As we all know, the selective Service card with photo on it is a forgery.
The Warren Commission even provides us a description of the manner of its forgery.
What I'm curious about, is the origin of the photo, which isn't supposed to be there. Has anyone read a article, or have a link to an article, about the provenance of the photo?
It doesn't appear to be one of the photos on "Evolution of Oswald." He looks younger, and he has less receding hair here, than in the other 1963 photos. However, "younger" sort of puts this photo in the Minsk days, or earlier...
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Not to drift too far, but David, what do you support "this" with, if it is your belief?
Should it not need read, "Nagell claimed the police found....." (I'm always conscious of an audience consuming what I post and I try to be precise about what I actually have the ability to support. Dick Russell could not confirm what was found wiith Nagell at arrests, and Nagell's letter to Dir. Hoover is not confirmed. This is not to say I think you do not agree with having that on your mind....... Sorry to be such a stickler about all this "stuff".) It seems to leave an open question of whether Nagell used DPD evidence photo to fab his photo copy sent to his attorney at an unknown date.
Come to think of it, since this evidence is the foundation of the card photo Drew asked about, I am not sure this is OT, so I will add it..... It is attributed to Doug Horne.....
Quote:........
Lead # 10/Allegation: That Oswald's DD 1173 I. D. card was lost, and
subsequently returned in the mail, and that the circular date stamp is a
U.S. Post Office cancellation stamp used by the post office when the card
was (presumably) mailed back to the Department of Defense by the person
who found it.
Findings: Incorrect. The author was able to conclusively determine that
the stamp on Oswald's DD 1173 is not a postal cancellation cache. By
comparing a JUL 19, 1960 cache with an AUG 8, 1996 cache (see attachment
15), it was determined that the format of the cancellation stamp used by
the U.S. Postal Service in 1960 was identical with that used in 1996. It
seemed reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the format of cancellation
stamps used in 1962 or 1963 (the period in which the DD 1173 was
presumably lost and postmarked upon its return to the Department of
Defense) would have been identical. Using attachment 15 as a "control," it
is therefore demonstrable that the circular stamp found on the DD 1173
(see attachment 2) is not a postal cancellation stamp: a city name does
not appear (as it should) in the outer circumference of the DD 1173
mystery stamp; and the month, day and year appear on the DD 1173 stamp in
the outer ring of the circle, instead of in the center of the circle
(where they would appear on a true postal cancellation). The author's
findings confirm researcher Paul Hoch's earlier suspicion, outlined in his
"Echoes of Conspiracy" newsletter of 3/8/93, that the circular stamp on
Oswald's DD 1173 may not have been a postal cancellation at all, but
instead was probably affixed by Oswald himself with his own stamp kit. In
addition, the author has observed that this date stamp on the front side
of the DD 1173 (see attachment 2) just happens to coincide with the opaque
white "mask" on the lower right hand corner of the "Oswald in Minsk" photo
on the front of the card; perhaps the purpose of the stamp was to either
disguise the abnormality in the Minsk photo, or to make it appear as if
his expired I. D. card (which expired December 7, 1962) had been extended
(until JUL or OCT 23, 1963), or both. Furthermore, as Paul Hoch pointed
out, the mysterious date
https://books.google.com/books?id=WFMEAAAAMBAJ
Vol. 59, No. 9 - ‎Magazine
It is now run by Jacob's son, Milton Paul Klein. Klein's regularly advertises in The American Rifleman, which is the organ of the National Rifle Association.
Jack White posted a link to Armstrong's research on the Klein company on an old thread on another forum, but
I clicked it and it was dead. I recall reading Milton Klein's obit a few years ago, and there was the name of a younger man who had thought so highly of Klein he had changed his last name to Klein to honor Milton. Not sure it qualified as a legal adoption of a young adult.......
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
15-07-2015, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015, 10:38 PM by David Healy.)
Drew Phipps Wrote:As we all know, the selective Service card with photo on it is a forgery.
The Warren Commission even provides us a description of the manner of its forgery.
What I'm curious about, is the origin of the photo, which isn't supposed to be there. Has anyone read a article, or have a link to an article, about the provenance of the photo?
It doesn't appear to be one of the photos on "Evolution of Oswald." He looks younger, and he has less receding hair here, than in the other 1963 photos. However, "younger" sort of puts this photo in the Minsk days, or earlier...
I have never, ever seen a selective service card include a photo of the holder. Has there been any background done concerning this "uniqueness?"
I expect Milton's father Jacob was deceased no later than in the 1950's.
Yeah, I know.....Nagell's photocopy was included at the image in the link I posted of Jack White's old presentation.
My point is that what you are posting, as far as I am know, and what you wrote about it in the CTKA page that i linked to, is actually unsupported by anything that could actually be verified, going all the way back to when Nagell was visited in prison, by anything other than that no provenance photocopy, and Nagell's own claims. Physical evidence allegedly including a page of his inventoried possessions seized by his arresting officers, in his trial record, never turned up. He made a lot of claims, but it is what it is, and you embrace it at your own risk. I cannot allow myself to accept it, or i would reduce my requirements of proof below those of the WC. I am in this to keep it real. :
Quote:Larry Hancock - Posted 10 May 2004 - 10:10 PM
Hi John, here goes on some short responses to your questions:
1) There is only partial documentation on the contents of Nagell's car, the items which I discuss in my book were listed on the second page of an FBI report and the first page seems to have vanished. Dick Russell could not find the detailed property reports in the court records nor was there a personal property report e.g. wallet, contents of wallet etc. What is documented is very suggestive but its worth noting that Nagell made continued efforts to get all the personal and car property back to aid in his defense and that was repeatedly denied. In fact only part of it was ever returned and that was many years later as part of his personal law suit.
2) There is no direct confirmation of a warning letter to Hoover, the only circumstantial points tending to confirm it are covered in the book including the special questions for the very early interview of Marina Oswald - questions sent from FBI HQ that could indicate that Hoover did indeed have an advance warning from Nagell specifically about Oswald.
3) As to Nagell's mental state, I spent about a year and a half going through literall all his medical records, court records etc before I was convinced that there was a clear pattern which would support him as a viable witness - clearly some of his statements are very conditional in regard to what his goals were at given times, especially during the period when his only main goal was recovering custody of his children. You will find all those documents and my analysis on the CD on Nagell available through Lancer; it's probably the largest composite collection of Nagell documents around.
4) I have no indication that Thorneberry was in the June planning meeting and he would seem out of place considering the stature of the other attendees... Carter was there though.
5) I have no real evidence that Thorneberry's appointment was anything other than sheer patronage; he clearly was a long term Johnson personal friend and Johnson had no qualms about appointing friends to positions regardless of their qualifications. It's certainly an interesting coincidence of course, it's just that we will never know for sure if perhaps Johnson called up his friend and asked for some minor favor in making sure none of Nagell's inflamatory claims about Oswald and a conspiracy got any public visibilty....for the good of the country of course.
-- Larry
Post no one else's claims without verifying them and avoid making assumptions. It is actually less work and less time is wasted than by assuming other secondary sources have reliably documented and interpreted the evidence.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
David Healy Wrote:I have never, ever seen a selective service card including a photo of the holder. Has there been any background done concerning this "uniqueness?"
No, David, the photo is how we're real sure its a forgery. Since it is a forgery, I'm trying to get a handle on when it was made.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
See here's my problem: The Warren Commission says that photo is Oswald in Minsk. If they're right, How does a Minsk photo of Oswald end up on a DOD ID issued before he went to Minsk? (BTW this is the photo at the top of the Google article on LHO. It also says Minsk.)
If they're wrong, and it's a photo of Oswald made at the time of his discharge, why would Oswald use that old 1959 photo in late 1962 (if he's the forger, and he's using the equipment at JCS)? He would certainly know that a) taking a photo of an older photo of a subject is a less convincing forgery than just taking a new photo of the subject, and b) re-using the exact same photo as on his military ID is an excellent way to get caught, and c) the Selective Service cards don't have photos.
If the SS card forger isn't Oswald, but someone else trying to frame him, if they have access to some or all of Oswald's records, and presumably have allies cunning and influential enough to slip this fake ID into Dallas PD or FBI evidence, why are they making so many elementary errors?
All this is leading me to wonder if the DoD ID card is a deliberately clumsy forgery. That would explain the bogus "postmark," the incorrect height, the anomalous photo of Oswald (with a USSR white mark on the shoulder), and the incorrect eye color. Is this all an attempt to frame the KGB?
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Quote:My point is that what you are posting, as far as I am know, and what you wrote about it in the CTKA page that i linked to, is actually unsupported by anything that could actually be verified, going all the way back to when Nagell was visited in prison, by anything other than that no provenance photocopy, and Nagell's own claims. Physical evidence allegedly including a page of his inventoried possessions seized by his arresting officers, in his trial record, never turned up. He made a lot of claims, but it is what it is, and you embrace it at your own risk. I cannot allow myself to accept it, or i would reduce my requirements of proof below those of the WC. I am in this to keep it real.
Post no one else's claims without verifying them and avoid making assumptions. It is actually less work and less time is wasted than by assuming other secondary sources have reliably documented and interpreted the evidence.
Do we agree that the lawyer had the photocopy in his possession and that it was in his Nagell file?
Do we agree that there were a number of items in Nagell's trunk and on his person at the time of his arrest?
Do we agree that the card has the same number yet a different photo, different signature, and none of the ink marks that Oswald's has?
Do we agree that we are not 100% sure where or how this card come to be in his file?
Do we agree that this photocopy and Nagell are connected once he's been arrested? (Larry wrote: "what is documented is very suggestive...")
I think that is the point Tom... until another corroborated explanation can be offered, the assumption is that this card was in Nagell's possession... and the question is "why?"
---------------
I agree with you about the manner in which the information is shared. No, we are not 100% sure this card was in that trunk or on his person at the time and I should have made mention of that... so thanks for catching that. I will continue to "embrace at my own risk" - I can appreciate you not accepting it as 100% conclusive, yet until something else turns up there is nothing which disassociates the card from Nagell...
right?
Finally, the bottom right of the photo where it appears to say JUL is not part of the stamp that appears to say OCT 23, 1963 but part of the photo - which is also not similar to the stamps of the time
We also know that Oswald's DoD card with "the postmark that isn't" was part of a cache of items that simply materialized... there are some pretty significant items to NOT be listed...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7188&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7188&stc=1)