuff.  Perhaps this card represents a rework, paste up, practice type effort just as the one with Nagell's photos does.  Anyway, might be worth looking into if anyone wants to scan through Russell's book....I don't think I'm making that up but its been a very long time since my last read.


Larry,

If your memory is serving you well -- and thus serving us well -- what you describe would be great. Because it fits the evidence very well.

Some time after Oswald returned to the States, somebody -- presumably Oswald -- removed the original photo from his DD 1173 and pasted in it's place the Minsk photo. The person then used multiple stamps to create what, at first-glance, looks like a postal stamp.

Nagell's copy was made BETWEEN those two steps. We know that because his copy has the Minsk photo, but does not have the "postal" stamp. What this means is that Nagell was likely WITH the person who did those two things to Oswald's DD 1173.

If we assume that the person doing those things was Oswald, then it all makes perfect sense. First Oswald pasted the Minsk photo onto his DD 1173. Then he made a photocopy of the card and gave it to Nagell. They needed to cover up the conspicuous white area on the Minsk photo. They did so on the original card by stamping it with various stamps. On Nagell's copy they covered the white area by drawing a suit coat with an artist's pencil. They also drew in a shirt collar and tie, and a new hairline.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did strike me that it could explain a lot...I just don't have a copy of the book available at the moment or I would check.  I can't recall the exact time the contact was supposed to have happened but it seems to me like Nagell first approached Oswald in Dallas in the spring and then later in the August time frame in New Orleans.  Given that Oswald was approaching so many different groups he might have thought having various sorts of fake ID might make him more credible and just having ID to flash without using it in any official fashion would help him slide by without having professional grade stuff.  Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And since then I've been saying that the fake stamps ("silly stamps") were put there to hide the white part of the Minsk photo as well as the part of the security stamp remaining on the photo.

So now I am quite surprised because you seem to be asking if what I just described might be the case, as though it is a new, unexplored idea.

Yes, I'm sorry you feel that way but what I'm saying isn't exactly the same.

I've been considering the value of creating all these stamps to obfuscate the corner of the photo. If the card was semi-pristine wouldn't using the same photo without markings (a clean photo) have been more simple? If on the other hand, if there was a stamp or stamps that were already present on the card stock (and maybe the photo?) then maybe I'd have a motivation to "muck up" the ID with the fake "postage stamps".

 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't know that Nagell had a DD 1173. Are you sure he did?

Yes. I believe David Josephs has an image of both Nagell's and Oswald's DD 1173's that were allegedly found on Nagell in his photobucket but since that service changed the link isn't active.

I'll try and hunt it down for you but the quality is similar to the Nagell copy of Oswalds'.

 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It seems to me that the dependent ID card would be an entirely different issue than separation from active duty. You separate first. Then as a CIA contractor or whatever, you get the dependent ID card. If I understand that correctly, then it seems to me that the DD 214 would be legitimate. Because there would have been be no need to forge it.

I was just asking about the signatures. The Ayers on the DD 214 is not the same as the Ayers on the DD 1173.

 

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And since then I've been saying that the fake stamps ("silly stamps") were put there to hide the white part of the Minsk photo as well as the part of the security stamp remaining on the photo.

So now I am quite surprised because you seem to be asking if what I just described might be the case, as though it is a new, unexplored idea.

Yes, I'm sorry you feel that way but what I'm saying isn't exactly the same.


Well no, don't be sorry if what you're saying is different from what I'm saying. It just sounded the same to me.

It's certainly fine with me if you have a different idea. You might even win me over.

 

18 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

I've been considering the value of creating all these stamps to obfuscate the corner of the photo. If the card was semi-pristine wouldn't using the same photo without markings (a clean photo) have been more simple?


Are you saying, use that photo (or one of those photos) that Oswald brought back from Russia? Rather than taking one off an old Russian ID card?

 

18 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

If on the other hand, if there was a stamp or stamps that were already present on the card stock (and maybe the photo?) then maybe I'd have a motivation to "muck up" the ID with the fake "postage stamps".


I don't know why there would be a stamp already on the card itself. But, as I said, I do believe the photo did already have a stamp on it. I believe we can see it.

In any event, it kinda bothers me that Oswald would take a perfectly good (i.e. in fine condition) DD 1173 and ruin it. Why not ruin a photocopy of it instead? But it looks like that's what he did. (It might just be me. I have a hard time throwing away anything that once was valuable and is still in good condition. Even if it is currently worthless.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

How does Nagell, the decorated Army Capt., get an Air Force DD 1173?


I suppose he got it the same way Gary Powers got his. He was a CIA employee who needed access to military bases. (Yes, I made that criterion up. But I believe it very well may be the case that CIA agents who need access to military bases are eligible for the card. IIRC the regulation book left the policy open to other possibilities, like this one that I just made up.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know why there would be a stamp already on the card itself. But, as I said, I do believe the photo did already have a stamp on it. I believe we can see it.

In any event, it kinda bothers me that Oswald would take a perfectly good (i.e. in fine condition) DD 1173 and ruin it. Why not ruin a photocopy of it instead? But it looks like that's what he did. (It might just be me. I have a hard time throwing away anything that once was valuable and is still in good condition. Even if it is currently worthless.)

 

This gets to the point I'm trying to make.

If the card is "good" why add the the stamps?

Why switch photos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It seems to me that the dependent ID card would be an entirely different issue than separation from active duty. You separate first. Then as a CIA contractor or whatever, you get the dependent ID card. If I understand that correctly, then it seems to me that the DD 214 would be legitimate. Because there would have been be no need to forge it.

I was just asking about the signatures. The Ayers on the DD 214 is not the same as the Ayers on the DD 1173.

 

Yeah, I noticed that it has somebody else's signature on it. I'll bet that Ayer's would have recognized that signature/name ( Agby?) had he been asked about it back in the 60s. Just a hunch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Why switch photos?


I don't have an answer for that. (Well I do for Harvey & Lee believers. But not for non-believers. On the other hand, Harvey & Lee believers have another, related difficulty that non-believer don't have. So it kind of evens out. ;))

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

don't have an answer for that. (Well I do for Harvey & Lee believers. But not for non-believers. On the other hand, Harvey & Lee believers have another, related difficulty that non-believer don't have. So it kind of evens out. LOL)

There you go making wild assumptions again about non kool aid drinkers. So you H&L guys have a "lock" on every impersonation theory? Good luck with that.

 

 

I can think of only one reason to put a "new" photo on the ID and that's to make it look more like the current bearer of the card.

 

The only logical reason for defacing the card with the fake "postage stamps" is to mask and obfuscate another stamp (maybe an official stamp) that is already on the card itself that the bearer doesn't want us to notice.

 

 

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I don't have an answer for that. (Well I do for Harvey & Lee believers. But not for non-believers. On the other hand, Harvey & Lee believers have another, related difficulty that non-believer don't have. So it kind of evens out. LOL)

 

Sandy,

What "related difficulty" are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chris Newton said:
18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

don't have an answer for that. (Well I do for Harvey & Lee believers. But not for non-believers. On the other hand, Harvey & Lee believers have another, related difficulty that non-believer don't have. So it kind of evens out. LOL)

There you go making wild assumptions again about non kool aid drinkers.


What "assumption" are you referring to, Chris?

And why do you feel the need to refer to Harvey & Lee believers as kool aid drinkers? What's this chip on your shoulder?

By the way, a kool aid drinker is someone who has bought into an idea because of peer pressure. I became a Harvey & Lee believer as a result of studying in great detail much of the available evidence for it. There is absolutely NO peer pressure for the theory... but there IS a great deal of evidence for it. The real cool aid drinkers are the ones who reject the theory without studying the evidence. This should be evident to anybody who has seen the tremendous level of peer pressure on the forum AGAINST the Harvey & Lee theory.

 

17 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

So you H&L guys have a "lock" on every impersonation theory? Good luck with that.


I can only speak for myself. I don't pretend to have a lock on the impersonation theories. However, I do believe it's likely that there was only one LHO impersonator up through at least the Marine Corps years.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...