The Stamp on the Military ID card

[Chris Newton]

1 minute ago, Chris Newton said:

A card like this - unlaminated - could not survive for long in anyone's wallet, and maybe not alone and exposed on a trip through the mail with an attached photo. Therefore, this ID and maybe the entire wallet are elaborate frauds.

What if an unlaminated ID card had been dropped in a mailbox and during it's "trip"to it's destination the original attached photo fell off and was lost? Could a new "alternative" photo have been attached so that it could "appear" in Oswald's wallet?

[Tom Hume]

There’s a lot of talk in older posts on various websites claiming that the P.O. stamp was made with a quarter, and the “U” visible in the lower right of the photo is the “U” in the word “QUARTER DOLLAR” on the tail’s face. Supposedly, one could ink the raised outer rim of the quarter’s face, and the letter “U”, and use it as a stamp. The date would then be filled in with an inked letter/number stamp. 

After a few careful measurements, I’m pretty sure that’s bunk. My old military ID is 2 1/8 inches, and a quarter is .950 inch. If a quarter was indeed used, the card would be much too big to fit into a normal wallet. Also, the “U” in the lower right of the photo is 2 1/2 time bigger than the “U” on a quarter should be, and it’s also upside down. 

I wouldn’t rule out a plastic bottle cap and a stamp kit, however. I’m pretty sure both this DD 1173 and the goofy looking Nagell version were manufactured by, or at least commissioned by, Richard Nagell for his puzzle purposes. 

I don’t think I’ll be off topic if I bring this up again after I get deeper into his puzzle. 

Tom 

 

[Chris Newton]

Would the HTLINGUAL Operation have intercepted this card if dropped in a local Dallas postal box? Could our favorite Postal Inspector, HDH, have had this card in October 1963?

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Therefore, this ID and maybe the entire wallet are elaborate frauds.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Especially in light of Oswald's alleged multiple wallets.

 

[Chris Newton]

better version of the front of the ID pre-FBI defacement:

 

[Richard Price]

For those of you studying this card, I also kept thinking something is not right each time I looked at it.  I don't know if any of you have noticed it or not, but what I see wrong is the following:  Postal stamps are used to date/place where mail is processed.  If you look carefully you will see there is evidence of two (2) stamps which overlap with one higher and off to the left.  The main problem I see is that there is a quarter of a circle over the picture where it is crossed by the stamp that is white.  The stamps do not have the ability to change the color of the background.  If I were to guess (being a postal clerk, as I am currently), there was a postmarked date stamp on the card, then for some reason someone needed to obliterate this date and substitute another for it.  If the area in the picture contained a city/date or other information which was not suitable, it was whited out and re-stamped with the "proper" information.  It apparently was hastily done, hence the non aligned circles when dated and the "bothersome" info was whited out knowing most people would only look at the info contained on the card and not pay so much attention to background information.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

better version of the front of the ID pre-FBI defacement:

 

 

Nice copy.

To me it looks like it's been stamped three times, overlapping, with circles. The text seems to have been stamped separately because it has no curvature to it at all. There is a "1963" stamped on it with vertical alignment. This, of course, gives the stamp a later date.

 

[Chris Newton]

17 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

being a postal clerk, as I am currently

Richard, what would have been the process if a mail handler were to encounter an ID deposited in a mail box?

Assuming that this ID was not laminated and had a picture attached to it.

Could the "additional" stamp been an attempt to make a photograph appear to be the original? another words... if I had an ID that had a postmark that had intruded on the original photo and that original photo was removed and a new photo added. Could the second "postmark" be an attempt to add the image of the postmark to the "new" photo?

[Richard Price]

I agree Sandy, there are more than 2 (two) of the circles purporting to be postal stamps.  Chris,  the instructions on the card are normally followed and it is sent along to the "return to" address.  I can't speak  to the actions necessarily taken in 1963, but today if there was a chance it might get mutilated, I would enclose it in one of the USPS "official-No Postage Required" envelopes and return it.  It could still be marked "postage due" to the receiving agency per current postal standards.  Your suggestion about putting a new photo in place of the old one which had a stamp over it makes very good sense, whether trying to erase something you didn't want showing (from the postal stamp) or to try to make it appear original.  By the way these supposed stamps have other issues as well.  That being, as far as I know postal cancellation stamps generally have the same characteristics:  1- Non changing information is contained in the ring on the outer edge of the ring.  2-Changeable information is contained in blocks along the established center of the stamp - this usually consists of a "year", "month" and "date" block which is changed manually by the clerk as needed to maintain the correct dating of mail processed by the clerk.  This is still a USPS requirement and can be punishable, particularly if done to commit fraud such as "backdating" reports/mail in order to meet filing deadlines for legal paperwork.  Each of these agreeably vague "postmarks" seems to have the changeable info too close to the outer edge which should only include non changeable information.  Also, just as an afterthought, I have no knowledge of how these cards were composed, but the picture seems to have a white edge to it which is visible between it and the card.  I know things have changed greatly, but presently (and going back most of my 30 yrs in government service), most if not all ID's i have seen have all the white edge removed so as to appear integrated to the cards.

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

better version of the front of the ID pre-FBI defacement:

 

 

Well that clearly isn't a real postal stamp, so we might as well forget that angle. As Richard notes, the adjustable text -- the date -- on a postal stamp would be in the center.

On this composite stamp, someone printed three overlapping circles. Then they printed "OCT," "23," and "1963" while trying to make them curve like the circles. (They don't all line up with any given circle. And each is printed without curvature.) Also the three letters "IUL" where it seems someone may have used a pen to change the "I" to a "7." Or maybe that letter is a messed up "T."

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Hume]

Yo Sandy, I think the corner letters are “IUL” and the number “91” is written over the first letter, the “I”.

 

[Chris Newton]

21 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

Yo Sandy, I think the corner letters are “IUL” and the number “91” is written over the first letter, the “I”.

Tom,

Thanks for that. In my opinion the circle and text that appear on the photo also appear to be cut off at the edges of that photo and do not have any continuity with the circles or text on the ID. If you enlarge the lower right corner of the photo this becomes apparent. It looks like the marks on the photo are unique to the photo.

Side note: Supposedly the photo depicted on this card was taken in Minsk but there are several issues with that claim.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

Yo Sandy, I think the corner letters are “IUL” and the number “91” is written over the first letter, the “I”.

 

Thanks Tom, "IUL" is what I meant to type.

I do now see the the handwritten "91" over the "I."

 

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

In my opinion the circle and text that appear on the photo also appear to be cut off at the edges of that photo and do not have any continuity with the circles or text on the ID. If you enlarge the lower right corner of the photo this becomes apparent. It looks like the marks on the photo are unique to the photo.

Yeah, the three circles on the photo don't line up with the three on the ID. Also, it looks like the "IUL" is really "IUI."

 

[Chris Newton]

Another problem:

The "Expiration Date" : 7 Dec 1962      no real clerk in the military writes "1962" there.  It's just "62" gentlemen.