Year: 2026

Do you know what we’ve been needing on this website? We’ve been needing someone to present a well-reasoned argument about why the words “see index” on someone’s FBI documents tell us that they were on the Security Index. Oh sure, sure, I’ve been making the claim for a while now, but my evidence has been mostly anecdotal. I haven’t provided a debate-worthy case to back up that claim, and let’s just say that my theory, which I revealed back in July 2024, hasn’t exactly caught on with the public at large. In fact, I think you and I are the only non-FBI-types who currently buy into it, and I’d really love to drive those numbers up.

And so…that’s what we’re going to do today, with your help. Through your always insightful questions and my attempts at providing cogent answers, backed by documentary evidence, we’re going to demonstrate why the words “see index” were, without a doubt, FBI code for the Security Index, and why it continues to be a very big deal that Ronald Tammen has those words on page one of his FBI missing person documents.

Ready? Set? Let’s go!

Why so vague? If they’re talking about the Security Index, why didn’t they just say so, removing any doubt?

The Security Index was so secret that agents weren’t supposed to mention it on their reports at all. In fact, Section 87 of the Manual of Rules and Regulations expressly states that “Matters pertaining to the security index are strictly confidential and are not to be mentioned or alluded to in investigative reports.” 

The FBI had dozens of indexes. But there was one top dog among them, the granddaddy of all granddaddies, and FBI special agents were well aware which one occupied that role. My contention is that the words “see index,” written sideways in the left margin of someone’s FBI record, was a workaround for agents wishing to point their colleagues to the fact that this wasn’t just any old interstate gambler, kidnapper, fraudster or, in Ron Tammen’s case—especially in Ron’s case—missing person. They’re on the Security Index! It’s kind of brilliant, really. From their sheer innocuousness, those two words could convey to agents that a person was considered a threat to public safety or national security while, at the same time, escaping the attention of people who weren’t supposed to know about the Security Index and who might be on it. 

The thing that’s most maddening to me about the FBI’s “see index” cryptic coding scheme is that sometimes those words are difficult to make out. They’re often written incredibly light or they’re smudged, as if someone purposely tried to erase them. For example, Ron Tammen’s “see index” is smudged. Could that mean that an FBI rep was trying to hide the fact that he was on the index or is it just the normal wear and tear of FBI records originating from the 1950s? I will say this: from what I can tell, I don’t believe the FBI erased “see index” if someone was removed from the Security Index. Some people were added to the Security Index and then removed and then added again throughout their closely surveilled adult lives. It would be a pain to keep up with the writing and the erasing and the rewriting of the words “see index” on certain documents in their file. I think once those two words were added to a document in their file, they stayed.

What’s the surest piece of evidence that someone was on the Security Index?

The surest piece of evidence would be their Security Index card, which was a 5” X 8” index card containing some bare-bones info like the person’s name and aliases, current address and place of employment, along with one or more abbreviations summing up why they made it to the Security Index—ESP for spy, COM for communist, etc. More detailed information and a photo would be attached to the back of the card. The Security Index cards were stored in a tightly monitored location at the FBI, away from the rest of the FBI records, including the FBI General Index, which was everyone’s first stop when looking someone up. This is likely why agents felt the need to provide a clue pointing other agents to the Security Index. I’ve only seen a few actual Security Index cards, and, from what I can tell, they’re not included with someone’s records in a typical FOIA request. That would be too helpful.

The next surest piece of evidence is their FD-122 form. That form had to be filled out by the nominating field office (aka the Office of Origin), and then sent to FBI Headquarters as well as the Department of Justice for approval. If you find someone’s FD-122 form online or through a FOIA request, that person was very likely on the Security Index. If you find a note on the FD-122 saying something like “approved” or “SI card added,” then you have confirmation that they were indeed on it. If you find several FD-122s making changes to the information on the original form, a new name or address perhaps, then you’ve hit pay dirt. They were longtime Security Indexers. Nice going, you!

Unfortunately, sometimes someone’s FD-122 isn’t available online or the FBI and DOJ have declined to release it through FOIA. That’s where the “see index” notation could come in handy. My theory is that, if I can show as many examples as possible in which a person with an FD-122 also has a “see index” written on one of their FBI records, then I believe we’re showing causality. We’re showing that the FD-122 was submitted and approved, and consequently, someone wrote “see index” on one or more of their records. And if I can show that, then I believe it’s reasonable to conclude that, even if the FD-122 isn’t available, as in Ron Tammen’s case, the words “see index” is our indicator that he was indeed on the Security Index.

Here are some people who had one or more FD-122s as well as a “see index” notation in their FBI records. Some are difficult to see, but look for the ‘s’ in see and/or the ‘x’ in index, and then zoom in.

Leonard Bernstein

Judith Coplon

Harry Hay

Meir D. Kahane

John Howard Lawson

Paul Robeson

Mario Savio

Morton Sobell

Haskell (Pete) Wexler

Malcom X

Better yet, here are people who have “see index” written directly on their FD-122s, which are the grandest FD-122s of all:

Bella Abzug

Eldridge Cleaver

Abbie Hoffman

Stanley David Levison

Elijah Poole/Elijah Mohammed

Jessica Lucy Treuhaft

David Ritz Van Ronk

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that, as impressive as that list may be, it’s not very many people. The Security Index was said to contain as many as 10,000-25,000 names at various times of its existence. I blame the small number that I’ve been able to come up with on the fact that the FBI hasn’t uploaded all those people’s records online. In fact, they’re only letting us see a smattering of them. Also, I’m not convinced they’re releasing all of the records for the people whom they have released. Have you seen what they’ve released on Charles Manson, for example?  His case file is laughably small. And thirdly, the words “see index” usually turn up on only one or two pages of a person’s entire file….if they appear at all. The presence of a “see index” is incredibly random. So I guess what I’m saying is that this is a grueling needle-in-a-haystack type of ordeal. Every “see index” that pops up on my screen makes me a happy girl. If I can find that person’s corresponding FD-122, I go wild. 

If, however, you feel you need more evidence, don’t despair. There are other ways to find out if “see index” applies only to people who were on the Security Index. Luckily, I’ve found several more forms, a few of which have been useful.

What other forms? 

To save a little time, I’ll be using the abbreviation “SI” when I refer to the Security Index as an adjective (e.g., SI subject, SI card, etc.). 

FD-128

The FD-128 was a form that was used when an SI subject moved, and the Office of Origin needed to be transferred to the new location. Although this form was most definitely used for all SI subjects who moved, I’m not 100% sure if it was also used for people who were merely the subject of a security investigation, even those not on the Security Index. For this reason, I’m not claiming that the subject of the FD-128 was definitely on the Security Index. At least not for now. I may change my mind by the end of this post though. You’ll see why.

FD-154

This form seems to have been used mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, but I think it was replaced at some point. Its title was “Verification of Information on Security Index Cards,” and it provided the most up-to-date information about the SI subject. Although they’re relatively rare, I found several FD-154s for two people with “see index” notations. In addition, Morton Sobell’s FD-154, highlighted above, provides proof that he had an FD-122.

FD-305

Next to the FD-122, this is my favorite indicator that a person was on the Security Index. It was an overview of the person’s SI status, reflecting any changes that needed to be made regarding their case that weren’t already covered in the FD-122. Come to think of it, maybe it was the form that replaced the FD-154? Not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

According to the book “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” the FD-305 “reflects ‘current data concerning subject’s continued status as a Security Index subject.’” In short, it wouldn’t make sense for an agent to use the FD-305 form unless the person he’s reporting on was on the Security Index. That’s especially important to know in the case of science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, whom we’ll be discussing a little later.

FD-400

One of the, um, perks of being on the Security Index was having the FBI check on your whereabouts regularly—every six months if you were a Priority I case—and sending in a report on what you’ve been up to. But what if you’d turned over a new leaf or just mellowed out as you got older and the FBI’s designated informants didn’t have a lot to say about you? In those situations, the special agent opted for the FD-400, which was a form used when there wasn’t much to report. That’s literally what the form said: “This letter is submitted in lieu of a report inasmuch as no pertinent data has been developed since date of referenced communication.” The FD-400 was always accompanied by the FD-305, again, confirming that you indeed were on the Security Index. However, if they continued submitting yawners like the FD-400s, you probably would be a candidate for removal from the Security Index.

FD-376

In my previous post, we talked about the FD-376, which served as an FBI cover letter of sorts when transferring a report to the Secret Service. As we discussed, all activities of SI subjects were reported to the Secret Service, so the FD-376 was used frequently for those folks. But, as with the FD-128, I’m not 100% sure that it was used exclusively for SI subjects. In the book “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” it was described as an “FBI form for recording information concerning a person allegedly potentially dangerous to the President.” I mean, there’s no question that it was a bad thing to have your name at the top of an FD-376. But at this point, I don’t believe that it’s a sure sign that you were on the Security Index, so probably not the best indicator.

FD-366

Likewise, the FD-366 was used to provide a change of address to the Secret Service for people on the Security Index, though it may have been used for others being investigated as well. So, again, it’s not a sure bet that someone was on the Security Index.

For the above reasons, my current go-to indicators that a person was on the Security Index are the FD-122, FD-154, FD-305, and FD-400. 

Unfortunately, the additional forms don’t add many new people to our list—only Ray Bradbury to date—but they provide further confirmation that the rest of the group with the notation “see index” was without a doubt on the Security Index.

Here’s the tally so far. Note that I’m not saying that these are all that exist. They’re just all that I’ve found so far. I’ll continue to keep my eyes open for more. Feel free to keep your eyes open too, and if you find any, please let me know.

Name	See index	FD-122	FD-154	FD-305	FD-400
Bella Abzug	X	X		X
Leonard Bernstein	X	X
Ray Bradbury	X			X
Eldridge Cleaver	X	X		X
Judith Coplon	X	X	X	X
Harry Hay	X	X		X
Abbie Hoffman	X	X		X
Meir D. Kahane	X	X		X
John Howard Lawson	X	X		X	X
Stanley David Levison	X	X		X
Elijah Mohammed	X	X		X
Paul Robeson	X	X		X
Mario Savio	X	X		X
Morton Sobell	X	X	X
Jessica Lucy Treuhaft	X	X		X	X
David Ritz Van Ronk	X	X		X
Haskell (Pete) Wexler	X	X		X
Malcom X	X	X		X

Is that everything? You’re not holding anything back, are you?

Well…there’s one more form that, per the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations, was to be submitted only if a person was on the Security Index or the Reserve Index. We won’t be talking about that form today, but we will very soon. Stay tuned, because I’ll be presenting evidence that I believe could upend the current thinking concerning the actions taken by the FBI with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald’s case file—before, that is, he became a patsy for JFK’s assassination.

What’s the Reserve Index?

If the Security Index was the FBI’s General Index on steroids, then I think you could say that the Reserve Index was the Security Index on melatonin. It was composed of presumed communists mostly, or people who were communist adjacent, or maybe people who once knew someone who toyed with being a communist but life got in the way and they drifted apart. It was a lot iffier than the Security Index.

The Reserve Index comprised two sections: Section A and Section B. Section A consisted mostly of people who were smart. According to “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” the list included “teachers, journalists, lawyers, physicians, and others whom the FBI considered well placed to work against the national interest.” You know…the pillars of society. Section B consisted of whomever was left. In the event of a national emergency, the plan was to round up all of the Security Index folks, and then, time- and weather-permitting, I suppose, to go after the people on Section A of the Reserve Index. 

How do you know “see index” doesn’t refer to the Reserve Index?

The word “reserve” says it all. The people on the Reserve Index weren’t of primary concern to the FBI. They were people who, in a sense, were on the FBI’s back burner. In fact, they didn’t even keep the Reserve Index cards at FBI Headquarters—only field offices, and, more particularly, the Offices of Origin. It’d be weird to write “see index” on an FBI report kept at Headquarters if the index they were referring to was being maintained in Kansas City or Cleveland or Phoenix or…you get my drift.

It’s also important to point out that form FD-122 did not apply to Reserve Index candidates. They had their own dedicated form—the FD-122a. That’s why we can say with 100% assurance that an FD-122 signifies the Security Index and only the Security Index. In that same vein, while form FD-128 (the form where they transferred the Office of Origin) was used for Security Index subjects, form FD-128a was for Reserve Index subjects. 

And that right there is why I’m still on the fence over whether FD-128 could have been used for people who weren’t on the Security Index. According to “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” the FD-128 form was an “FBI form authorizing a change in ‘Office of Origin’ for a case.” That sounds like it could be used in any case, but why would you need the FD-128a form if FD-128 could be used for everyone? Perhaps this is evidence that the FD-128 was used only for people on the Security Index. If so, this, too, has implications in Lee Harvey Oswald’s case. I’ll tell you why in my next post.

So what was up with Ray Bradbury?

For those of you who don’t know, Ray Bradbury was a hugely successful author and screen writer. His most famous work was the classic novel Fahrenheit 451. Fahrenheit 451 is frequently on banned book lists, which is so rich because it’s a work of science fiction about censorship and the importance of books in encouraging freedom of thought. I’ve never read it, but I’ll be hunkering down with it as soon as I’m done writing this post. I encourage you to do the same. (I mean, c’mon! It’s freezing outside…perfect hunkering-down weather!) George Orwell and Margaret Atwood have been quoted profusely on social media for their prescience in, well, how things have been going of late. I’d like to see a little more Ray Bradbury added to the mix.

OK, so where was I? Oh, right. So Ray Bradbury is a bit of an enigma when it comes to his FBI file. It consists of exactly one “part” in the FBI Vault, which is 40 pages. The FBI would like us all to believe that that’s the sum total of Bradbury’s file, but I would differ with them on that point.

On two of Bradbury’s 40 pages are the words “see index” written sideways in the left margin. 

This time, dated 6/8/59:

And this time, dated : 3/7/68

If you’ve been paying even the slightest bit of attention to this post, you know that I think that this is a telltale sign that Ray Bradbury was on the Security Index. My problem is that I can’t find Bradbury’s FD-122. Also, on the page dated 6/8/59, the second paragraph under the “Administrative” heading says this: “No evidences [sic] have been developed which indicate he was ever a member of the CP [Communist Party]. He is not on the Security Index or the RCI, Los Angeles Division and no recommendation is being made to so include his name in the absence of information reflecting CP membership.”

Well! First, RCI stands for Reserve-Communist Index, which was a forerunner to the Reserve Index. But, more importantly, they came right out and said that he wasn’t on the Security Index. Even if that were a true statement (and my evidence tells me that it is not) that doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his way there sometime later. 

Here’s my evidence.

Ray Bradbury had an FD-305. Unfortunately, the FBI didn’t date their FD-305s—they just accompanied various other reports, including the FD-400. We don’t know for sure if it was from 1959, 1968, or any other year, though I’m pretty sure that it accompanied the June 1959 report, since it immediately followed that report in his file and the print date on the form was 10-14-58. 

But as I’ve said above, the whole purpose of an FD-305 was to provide up-to-date info concerning someone’s ongoing status on the Security Index. Granted, in the top box, the agent is asked if the person is on the Security Index, but that’s a formality in my view—a way for an agent to make sure he’s using the correct form. Every other question that follows the top box has to do with their being on the Security Index, including:

[   ] The data appearing on the Security Index card are current.

[   ] Changes on the Security Index card are necessary and Form FD-122 has been submitted to the Bureau.

[   ] A suitable photograph is [   ] is not [   ] available.

Also, farther down there’s:

[   ] This case no longer meets the Security Index criteria and a letter has been directed to the Bureau recommending cancellation of the Security Index card.

[   ] This case has been re-evaluated in the light of the Security Index criteria and it continues to fall within such criteria because (state reason).

Did you notice in the latter grouping how they didn’t have a third option that the case doesn’t meet Security Index criteria? It’s either that it “no longer meets” the criteria or that it “continues to fall within such criteria”? 

What’s more, the only boxes checked by the FBI’s LA field office were the ones saying that a suitable photograph was available. Guess where I believe that photograph was going? I believe it was going to be attached to the back of Ray Bradbury’s Security Index card.

Another indication that Ray Bradbury was on the Security Index is an in-depth biographical write-up that was forwarded to a separate agency on both June 8, 1959, and August 25, 1968, when the FBI was investigating if he might be contemplating a trip to Cuba. You can tell these records were destined for another agency by this disclaimer:

“This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of any kind. It is a loan to your agency, as it is the property of the FBI, and it and/or its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.”

Although the August 1968 write-up is fully redacted, both write-ups resemble the write-ups that were accompanied by the same FD-376s used for notifying the Secret Service, especially in Security Index cases. But because the FBI doesn’t include the cover letters in Bradbury’s file, we don’t get to know who their intended audience was.

Here’s the issue about Ray Bradbury and other people who had a voice that commanded public attention and respect: I think the FBI was especially secretive about their being on the Security Index. The FBI usually wanted to interview Security Index subjects in person to assess where their allegiances lay, but they seemed more cautious with writers, directors, producers, and the like. Here’s a note on the 8/15/68 report from the LA field office to FBI Headquarters which preceded the biographical write-up that was transferred to an unidentified agency:

“Information and sources, who are familiar with Cuban activities, were unable to furnish any information which would indicate travel to Cuba or any affiliation between Bradbury and REDACTED.

There is no current information that would reflect foreign travel by Bradbury.

To ascertain the affiliation between Bradbury and REDACTED, it is felt that it would require an interview of Bradbury.

It is felt, however, that due to Bradbury’s background as a known liberal writer, vocal in anti-United States war policies, an interview with Bradbury would be deemed unadvisable, UACB [Unless Advised to the Contrary by the Bureau].

Are you actually saying they lied on their June 1959 report?

I’m saying that someone wrote “see index” in the margin of a report that stated that Bradbury wasn’t on the Security Index. As for who did the writing or when, I can’t be sure. Maybe it was written by someone from FBI Headquarters upon receipt of the report. Maybe it was a little ruse the LA field office had cooked up with their colleagues at FBI Headquarters where they’d type in that Bradbury is definitely NOT on the Security Index (*wink wink*), but then they wrote “see index” by hand to let them know that he actually is.  After all, they weren’t even supposed to mention the Security Index by name in their investigative reports. They were breaking protocol left and right.

And make no mistake: there was no reason for the special agent in LA to have reached for the FD-305 form if Ray Bradbury wasn’t on the Security Index. The FBI had a plethora of forms. If all the agent wanted to do was communicate that they had a suitable photo of Bradbury or that the names of the informants needed to be kept confidential, the FD-305 was not the form to use. He could have added that info to the bottom of his report. Nope, the photos that are referred to on FD-305 forms are destined for one location and one location only: the backs of Security Index cards.

Is there someone knowledgeable you can ask?

I’ve run my FBI records by a lot of knowledgeable people. I’m sure they noticed Ron’s “see index” long before I did, not to mention all of his other special markings. No one volunteered the info. Recently, I reached out to someone who I felt knew something and had less to lose than someone who was drawing an FBI pension. Unfortunately, that person didn’t respond to me.

It’s possible that I may be able to track someone down who’d be willing to tell me if FD-128 and FD-376 were only for Security Index subjects and those sorts of details. I’ll look into that. But, I’ll be honest—in my experience, retired FBI agents don’t give up much intel.

That said, if you happen to be a current or former FBI agent and would like to weigh in anonymously, please reach out through the “contact” webform at the top of the page or email me at rontammenproject[at]gmail[dot]com. I promise to protect your identity into perpetuity.

Also, as always, I try to be as accurate as possible with my reporting. If you’re an expert on FBI forms and I got anything wrong, please let me know.

As for the rest of my readers…what do you think? Are you convinced?

*********************

Special thanks to The Black Vault, Mary Ferrell Foundation, National Archives and Records Administration, Internet Archive, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for making these records available.