Blog

Perjury, more perjury, and the perjurious perjurers who perjure themselves 

Lately, for some reason, I’ve been thinking a lot about perjury. Or, more specifically, I’ve been thinking about people who, during a legal proceeding, hold their right hand up in the air and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but then who…don’t. 

Who would even do that? Is there a self-respecting person out there (other than this guy, presumably) who could possibly be that brazen? What’s more, is there a normally reputable place of business that would even think of asking an employee to do it? Is this even in the realm of the possible, or am I talking crazy?

And what about an employer’s team of lawyers? Are there bona fide lawyers out there who know that a person they’re representing is lying and are fine with it? Is there—and I’m just spit-balling here—some kind of secret insider’s guide to lying under oath that would embolden a lawyer to tell his or her client that there’s a way to say untrue things on the stand without the penalty of perjury? One of the insider tips might be that if the client were to use certain code phrases immediately before a lie is told—something like “to my knowledge,” for example—it would be a free pass to lying. I mean, has a member of the bar ever said something like that to their client or is this, again, crazy talk?

Mind you, we’re just speaking hypothetically here, but to my knowledge, lying under oath is considered a no-no. 

To my knowledge, it’s illegal even.

To my knowledge, if you’re lying about what you know to be true, then you’re not using the phrase “to my knowledge” correctly. To my knowledge, it’s still a lie.

A more nuanced, indirect approach to lying under oath might be a hypothetical organization’s choice in who answers questions on its behalf. What if the organization were to purposely choose someone with a limited amount of knowledge about whatever the issue might be? What if the hypothetical organization were to purposely keep that person in the dark, prepping them with a minimal amount of intel or even a false narrative?  

After all, the person answering questions under oath would be telling the truth as he or she knows the truth to be. They’d be providing the information they were given. It would be their truth. It just wouldn’t be what the hypothetical organization whom they represent knows to be true—the authentic, unmitigated truth.

These are just a couple random, again, purely hypothetical thoughts I’ve had on this topic. 

Thanks for listening. I won’t be taking comments at this time. However, in the meantime, I have a puzzle for you to ponder:

Does it look to you as if the green E and the two blue E’s were written by the same person? 

The FBI said under oath that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t on the FBI’s Security Index. Here’s my evidence that he was

I’d like to begin this post by saying that I would never think of lying to someone from the FBI. Not only would it be obvious to them that I was lying because I happen to be a terrible liar, but I’d be committing a felony. The FBI can do bad things to you if they catch you in a lie.

But what if they lie to us, the American public? Well, that’s different. Based on the number of times I’ve caught them lying, both to me personally as well as to the public by way of a deceptively worded report, I’d hypothesize that they do it anytime it suits their purpose. NOTE: If you happen to be with the FBI and you feel I’m depicting you and your colleagues unfairly, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Otherwise, if all remains quiet, I’ll presume that you agree with me. 

The subject we’ll be addressing today is a lie that was told under oath by someone from the FBI as part of the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ investigation into JFK’s murder. Because the lie was told under oath, people automatically believed him, and for good reason. Most people wouldn’t dream of lying under oath. Most of us have been taught that the penalties for perjury are no fun. 

However, as a government agency that may have a lot to cover up, particularly regarding the assassination of the country’s 35th president, the FBI might view things differently. They might consider lying under oath as the quickest, most efficient way to alter the narrative. Even now, almost 48 years after he delivered his testimony, the lie has become solidified into the country’s consciousness regarding JFK’s assassination. 

However, I’d argue that the FBI records underlying his testimony tell a different, more nuanced story. I don’t know about you, but if given a choice between what an FBI guy said to some lawmakers during a Congressional hearing and what the raw, unfiltered data say, I’m going with the unfiltered data 100% of the time. 

We’ll be doing this as a Q&A, and, dear Good Man readers, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

What lie are you referring to?

I’m referring to the lie of omission that was made by James H. Gale during his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in September 1978. In 1963, Gale was an FBI inspector who was assigned to review how FBI agents had handled Lee Harvey Oswald’s case prior to JFK’s assassination and to report on any deficiencies in their actions. In his testimony in which he read from a report he’d written on December 10, 1963, he claimed that Oswald hadn’t been placed on the Security Index because agents at the time didn’t feel he’d met the criteria, though he himself disagreed with their assessment. That’s what he’d written in his report and that’s the story he told the committee members in September 1978.

But Gale didn’t tell the whole truth, which is one-third of the truths he’d sworn he’d be upholding that day. If Gale had been telling the whole truth, he’d have said that, even if he was no longer on the Security Index at the time of JFK’s assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald had indeed been on the Security Index at around the time of his attempted defection to the Soviet Union. He would have added that, somewhere along the line, Oswald had been removed.

How do you know Oswald was on the Security Index?

Since July 2024, I’ve been building my theory that the words “see index” written sideways in the left margin of someone’s FBI records indicate they were on the FBI’s Security Index. In addition to Ronald Tammen’s “see index,” I’ve discovered dozens of people, many with rather seamy reputations, who had those two words written on their FBI records. In my September 1, 2024, post, I revealed that the words “see index” were also written in the left margin of one of Lee Harvey Oswald’s FBI records dated November 9, 1959, shortly after he attempted to defect to the Soviet Union. 

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; click on image for a closer view

More recently, I presented a more detailed argument that the words “see index” written sideways in the left margin were indeed FBI code for the Security Index. I provided multiple examples that enable us to say with confidence that (to the best of my knowledge) the theory is true. 

(You may want to skim through that post to refresh your memory on some of the terms, especially the difference between the Security Index and the Reserve Index. If you don’t have the time, in a nutshell, the Security Index consisted of individuals thought to be especially dangerous or a threat to national security who were to be rounded up and incarcerated during a national emergency. The Reserve Index consisted mostly of alleged communists and were second in priority to the Security Index in a national emergency, with those in section A being of higher priority than section B.)

But that’s not all. I have additional evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had been on the Security Index.

What additional evidence?

It has to do with something called a Security Flash Notice, which had been put out on Lee Harvey Oswald by way of a memo dated November 4, 1959, five days after he officially attempted to renounce his American citizenship and defect to the Soviet Union.

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; click on image for a closer view; note the word “flash” written in handwriting, to the right

It’s well known among JFK researchers that Oswald’s Security Flash Notice had been canceled several weeks before JFK’s assassination, on October 9, 1963. The timing of that action is suspicious, to be sure. According to James Gale’s December 1963 report, the agent who was censured and put on probation for canceling Oswald’s Security Flash Notice was Marvin Gheesling, who oversaw Oswald’s case in the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, also known as Division 5. 

But, to my knowledge, what hasn’t been brought out until today, on this website… (cue trumpets)

Sound Effect by Benjamin Adams from Pixabay

…is that the FBI didn’t put out Security Flash Notices on just anyone undergoing a security investigation. The person had to already be on either the Security Index or the Reserve Index. 

We’ll get to the question of how we know Oswald was on the Security Index and not the Reserve Index momentarily. For now, let’s just say that Oswald’s Security Flash Notice is another indicator that he’d been on the Security Index but was for some reason removed. Canceling Oswald’s Security Flash Notice was a big deal, no question. I’d contend that his removal from the Security Index would have been far bigger. 

What’s a Security Flash Notice?

A Security Flash Notice was a notice distributed by the FBI’s Identification Division at the request of an agent or field office who wanted to be alerted about any updates concerning a person on the Security Index or Reserve Index. 

We’ve talked about the Identification Division a lot in the past. They’re the division that maintained all of the FBI’s fingerprints—both criminal and civilian, including anyone in the military. They were one of the first divisions if not the first division to be alerted about any arrests that were made concerning someone on the FBI’s radar on any given day across the country.

The Identification Division would disseminate the Security Flash Notice to all field offices asking to be alerted about any arrests or other information regarding the Security Indexer of interest. They would then forward responses to whomever submitted the request. 

In Oswald’s day, it was required that the Identification Division already have a set of the person’s fingerprints in order for a Security Flash Notice to be placed. Later, in 1971, officials sent out a memo saying that if someone on the Security Index didn’t have a set of fingerprints already at the FBI, agents should submit a Security Flash Notice anyway. If one of the field offices discovered that the Security Indexer had been recently arrested, they could obtain a set of prints that way.

What form was used for the Security Flash Notice?

God bless you and your obsession with minutia. The Security Flash Notice form was number FD-165. This form was essential because the Identification Division was generally out of the loop when it came to security cases. They occupied a separate building from the agents in Division 5 and they had a different filing system than the rest of the Bureau. People in Identification probably never had the opportunity to stumble across a “see index” notation on an FBI record or to hold a Security Index card in their fingerprint-inked hands. They needed to be alerted separately about someone on the Security Index, and the Security Flash Notice form was how that was accomplished. 

Weirdly, so far, I’ve found only two filled-out FD-165s online for actual cases. More often, I’ll find mentions of either the Security Flash Notice or the FD-165 in an FBI report, saying that it was either submitted, canceled, or something else. I’ve also found mentions of a Security Flash Notice on someone’s rap sheet, which is how we learned that Oswald’s Security Flash Notice had been canceled on October 9, 1963.

Here’s a Security Flash Notice form for Judith Coplon, a Soviet spy.

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; click on image for a closer view

And here’s where the cancelation of Oswald’s Security Flash Notice is mentioned on his rap sheet.

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; click on image for a closer view

How do you know that they only used Security Flash Notices for the Security Index or Reserve Index?

If you’ve ever wondered why I sometimes spend large chunks of my day reading rules and regs manuals, this is why. We know that Security Flash Notices were only used for individuals on the Security Index or in section A of the Reserve Index because Section 87 of the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations in November 1960 says so. I expressly chose the November 1960 version because it was updated three years before President Kennedy was assassinated, and therefore it was the version that was ostensibly followed to the letter by agents in Division 5 during Lee Harvey Oswald’s time.

Allow me to reproduce the relevant passage here, paying particular attention to item C:

Security flash notice (form FD-165)

(A) Flash notices shall be placed with the Identification Division on security index subjects (and reserve index A subjects) who have identification records. Form FD-165 is used to place and cancel these notices and to obtain a transcript of subject’s record.

(B) Do not maintain a security flash notice for security index (or reserve index A) subject when no identification record for subject exists in the Identification Division.

(C) Do not place a security flash notice on a subject of a security investigation who is not included in the security index or reserve index A. (bold added)

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; this is the full page from the 11-14-60 Manual of Rules and Regulations; the pertinent section is item IV, at the bottom; click on image for a closer view

So…yeah. James H. Gale, as the FBI inspector charged with reviewing the Oswald case, would have seen the November 9, 1959, memo with the “see index” written sideways in the left margin. But even if I’m wrong about the meaning of “see index,” and I don’t believe I am, he would have seen the November 4, 1959, memo with the recommendation and handwritten notation to put out a Security Flash Notice on Oswald. He would have seen the October 9, 1963, notation on Oswald’s rap sheet stating that the Security Flash Notice had been canceled. And, in his position as inspector, he would have been fully apprised of the rule (or was it a regulation?) that Security Flash Notices should not be placed on someone who wasn’t already on the Security Index or in section A of the Reserve Index. Why was none of this mentioned in his December 1963 report? Why didn’t he bring it up during his testimony in September 1978? Why did we have to wait until today to learn it? (My guess? See paragraphs 2 and 4 of this post.)

How do you know that Oswald wasn’t on the Reserve Index instead of the Security Index?

Let’s refer once again to the FBI Manual of Rules and Regulations. I should probably state here that this manual isn’t for the feint of heart, not just because of the boredom involved, although there’s certainly plenty of that to be had. It’s because all of the pages in the online document have been mixed up by both page number as well as version. It is, for want of a better term, a sh*tshow. So…you know…you’re welcome. 

The reason we know that Oswald was on the Security Index and not the Reserve Index was because someone filled out an FD-128 form on him as well as Marina in September 1963. (Marina’s case was also interesting, but we’re only focusing on Lee today.) As you’ll recall from our earlier discussion, the form FD-128 was used when the Office of Origin for someone on the Security Index was transferred to another field office. On September 10, 1963, an FD-128 was completed by the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Field Office transferring the Office of Origin for Oswald’s case to New Orleans. You’ll note that none of the lines are checked—not the one for being on the Security Index and not the one for the Security Flash Notice, which is…interesting. But to answer your question, if he were on the Reserve Index, the SAC would have submitted an FD-128a, not an FD-128.

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; click on image for a closer view

But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s some pertinent language from the 11-14-60 manual:

“When the office of origin for a security index (or reserve index A) subject against whose identification record a notice has been placed is changed, form FD-128 (or FD-128a), submitted to change office of origin, should show that a security flash notice has been posted with the Identification Division. An extra copy of the form FD-128 (or FD-128a) should be specifically sent to the identification Division in order that its records will show the new office of origin to which future records will be submitted.”

Hold on. Oswald’s FD-128 is dated September 10, 1963, but there’s no checkmark saying that a Security Flash Notice had been placed. Shouldn’t there be a checkmark, since it hadn’t been canceled at that point?

Good catch. Based on the above paragraph from the 11-14-60 manual, it appears that there should be a checkmark if the Security Flash Notice hadn’t been canceled. What’s more, just a few minutes ago, I discovered a rap sheet dated five days earlier, September 5, 1963, and that Security Flash was still open. So yeah, I think there should definitely be a checkmark there.

Credit: Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available; click on image for a closer view

So what do you think? Is it just me, or do we have some breaking news here? And if so, who do I need to tell?

Secret lives: two teenage males who lived them and the clues they left behind

Although we’ll be talking a little about Ron Tammen, this post isn’t really about him. Instead, I’ll be using my research into Tammen as a way to tell you about someone else who was important to this project but who has since moved on. It’s also a short lesson about the discovery process and how, even after someone is no longer within reach—whether they moved far away or disappeared or died—there are signs they leave behind that may be even more telling about who they were than what they said or did in front of us. This post is about the art of reading the signs to arrive at never-before-known insights about them—their hidden loves, their unvoiced yearnings, and how they secretly spent their time while they were here with us.

I’m not sure of the exact moment when it finally dawned on me that Ron Tammen had been living a secret life before he disappeared. I’d been spending hours on the phone talking to his classmates and hearing surprisingly little about him—only how nice, smart, good looking, and polite he was. That was usually after they’d gotten through telling me that he was a wrestler, Campus Owl, residence hall counselor, and member of the fraternity Delta Tau Delta. When I’d ask why they thought he was nice, very few could come up with a reason. Most admitted that they didn’t know him very well. Even his roommates from both his freshman and sophomore years had little they could offer to the character profile I was attempting to build. I was wondering how anyone could leave such a blurrily benign impression on so many people. Not a single person I’d spoken with had anything critical to say about him. By all appearances, he was the most stand-up, upright, buttoned-down, squeaky clean male ever to stroll the corridors of Fisher Hall.

Eventually, after paying attention to the signs, I figured things out. I learned that Ron Tammen spent time with his peers only occasionally on an ad hoc, goal-oriented basis, such as for a walk back to the dorms or to hitchhike to Dayton to donate blood. Otherwise, when he wasn’t in class or playing a gig with the Owls or counseling a freshman resident of Fisher Hall, he appeared to be off the grid. People in the fraternity or his dorm would say that he really didn’t hang out with them much. Many told me that he was always studying, although if he was, his grades weren’t showing it. He didn’t date much. Didn’t have a best friend.  When he asked a girl to a dance scheduled for the spring of 1953, she was a weird choice—his estranged brother’s sister-in-law, who attended a university 130 miles away—and he asked her way too far in advance to be considered normal. 

As far as what Ron’s secret life was, I can only hazard a theory. As I’ve shared with you before, I think Ron was gay and possibly seeing one or more men, which, in the 1950s, required the utmost in secrecy the likes of which most people can’t fathom today. Put another way, Ron Tammen didn’t choose to live a secret life; a secret life was the only way he could possibly survive. 

I’d now like to tell you about someone else who was leading a secret life, this one more recent.

If you follow me on Facebook, you learned that my cat Herbie passed away this past January, about a week shy of his 18th birthday. Herbie was named after my grandfather on my mother’s side, and it suited him well. His name reminded some people of that old movie The Love Bug, and maybe because of that, maybe not, I called him nicknames like Lovey, Buggy, Bug, and later My Sweet Bear, because he would plod loudly through the house like a bear cub sometimes. 

Herbie was my first real pet, and I’ve noticed that I laugh a lot less now that he’s gone. He was my daily dose of dopamine. He could cheer me up and calm me down. I was cooler when I was with him. Smarter too. Matching wits with him, especially when trying to coax him into his carrier, was our favorite parlor game. I’m still learning how to function without his watchful gaze, which could make me feel guilty and goofy and fascinating all at once. (Mostly the former.)

Herbie had been with me since Day 1 of my research into Ron Tammen. You could say that he was the OG of the Good Man posse. (Do you remember when we called ourselves that? We were so much younger then!) He would sleep in the office window of our DC home while I made my phone calls to sources. If it was dinner time and I was still on the phone, he’d sit at my feet and stare up at me, meowing loudly. “Oops! My cat’s telling me that we’d better wind things up,” I’d say to whomever was on the other end.

If I was sitting on the bed with books and papers strewn all over, Herbie would hop up on the bed, walk over to whatever was most inviting to his eye, and plop himself on top. Among the items that he’s parked himself on was an open book of Clark Hull’s Hypnosis and Suggestibility; a large 1950s map to businesses in Wellsville, NY; a 1975 FBI phone directory; and a folder full of news clippings about Ron Tammen. He enjoyed them all equally well.

Herbie had two stand-out traits that I’ve tried to emulate, both in my research and in life in general. First was his emotional intelligence. He didn’t let anyone else’s emotions affect his own. If someone wanted him to do anything that he had no intention of doing, he’d assume his loaf position and stare at them. He could stare someone down all day if he had to. I’ve tried the stare-down method when talking to someone who is angry or highly agitated, and it does work in defusing tension. I find it works when I suspect someone of lying as well. If I stare at someone after they say something I find questionable, I’ve found that they’ll fill the void with words and behaviors that can sometimes get us closer to the truth.

His second emulative trait was his ability to stand up for himself, which I grew to admire so much, I made a point of never apologizing for him. “Herbie does stand up for himself,” I would say with a note of pride at the vet’s office, as he was screeching and clawing his way out of some poor assistant’s grasp. But it was at the groomer’s where he really set the rules. No one, I repeat no one, could speak when Herbie was having his nails trimmed. If you did, he’d have a total hissy fit. He didn’t bite, just hissed like crazy. His groomer, Lisa, who was also the owner, understood him. She’d gently pull him up out of his carrier, wrap him in a hold so tight that he felt safe and secure, and then give all the other groomers dirty looks if they said so much as a word during his trim, which he viewed as a major medical procedure. The other groomers had a nickname for him, “Silent Cat,” and they welcomed him by name as soon as we walked through the door. “Lisa! Silent Cat is here.” (After he passed, I told Lisa that, when it came to her, his hisses were kisses.)

If anyone has witnessed my badass side when I’m conducting my Tammen research, I guess you know where I got it from.

About a week or so ago, as I was watching TV, I heard a cat in our backyard, crying. I think caterwauling may be the correct term, or maybe it was more of a yowl. Whatever the word, this cat was distraught. I’d never heard that sound coming from our backyard before, and so late at night.

Herbie had been an indoor cat. He never knew the feeling of grass or brick or pavement on his paws like this cat obviously did. But he liked to look at the backyard from a warm rug inside his backdoor. In DC, he used to sit by the kitchen door and wait for his friend Albie, an albino squirrel, to show up. When Albie arrived, Herbie would put his paw to the window as his way of saying hi. After we moved to Ohio, we installed a door with lots of windows so he could look at birds and squirrels at cat-eye level, just like in DC. 

And that’s exactly where I saw her that night. When I walked into the kitchen, I saw her gray form and her pointed ears. She was sitting in the grass directly outside our backdoor. She’d stopped yowling by then. She just sat there in a loaf pose, quietly staring at me. I put my hand on one of the window panes, like Herbie used to do, to say hi, and are you all right?

After a few minutes, she bolted.

The cat looked a lot like a feral gray tabby who’d had a litter of kittens in our neighborhood last summer. Our neighbor had taken it upon herself to see that the mother was spayed and the babies were adopted by new forever homes. It had been advised that the mother remain feral, since that was the life she’d been accustomed to. 

I was emotional. I got all teary at the sight of another cat. I wondered if it was a sign. I wondered if Herbie had sent this cat to say goodbye. 

Then, a couple days later, it came to me. I think I was witnessing a sign all right, but I don’t think Herbie had sent it. I think I was seeing evidence that Herbie had developed a late-night friendship after everyone else had gone to bed. I began putting two and two together, remembering that I’d recently seen pawprints, unmistakably made by a cat, in the snow shortly before Herbie passed away. Those pawprints led straight to the backdoor.

When Herbie died, he was an old man of roughly 88 human years with kidney disease. The fact that he was living a secret life with a good friend who cared for him right to the end was exactly the news that this girl needed to hear.

Now, please take a look at some of Herbie’s baby photos:

Herbie sleeping in the DC office window. He loved that radiator.
Herbie glares at me because it’s dinnertime and his bowl is empty.
No kidding around…Herbie wants his dinner.
Herbie and Albie saying hi to each other
Herbie reaching out to Albie
Herbie lounging
Herbie out and about in his pram
Herbie reclines on some research materials
Herbie resting on a basket full of scarves
Herbie on one of his many trips to NYC at Thanksgiving to see his uncles
Sweet baby Herbie at 2 years old ❤️
My boy Herbie, February 1(ish), 2008 – January 22, 2026
Adding this one just cuz…

I just found another Las Vegas tie for Ron Tammen

I can’t believe I’m doing this right now, because I have to be dressed and ready to go somewhere in exactly T minus 20 minutes, but I feel like it’s big enough to stop everything and post this.

Remember when I had that online afterparty in which we discussed a few more of Ron’s scribbles on his FBI records? At the end of the post, I had a little game where I highlighted a couple mysterious phrases and asked people to offer up their suggestions on what they might mean. Both were on a record dated May 9, 1973, in which the FBI’s Cincinnati Field Office had sent in the fingerprints of a Ron look-alike from Welco Industries to FBI Headquarters and asked them to compare them to Ron’s prints. Here’s one of the notations, beginning with the numbers 366:

“366 m hau” at the top right of Ron’s FBI record; click on image for a closer view
Ron’s full FBI document with the “366 m hau” notation; click on image for a closer view

It looks like an address, beginning with the numbers 366, which are unmistakable. I just haven’t been able to figure out the rest of it, which looks like an “m” followed by an “hau” or something like that.

Well guess what, you guys. I found another “366 m hau” (or something like that) on another FBI record! Here it is:

The “366 m hau” on Ash Resnick’s FBI record; click on image for a closer view
Ash Resnick’s full FBI record with the “366 m hau” notation (top center, under the Subject heading); click on image for a closer view

The record with the new “366 m hau” in question belongs to someone whose name has been redacted for the attempted bombing of a 1973 Lincoln four-door sedan in the parking lot of Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. The owner of the car was Irving “Ash” Resnick. According to his Wikipedia page, Ash “has been credited with helping to organize gambling in Las Vegas,” which is news to me. I’d known about Bugsy Siegel, but somehow Ash Resnick had slipped by me. 

For those of you keeping track at home, this is Ronald Tammen’s second tie to Sin City, a town that would be completely out of character for him if it weren’t for everything else we’ve been discovering about his FBI docs. The first tie was when we found the letters “Hac,” which are written in the top right corner of ten of Ron’s records, in the same handwriting on documents for Herman “Hank” Greenspun. Greenspun was the former publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, and his Hacs had to do with an attempted burglary of his office by G. Gordon Liddy, James W. McCord, and likely others associated with Watergate.

So to recap: Ron Tammen has marks on his FBI records that match marks on records having to do with two bigger-than-life figures in Las Vegas. One man was the target of a planned robbery by the Watergate burglars, including James W. McCord, who, by the way, had other stamps and scribbles in common with Ron’s FBI records. The other man was the target of an attempted car bombing in the parking lot of Caesar’s Palace.

Are these just coincidences? It’s starting to feel like they aren’t.

How do we know that the words ‘see index’ on Ron Tammen’s FBI records mean that he was on the FBI’s Security Index?

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.

Ron Tammen’s “see index,” written in the left margin of page one of his missing person records; click on image for a closer view

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

Leonard Bernstein’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
One page of Leonard Bernstein’s rap sheet; note the very lightly written “see index page” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

Judith Coplon

Judith Coplon’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
Judith Coplon’s “see index,” which is written very lightly in the left margin; click on image for a closer view

Harry Hay

Harry Hay’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
Harry Hay’s “see index” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

Meir D. Kahane

Meir D. Kahane’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
Meir D. Kahane’s “see index” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

John Howard Lawson

John Howard Lawson’s FD-122 (note that the FBI form number has been cut off, but trust me on this–it’s an FD-122); click on image for a closer view
John Howard Lawson’s “see index” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

Paul Robeson

Paul Robeson’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
Paul Robeson’s “see index” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

Mario Savio

Mario Savio’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
Mario Savio’s “see index” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

Morton Sobell

This is NOT Morton Sobell’s FD-122, but it’s the best I could do. This form mentions his FD-122 near the bottom where it instructs them to submit an FD-122 to change his summer residence; click on image for a closer view
Morton Sobell’s “see index” in left margin; click on image for a closer view

Haskell (Pete) Wexler

Haskell (Pete) Wexler’s FD-122. Note that this FD-122 is for the ADEX (Administrative Index), which replaced the Security Index in 1971; click on image for a closer view
Haskell Wexler’s “see index,” which is very lightly written in all caps in the left margin (near bottom); click on image for a closer view

Malcom X

Malcolm X’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view
Malcolm X’s “see index” in the left margin; click on image for a closer view

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

Bella Abzug’s “see index” written in the left margin of her FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Eldridge Cleaver

Eldridge Cleaver’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Abbie Hoffman

Abbie Hoffman’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Stanley David Levison

Stanley Levison’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Elijah Poole/Elijah Mohammed

Elijah Mohammed’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Jessica Lucy Treuhaft

Jessica Lucy Treuhaft’s “see index” written in the left margin of her FD-122; click on image for a closer view

David Ritz Van Ronk

David Van Ronk’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

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.

Malcolm X’s FD-128; click on image for a closer view

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.

Judith Coplon’s FD-154; click on image for a closer view

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.

Mario Savio’s FD-305; click on image for a closer view

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.

Jessica Lucy Treuhaft’s FD-400; click on image for a closer view

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.

Orlando Bosch’s FD-376; click on image for a closer view

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.

Eldridge Cleaver’s FD-366; click on image for a closer view

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.

NameSee indexFD-122FD-154FD-305FD-400
Bella AbzugXX X 
Leonard BernsteinXX   
Ray BradburyX  X 
Eldridge CleaverXX X 
Judith CoplonXXXX 
Harry HayXX X 
Abbie HoffmanXX X 
Meir D. KahaneXX X 
John Howard LawsonXX X
Stanley David LevisonXX X 
Elijah MohammedXX X 
Paul RobesonXX X 
Mario SavioXX X 
Morton SobellXXX  
Jessica Lucy TreuhaftXX XX
David Ritz Van RonkXX X 
Haskell (Pete) WexlerXX X 
Malcom XXX 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:

Ray Bradbury’s “see index” in the margin of this FBI report; click on image for a closer view

And this time, dated : 3/7/68

Ray Bradbury’s “see index,” lightly written in the margin of this FBI report; click on image for a closer view

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’s FD-305; click on image for a closer view

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.

Some surprising new evidence that the Secret Service was notified about Ron’s case

Hey, happy new year. Hope you’re doing OK. I’m going to keep this brief, but I feel the need to tell you about something that I stumbled upon today while doing research into something else. There I was, slogging through section 87 of part II of the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations (years 1960-1968), focusing on the procedures and paperwork involved with the FBI’s Security Index, when I learned about a new form that agents were required to fill out.

The form actually came out in 1965 as part of a presidential protection agreement between the FBI and Secret Service after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. What I was surprised to learn was that 1) “reports are to be disseminated henceforth to Secret Service in all security index cases,” and 2) they were to “utilize form FD-376, which is designed to serve as a letter of transmittal for both local dissemination and dissemination at the SOG” [Seat of Government].

Here’s the passage in question with my highlights:

Click on image for a closer view

“Interesting!” thought I, and I immediately pulled out my trusty laptop and began Googling “FD-376 AND FBI.”

What popped up surprised me, because I’d seen it before. Do you remember when I told you about the time that there was a bomb threat against Frank Sinatra at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida? Well, that was one of the documents that popped up in my search today, courtesy of The Black Vault website, along with several related records. Two of the records have 10s on them, just like Ron’s 10s.

Here’s a link to the documents I found on The Black Vault.

What follows behind the two “10s” is what surprised me. There in all its splendiferous glory was an FD-376 stipulating why the FBI was forwarding this information to the Secret Service. They chose option #6: “Individuals involved in illegal bombing or illegal bomb-making,” which was the logical choice for the occasion.

Here’s the FD-376:

Credit: The Black Vault; click on image for a closer view

As you’ll recall, my theory has been that the 10s on Ron’s missing person records mean that the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service had received a copy of those records, which would indicate that the Secret Service did as well. So the fact that the Fontainebleau Hotel bomb threat also carried 10s along with the FD-376 seems consistent with my theory.

But hold on: If reports for anyone on the Security Index were automatically forwarded to the Secret Service, then it seems like less of a big deal. Also, not every Security Index case was given a 10 on their records. Some got 8’s, some got 4’s, some got 2’s, and so on. Some may not have been given a number at all—I don’t know. I haven’t looked into that yet.

But the 10s do seem like much bigger cases, right? The assassinations, both actual and attempted, the serial killers, the bomb threats, etc.—they seem especially well-suited for the Secret Service.

Based on this new information, I’d like to revise my hypothesis:

First, if Ron was indeed on the Security Index (and I am 100% sure that he was), I think we can all acknowledge that Ron’s records had been sent to the Secret Service, along with every other Security Index occupant. So, that’s at least something.

Second, do you think the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service is going to want to know about every Tom, Dick, and Harry that the FBI was keeping tabs on, a list of people numbering in the tens of thousands? I don’t.

But what if the FBI liaison was only notified of the truly big stuff…the reports that dealt with the most relevant topics at hand? You know, the assassins, the serial killers, the bombers, and, yes, Ronald Tammen.

That’s a theory I’d be able to buy into.

In the near future, I’ll be posting detailed evidence that supports my theory that the two-word phrase on Ron’s and other people’s FBI docs—“see index”— is indeed code-speak for the Security Index. Hopefully, it’ll be a more riveting read than Section 87 of the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations, which lulled me into a two-hour nap this afternoon. Stay tuned!

Questions? Concerns?

New evidence: Champion Paper’s Reuben B. Robertson, Jr., was close friends with John Millett since WWII and a huge reason behind Millett’s becoming Miami U’s 16th president

Season’s Greetings! If you enjoy discovering hard evidence to confirm a theory you happen to believe, then prepare yourselves, dear readers. I’m about to present you with two thoroughly enjoyable rock-hard pieces of evidence that confirms a theory I proposed in November 2023. I discovered the new evidence yesterday at Miami’s University Archives.

I’d driven to Oxford and back for the sole purpose of looking through several boxes that are stored there, one of which I’m reporting on today.

The box in question contained the file of Reuben B. Robertson, Jr., the charismatic president of Champion Paper and Fibre in Hamilton, Ohio, from 1950 to 1960. As you may recall, Robertson had taken two of those years off, from 1955 to 1957, to serve as the U.S. deputy secretary of defense under President Eisenhower. When he returned to Hamilton from that high-profile stint, he was named to serve on Miami’s Board of Trustees. Unfortunately, he didn’t serve his full four-year term. In the early-morning hours of March 13, 1960, he was instantly killed in a hit-and-run accident near his home in Glendale.

The theory that I’d put out in 2023 was that Robertson and Millett had known each other during WWII because both were working for an extremely small branch of the Army known as the Administrative Management Branch, which was housed in the Control Division of the Army Service Forces. There were only 28 officers and 3 civilians in that branch in 1943, and they were based in Washington, D.C. Considering how outgoing both men were, surely they knew each other, I said in my post. I then suggested that, since Reuben was sitting on Miami’s selection committee for a new president, he likely had talked Millett into applying for the job—a job for which Millett was grateful to accept. Although Millett had many impressive credentials in government and the military, he was at that time a full professor at Columbia University and lacked administrative experience in a university setting. 

Understandably, John Millett was extremely saddened by the news of Robertson’s death, and he expressed his sadness in two letters within days of the tragedy.

The first letter I found was to Robertson’s widow, which he wrote on March 17, 1960, four days after Reuben’s death.

Here are the words he chose:

Dear Mrs. Robertson:

I wish there were some way that the many expressions of sympathy which you will be receiving at this time could somehow lessen your sense of loss. But all of us who knew Reuben well thought highly of him, and I hope this will provide you some sense of satisfaction.

I first met Reuben in 1942 when he came into the Army. We worked together on two or three projects that first year.

And I shall never forget the Thanksgiving I spent with you and Reuben in 1944 in Atlanta. It was a pleasant occasion, indeed.

When I came out to Ohio in 1953, I was very glad to have the opportunity to see Reuben more often. You may be sure that none of us who knew him well will forget him. And all of us extend our sympathy to you and to the children.

Sincerely yours,

John D. Millett

Credit: Miami University Archives; click on image for a closer view

So there it is: proof that they’d met and worked together in the Army during WWII. Millett said they began working together in 1942, but Robertson’s separation papers say he began in March 1943. I won’t quibble. Moreover, we also know that they maintained their friendship throughout the war, as evidenced by Reuben inviting John to Thanksgiving dinner in 1944 at the Robertsons’ home in Atlanta.

The second letter was to Thomas D. Morris, who at that time was assistant to the president of Champion Paper. This letter was written two days after Reuben’s death:

Dear Tom:

I should like to express to you and through you to the executive staff and the directors of Champion Paper and Fibre Company my great sympathy for the loss you have sustained in the death of Reuben Robertson. As you know, I have been a friend of Reuben’s since 1942. I met him when he first began his military service and we worked together in the same office in Washington for several months.

Later I visited him on two different occasions while he was stationed in Atlanta, and there I had an opportunity to become acquainted with Mrs. Robertson.

In the intervening years, I saw Reuben quite often in Washington and New York. He was instrumental in my coming to Miami University, and I was pleased, indeed, when Governor O’Neill appointed him a member of our Board of Trustees in 1957.

His death is a great personal and official loss to me, but I know this is little compared with what he meant to all of you in the Company.

I have never known a finer person or a more energetic executive than Reuben. His death is a great tragedy.

Sincerely yours,

John D. Millett

Credit: Miami University Archives; click on image for a closer view

Whereas Millett chose the word “instrumental” to describe Reuben’s efforts in bringing him to Miami, I believe a better word would be invaluable. In addition to suggesting that he apply, I’m sure he advocated for Millett to the other committee members, thus helping secure his nomination. In fact, I’d contend that if it weren’t for Reuben Robertson, John Millett wouldn’t have ever found his way to Miami—wouldn’t have even thought to apply for the job. The Board of Trustees elected him to be Miami’s 16th president on March 28, 1953.

You may be asking why this matters. In my November 2023 post, I discussed how an employee of Reuben Robertson’s named Dorothy Craig had written a check to Ron Tammen roughly at the time of his disappearance. To this day, I have no idea what the amount of the check was or why it was written, though I do have some hypotheses regarding the latter.

When news of Tammen’s disappearance hit the papers, Reuben Robertson probably didn’t want Champion Paper linked in any way. But how could he prevent that from happening, especially if investigators learned about the check? Maybe he could call in a favor from his good friend from the war—one who was recently named president of the university Tammen had attended.

You guys? I’m getting closer and closer to thinking that, of the words that Carl Knox’s secretary wasn’t to speak to reporters, “Champion” may very well have been one of them.

And you? What do you think?

A new theory: Could Ronald Tammen have been the ‘second Oswald’?

On November 22, 1963, five-year-old me walked from my kindergarten classroom to the front steps of my house, just one block away, pushed open the front door, and found my mom sitting in front of the TV set, sobbing. I don’t think I’d ever seen her cry that hard before, let alone in the middle of the afternoon, so I remember being startled. Two days later, my family and I watched on live TV as the person they’d arrested for murdering President Kennedy—a smallish man with three names—was shot in the stomach at point-blank range by a stocky guy in a suit and hat, which was also very startling. The next day, we turned on our TV again, this time to watch our recently alive president now being slowly carried up Pennsylvania Avenue on a horse-drawn wooden cart in a casket draped in an American flag, By that point, the events of the long weekend were probably too much for my overstimulated brain to comprehend and it was also the likely moment when they were socked away somewhere in my cerebral cortex to be ruminated upon later. 

Today, I want to discuss some of those ruminations. To say I’m obsessed with the Kennedy assassination would be a stretch, although, over the years, I’ve read several books and articles on the subject, watched some impactful movies and documentaries, and, more recently, waded through some FBI, CIA, and other government records regarding what was going on behind the scenes. But I’m no JFK expert. Today, we won’t be talking about Kennedy’s assassination per se or who the fellow or fellows were who fired on him from the grassy knoll, which was most definitely where the kill shot originated from, and not a topic that’s even remotely up for discussion.** I’ll let the people who’ve been researching the JFK records for decades report on any updates they might have on that question, whenever that may be. 

**(If you still need convincing that the shot that killed Kennedy came from the grassy knoll and not the Texas School Book Depository, watch the 1991 Oliver Stone movie JFK as well as his 2021 documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass as soon as possible. If neither of those are available to you, find the two-part episode of Seinfeld, Season 3, Episode 17, titled The Boyfriend, and watch that. Then, let’s all join hands and say in unison: “Back…and to the left,” “back…and to the left,” “back…and to the left”…)

Today, we’ll be focusing on a different assassination from that horrifying day: the one of Officer J.D. Tippit, which occurred shortly after Kennedy was killed. That’s the assassination that I believe is pertinent to my theory.

Before we get started, I’d like to mention two books that have provided the inspiration for my theory: They are “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters,” by James W. Douglass, and “Flight From Dallas: New Evidence of CIA Involvement in the Murder of John F. Kennedy,” by James P. Johnston and Jon Roe. The Douglass book is considered one of the best books ever written on the JFK assassination by some of the foremost experts out there. I highly recommend it. “Flight from Dallas” isn’t the scholarly work that “JFK and the Unspeakable” is, but it provides essential details from a primary source. Also, you can read it in less than a day, which is always a bonus when there are so many books out there that I still need to read.

An additional book that warrants your attention is “Harvey & Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald,” by John Armstrong. At nearly 1000 pages, and weighing at least 10 pounds, that book cannot be read in a day, and in fact, I’ve been using it more as a reference to consult versus reading it cover-to-cover. Armstrong has come up with an elaborate two-Oswald theory in which the two Oswalds, hand-picked by the CIA in the early 1950s, were American Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian-speaking, Eastern European doppelganger whose alias was Harvey Oswald. He argues that a photo of the Lee Harvey Oswald we think we know is actually a “split-face composite,” with one-half being American Lee Oswald’s face juxtaposed alongside one-half of émigré Harvey Oswald’s face. I guess they wanted to create a photo resembling both men for an ID both could use. Parts of his theory I can be on board with—the split-face photo is compelling—but other parts I’m not convinced of, at least not yet. No matter where you stand on the subject, Armstrong’s research is mind-blowingly thorough.

We haven’t done a Q&A in a while, so, in the interest of time, I’d like to do one today. Also, before we begin, I’m asking everyone to please suspend any disbelief you may be harboring on the virtual hooks in my imaginary cloakroom. You’re welcome to collect your disbelief later, after you’ve read the blog. Please be sure to remember your hook number so you don’t accidentally take someone else’s disbelief home with you.

Credit: Photo by maks_d on Unsplash

OK! Everyone ready? Let’s go!

Do you really think that there were two Oswalds? 

I just mentioned Armstrong’s two-Oswald theory, but I’m speaking more broadly than that one theory when I say yes, I do think that there were people impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of killing Kennedy, shortly before JFK’s assassination. 

For example, there were several incidents of Oswald sightings in and around the Dallas area and elsewhere during the fall leading up to the assassination. The impersonator may have looked like Oswald, or claimed that his name was Oswald, or both. He always seemed to make a scene. There was an incident at a shooting range where he was obnoxiously shooting at someone else’s target. There was an incident at a car dealership when he was test-driving a car too fast and then indignantly telling the salesman that he might “have to go back to Russia to buy a car.” There was the time in Mexico City that a man was photographed visiting the Soviet Embassy claiming to be Lee Oswald. That guy looked more like actor Ed O’Neill (aka Al Bundy aka Jay Pritchett) than Lee Harvey Oswald.

Personally? I don’t think we need to stop at just two Oswalds. For all I know, there could have been five or six or even seven of them running around. But again, I’m no expert.

The Oswald that I’m most interested in is the one who killed J.D. Tippit. 

Who was J.D. Tippit?

J.D. Tippit was a police officer who was driving his patrol car in Oak Cliff, a neighborhood south of Dallas, that day. At about 12:45 p.m., an announcement went out over the police radio after a bystander, Harold Brennan, had reported seeing a slender white male who was “approximately 30” and who was around 5’10” and 165 pounds firing a gun from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. 

Not long after hearing that announcement—sometime around 1:14 p.m. Dallas time—Tippit noticed Lee Harvey Oswald (or someone who looked a lot like him) walking on the 400 block of East 10th Street, near the corner of 10th Street and Patton Avenue. The description kind of matched Oswald, though not exactly. Oswald’s military records say that he was 5’8” and 135 pounds when he enlisted in the Marines in 1956. His autopsy examination lists him as being 5’9” and 150 pounds, though his weight was an approximation. Also, he’d just turned 24 in October 1963. But whatever. 

The narrative provided by witness testimony to the Warren Commission is that Tippit said something to Oswald through his passenger-side window. Then, things escalated fast. Tippit got out of his car and walked around to the front of his patrol car, while Oswald was standing on the passenger side of the vehicle. Oswald began firing the gun he was carrying, hitting Tippit three times in his chest. Tippit was lying on the ground when Oswald stood over him and shot him one last time, execution style to his head. Page 651 of the Warren Commission Report estimates he died at 1:15 or 1:16 p.m. Officer Tippit was then taken by ambulance to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. 

That’s a brutal story. The thing is…there’s evidence that the person who shot and killed Officer Tippit wasn’t the Lee Harvey Oswald whom we all have come to know—the one who told everyone that he was a patsy and was later killed by Jack Ruby on national television.

How do we know that the person who killed J.D. Tippit wasn’t Oswald?

First, there’s the timeline. It would have been extremely tight for Lee Harvey Oswald to do all  the things he reportedly did after Kennedy’s assassination, while still making it over to the scene of the Tippit murder by 1:14 p.m., the approximate time when Tippit summoned Oswald to his car. According to the Warren Commission Report, after he left the book depository, the real Oswald stopped in at the house where he was renting a room at 1 p.m.  (He got there by bus, then a cab, then on foot.) That house, at 1026 Beckley Avenue, was .9 miles from where Tippit was shot.

The report states that: “Oswald had entered the house in his shirt sleeves but when he left he was zipping up a jacket.” The report also asserts that he’d picked up his revolver there and hid it somewhere under his jacket, though that was speculation on their part. Oswald’s housekeeper, Earlene Roberts, didn’t see a gun.

Roberts told the Warren Commission that, when Oswald was still in the house, she saw a police car with two uniformed officers pull in front of the house and give a couple quick beeps, then drive around the corner. At about 1:04 p.m., she saw Oswald standing in front of the house near a northbound bus stop, though she didn’t pay attention to what happened to him after that. It would be weird if he gave up on the bus and then fast-walked over to the scene of the murder—which was in the opposite direction he ostensibly wanted to go—by 1:14 p.m., in time to have his encounter with Tippit. It’s possible that the police car picked him up and dropped him off on 10th Street in time to commit the murder, but that would be even weirder. 

Second, let’s talk about that jacket that Oswald ostensibly picked up before heading out the door. Tippit’s shooter was reported by several witnesses to be wearing a white or light-colored jacket with some adding that there was a white t-shirt underneath. After Tippit’s murder, he hoofed it down Patton, dropping bullet cartridges along the way, seemingly like breadcrumbs. He then made a right onto Jefferson Boulevard, and took a couple additional quick turns, eventually (ostensibly) throwing his jacket underneath a car at a nearby Texaco gas station, though no one had witnessed him doing it. Someone had somehow managed to find it. He then walked into the Texas Theater on Jefferson, presumably in the white t-shirt. Here’s the jacket that Tippit’s murderer was ostensibly wearing:

But that’s weird too, because Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing a brown shirt when he was arrested. When Earlene Roberts was asked the make-or-break question—Have you ever seen this jacket before?—she said, “Well, maybe I have, but I don’t remember it. It seems that the one he put on was darker than that.” She was sure that it had a zipper though, which the brown shirt lacks. But there were other discrepancies about that jacket: namely, that it had two laundry tags on the collar. However, when the FBI attempted to identify a cleaning establishment within the Dallas-Fort Worth and New Orleans areas who used those tags, they turned up nothing. So the $10 million dollar question is: was it even Oswald’s jacket?

The most compelling piece of evidence is that there were two men who looked a lot alike who were arrested in the Texas Theater that afternoon. The real Lee Harvey Oswald, wearing the brown shirt, was arrested in the main seating area of the theater before being led out the front door in handcuffs and put in the squad car at roughly 1:50 p.m. The second man, presumably in a white T-shirt, was arrested in the balcony.

What happened to the second guy?

The second guy, whom Douglass and others believe to be Tippit’s shooter, was witnessed exiting the back door of the theater with police. Bernard Haire, owner of a hobby shop two doors down, was watching the excitement as he stood in the alley near the theater’s back entrance. According to Douglass, he told an interviewer that the person he saw being escorted out the back door was wearing a “pullover shirt.” He also said decades later that the man looked so much like Oswald, he’d always thought he was watching Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested that day. It was only after watching the movie JFK that he learned that the person he saw wasn’t Oswald. 

Incidentally, don’t get too hung up by his calling the shirt a pullover shirt. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify a t-shirt. In those days, a pullover was a general term that described any shirt that was without buttons that could be pulled over the head. Advertisements in the 1950s and 1960s sometimes referred to t-shirts as “pullover t-shirts.” Unfortunately, from what I can tell, Haire didn’t mention the color of the pullover shirt and the interviewer didn’t ask—I blame the interviewer. 

As for the look-alike, the police put him in a police car and drove away, but must have let him go shortly thereafter. I’ll tell you where he ostensibly went in a minute. 

According to John Armstrong: “Unfortunately, the identity of the man taken out the rear of the theater remains unknown. There are no police reports that identify anyone, other than Lee Harvey Oswald, who was arrested at the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963.” I’ll be nominating someone later in this post. 

What’s the deal with that police car that was parked outside of Oswald’s house on Beckley Street?

As it so happens, Earlene Roberts, Oswald’s street-smart housekeeper, had taken note of the number on the police car, which she provided to the Warren Commission—number 107. But the Dallas Police Department didn’t have a car 107 at that time. They’d sold it to a used car dealer.

Therefore, the illegitimate police car with the two men dressed in uniform beeping in front of Oswald’s rooming house may have been his ride to the Texas Theater.

That would explain how it was that Oswald was already seen at the theater well before Tippit’s shooting. Butch Burroughs, who ran the concessions counter and who also took tickets at the Texas Theater that day, was interviewed by the Warren Commission, though they didn’t dig as deep as they could have and should have. (Shocker.) In an interview with Douglass, Burroughs said that he remembered Oswald arriving sometime between 1 p.m. and 1:07 p.m. and buying popcorn at 1:15 p.m., the same time when Tippit and Tippit’s shooter were in their heated exchange. Another movie goer, Jack Davis, recalled seeing Oswald at the theater in that general timeframe as well. If Burroughs and Davis are to be believed, there’s no way that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Officer Tippit. 

Why would the Oswald look-alike kill Officer Tippit?

According to Douglass, the whole point of having an Oswald look-alike kill Tippit was to show that Oswald, in addition to being an alleged Communist (per his attempted defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 and his advocacy for Fair Play for Cuba when he returned to the States), was a cold-blooded killer. It would be a lot easier to sell the story to the world that Oswald had killed Kennedy if he turned around and killed a cop within the hour.

But there’s an additional reason for killing Tippit. After the Oswald look-alike had killed Tippit, he led police straight to the Texas Theater, where the real Lee Harvey Oswald could be found, ostensibly courtesy of the two men driving police car number 107. The real Oswald, whom Douglass and many others believe had been working for the CIA, was behaving as if he’d been instructed to meet someone there. He was sneaking around the near-empty theater, sitting down next to movie goer after weirded-out movie goer, apparently searching for some sort of sign. 

Douglass’s theory is that the people who orchestrated JFK’s assassination and its aftermath predicted that the Dallas police would confuse the two Oswalds and then murder the real Oswald for being a perceived cop killer. That would have disposed of the real Oswald nicely and neatly, forever silenced about whatever he knew. However, when the Dallas police didn’t shoot the real Oswald, the planners (Spoiler alert: It was the CIA, OK? The CIA assassinated President John F. Kennedy and, to this day, they are covering up that shameful, despicable deed as if they and only they will ever get to know the full truth) had to move to plan B, which was to call upon mobster Jack Ruby, who was ostensibly already in on the assassination plot, to eliminate Oswald.

Where did the look-alike go?

Fasten your seatbelts, everyone. This is the exciting part. In his book, Douglass describes two same-day sightings of the Oswald look-alike not long after Tippit’s murder. The first sighting was disregarded by the Warren Commission (again, shocker) but later looked into by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The second sighting wasn’t made public until much later, after the JFK Records Act passed in 1992 and the witness in question felt emboldened to finally speak out.

Oswald look-alike sighting #1 – The guy in a red Falcon in the El Chico parking lot 

The first sighting was by a mechanic at a garage across the street from a Mexican restaurant named El Chico, about eight blocks from the Texas Theater. At around 2:00 p.m., when Lee Harvey Oswald was now in the custody of the police, T.F. White, the mechanic, watched a man drive a 1961 red Ford Falcon into the parking lot of El Chico and park it noticeably off-kilter. The man stayed in the driver’s seat and appeared to be trying to hide. With everyone on edge that day, White kept his eye on him, and eventually he walked across the street to have a closer look. There he had an unobstructed view of the man, who was in a white t-shirt, now looking straight at him. White didn’t want to anger a possible assassin, so he walked away, though he made a point of writing down the license plate number on the car: PP 4537. (With all of their meticulous planning, the CIA couldn’t have known that a T.F. White or an Earlene Roberts would be taking detailed notes. Props, T.F. and Earlene! You are true patriots! 🇺🇸) That night, when watching the news and seeing Lee Harvey Oswald for the first time, he told his wife that that was the man he’d seen in the car. Of course, it wasn’t—Oswald was probably still in the police cruiser when this sighting occurred. 

A week and a half later, newscaster Wes Wise was giving a talk at El Chico and people began asking questions about the assassination. Mack Pate, owner of the garage and White’s boss, had attended the talk, and at the end, Pate walked up to Wise and told him about White’s strange encounter. Wise walked across the street to speak to White, asking him to tell him the entire story, from start to finish. When Wise wished aloud that White had gotten the license plate number, White produced the piece of paper on which he’d jotted it down.

Wise notified the FBI, who soon discovered that the license plate had been registered to a Carl Amos Mather of Garland, Texas, for his 1957 blue Plymouth. Carl Mather was employed by Collins Radio, a major communications contractor for the CIA. According to Douglass, Mather had outfitted Air Force Two—Vice President Johnson’s plane—with specialized electronics equipment. In fact, he was so connected to the CIA, his security clearance entitled him to refuse to answer the FBI’s questions. Mather’s wife, who did speak with the FBI, provided them with the astonishing detail that J.D. Tippit was Carl Mather’s good friend.

Let’s put this into as few words as possible to drive the message home: on the day of J.D. Tippit’s murder, the man who (ostensibly) killed Tippit and who happened to be the spitting image of Lee Harvey Oswald was seen in a red Ford Falcon with a license plate that belonged to Carl Mather, who was closely tied to the CIA, and who was J.D. Tippit’s close friend. You guys? I don’t know about you, but I have a strong suspicion that, when it comes to the CIA, there’s no such thing as a coincidence.

Oswald look-alike sighting #2—The guy who fled Dallas in a cargo plane with an accidental witness in tow

This next sighting was reported by Robert G. Vinson, a U.S. Air Force sergeant who, in November 1963, was employed by the North American Air Defense Command in Colorado Springs. Vinson had flown to Washington, D.C., on November 20 to seek help in obtaining a job promotion that he’d been promised but that was slow to materialize.

I think it’s important to point out here that Vinson’s name commanded a lot of respect in D.C. A cousin, Fred M. Vinson, was the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1947 through his death in 1953. Another relative, Carl Vinson, served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1914 to 1965, the longest serving member of the House of Representatives for the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court justice’s son, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., was a highly connected DC lawyer who would be named assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Criminal Division in 1965. I’m thinking that maybe those lofty family connections opened some doors for Robert, with one of those doors being found on the side of a mysterious cargo plane sitting on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base on Friday, November 22, 1963.

That morning, Vinson had arrived early at Andrews hoping to fly on the first available flight to Denver or Colorado Springs. At first, he was told that there was nothing available that day, which struck him as strange. Then, almost abruptly, he was notified that he was in luck. There was a flight to Lowry Air Force Base in Denver after all.

The plane he was told to board, a C-54, had no identifying words—just a “rust-brown graphic of an egg-shaped earth, crossed by white grid marks.” (I’ve been unable to find an example online.) The pilot and co-pilot didn’t acknowledge his presence. They didn’t take his name, didn’t do the normal log-in protocol, nothing. He was the only passenger on a cargo-less plane, and he sat over the right wing for safety. In the book “Flight from Dallas,” Vinson shared that, somewhere over Nebraska, “one of the two men in the cockpit announced in a flat, unemotional voice over the loudspeaker that the president had been shot at 12:29. That’s all he said.”  The plane then took a hard left turn southward, and, sometime after 3:30 or 4 p.m. Central Time, landed in a sandy area south of Dallas along the Trinity River.

Several minutes later, two men came running for the plane: a taller one, who appeared to be Cuban, and a shorter one, who was a white male. I suppose it would have been too perfect if they’d arrived in a red Ford Falcon and the shorter one was wearing a white t-shirt. Instead, they were both wearing coveralls that Vinson described as being off-white or beige and were dropped off by someone in a yellow Jeep. Still, this is the CIA we’re talking about. The men could have thrown on the coveralls over their other clothes—hence the name coveralls. (Who knew that we’d be discussing 1960s men’s fashion so much in this post?) Then they could have dropped off the Falcon, jumped into the Jeep, and be driven away to the rendezvous point.

The men boarded the plane and sat up front, behind the cockpit. They didn’t speak to anyone, not even each other. Vinson estimated the taller man to be about 6’0”-6-1” and about 180-190 pounds while he guessed the shorter man was 5’7”-5’9” and about 150-160 pounds. Vinson thought the next stop would be Lowry AFB in Denver, but he would be wrong. Instead, their next stop would be Roswell, New Mexico, because of course it was. When they arrived at the Air Force base there, it was on lockdown, and had ostensibly been awaiting the arrival of their plane, which Vinson would later learn belonged to the CIA. The two men, the pilot, and the copilot wordlessly hurried from the plane and went on to whatever else the CIA and/or Air Force had in store for them while keeping mum on the whole sad, sordid affair. Vinson had to take a bus home.

Just as it was with T.F. White, after watching the news, Vinson immediately thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was the white male with whom he shared a flight. But again, it couldn’t have been Oswald, who by that time was sitting in a jail cell in Dallas.

But the story didn’t end there for Vinson. Imagine what the people in charge must have thought as the two men, the pilot, and the co-pilot were being debriefed, and they each mentioned the guy sitting in the cabin over the right wing. Soon, the CIA was hot on Vinson’s heels, checking out his background, offering him a job, and then, after he politely declined, insisting that he accept one anyway. He remained under the CIA’s watchful eye until his retirement in October 1966. Of course, he was too terrified to repeat his story to anyone, which is clearly why the CIA wanted him close by. It was after the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 was passed by Congress (thanks to Oliver Stone’s movie JFK) that he began to feel compelled to tell his story. In 1993, he decided to go public.

Interesting.

I know. I think Douglass’s theory meshes so well with my new theory.

OK, so tell us your new theory. We know you’re dying to.

I would like to hereby nominate Ronald H. Tammen, Jr., as a candidate for Oswald’s look-alike, the man who was wearing, and then ostensibly discarding, a light-colored jacket; the man who walked out the back door of the Texas Theater in a (presumably white t-shirt style) pullover; the man who drove a red Falcon into El Chico’s parking lot while wearing a white t-shirt; one of the two men who boarded a CIA plane on a landing strip south of Dallas and who walked past astonished passenger Robert G. Vinson; and most significant of all, the man who shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit. 

Seriously?

It sounds crazy when I say it out loud. But, given what we now know about Ron, I think it’s possible.

What makes Ron Tammen a good candidate for the second Oswald?

I have a few key reasons for feeling this way:

1) They looked alike

A while ago, several of you commented that Ron looked kind of like Lee Harvey Oswald, and I didn’t disagree, though I think I downplayed it a little. To be honest, I wasn’t ready to go there at that point. Plus, I wasn’t sure how Ron Tammen could have had anything to do with the JFK assassination. But I’m ready to go there now, with all of the things we’ve learned about Ron and after reading Douglass’s book. Suddenly, it makes sense.

Their builds

In September 1951, when he was a freshman at Miami University, the Health Services physician, Dr. Paul Shumacher, had measured Ron to be 69 1/4”, or 5’9 1/4” tall, and weighing 145 pounds. In April 1953, after Ron disappeared, his mother told the FBI that Ron was 5’9” tall and now weighed 175 pounds. Occasionally, I’ve seen articles in the news that gave Ron an extra inch in height, saying that he was 5’10”. 

When Oswald enlisted in the Marines in 1956, he was reported to be 68 inches tall—5’8”—and he weighed 135 pounds. (The photo at the bottom looks as if the top of his head is reaching the 5’9” mark, but I’m no doctor.) The medical examiner at his autopsy wrote that he was 5’9” with an estimated weight of 150 pounds. Both men were of a rather small build, though Oswald appears to have been slightly smaller. 

A page from Lee Harvey Oswald’s enlistment papers for the Marines; click on image for a closer view

Their ages

Their ages were relatively close, though Oswald was younger than Ron. Oswald was born on October 18, 1939, whereas Ron was born on July 23, 1933. I find it interesting how the announcement that went out over the police radio did a better job of describing Ron Tammen than Lee Harvey Oswald. Recall that they said the person on the sixth floor of the book depository was 5’10” tall and weighed roughly 165 pounds and was approximately 30. Oswald had just turned 24, and he didn’t exactly look older than his age. But do you know who was approximately 30? Ron Tammen. He’d just turned 30 that July.

Their hair

Both men had brown, wavy hair, which they usually parted on the left side. 

Their eyes 

Both men had hazel eyes, which is one of the rarer eye colors. According to a 2014 survey by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, roughly 18% of the U.S. population and only 5% of the world population has hazel eyes, whereas 45% of the U.S. population has brown eyes and 27% of the U.S. population has blue eyes. As a fellow hazel-eyed person, I remember being a little surprised when I first realized that Ron had hazel eyes too. Then, when I learned that Lee Harvey Oswald’s eyes were also hazel, I knew I needed to add it to the growing list of coincidences.

From Oswald’s enlistment papers, we learn that Oswald had hazel eyes, just like Ron; click on image for a closer view

Their faces

Ron was better looking than Lee Harvey Oswald. He was more chiseled. He had a nicer smile. But they did have features in common—similar hairlines (though Ron had more hair), similar ears, somewhat similar noses. If you happened to know either one of them, there’s no chance that you would mistake one for the other. But the sightings didn’t involve people who knew Lee Harvey Oswald or his look-alike. They were total strangers who’d caught brief glimpses of a similar-looking man under strange, stressful circumstances. That might have been enough to cause those witnesses to look at the TV screen or the newspaper shortly thereafter and believe that they saw Oswald.

A younger Ron
A self-conscious high school-aged Ron poses outside in his band uniform
Glammed-up Ron on the evening of his high school prom
Ron’s senior picture, Maple Heights H.S., class of 1951

On the cover of John Armstrong’s book “Harvey & Lee” are the photos of Oswald and the Eastern European émigré that had been combined as a split-face composite. Whenever I look at the cover of that book, I see Ron Tammen. Once, I glanced at my copy from across the room, when most of the cover was hidden from view except for the top photo. It took me a second to realize I wasn’t looking at Ron’s photo. I’m not saying that Ron is the man whom Armstrong refers to as Harvey Oswald. I’m saying that both Oswald and the Eastern European individual had facial features that looked like Ron Tammen, especially when their faces were combined. It makes me wonder if anyone from the CIA noticed the resemblance and thought they could put it to use.

For copyright reasons, I don’t think I can post the image of the book cover, but click on the link and let me know what you think. Does the top image remind you of Ron? The cut-off photo on the left, down below the top photo, also looks like him to me.

2) Ron’s FBI documents match those of known or would-be assassins

Ron Tammen had some seriously heavy-duty marks on his FBI records, which indicates that he’d been living a life of violence after he’d disappeared. Somehow, some way, our “Good Man” had become a bad boy. Even so, it doesn’t appear that he’d ever been arrested. FBI records and other communications I’ve obtained have stated that the FBI only had one set of fingerprints on file for Ron, the ones that were taken when he was in the second grade. Those prints were later purged in June 2002, most likely due to a conflict with the Privacy Act, indicating that Ron had made the request himself. If Ron had ever been arrested, they would have taken a new set of fingerprints every time.

Let’s review the four most significant markings on Ron’s FBI records, starting with the one with the broadest application and ending with what I consider to be the most specific and most serious:

The “see index” notation

The “see index” notation written in the left margin of the first page of Ron’s records indicates that Ron Tammen was on the FBI’s Security Index and/or its successor, the Administrative Index. People who were added to the Security Index were considered dangerous or a threat to national security. Communists or suspected Communists were added as were mobsters, murderers, and other high-profile criminals. Admittedly, famous people and politicians might be added to the Security Index as well. If you were on the Security Index, the FBI was keeping tabs on your whereabouts. They did this so they could round you and the other “listers” up in the event of a national emergency. Therefore, because he was on the list, we know that the FBI was well aware of Ron’s whereabouts for a long time, though they neglected to mention this fact to Ron’s concerned parents.

The 2-D notation

Also on the first page of Ron’s FBI records, beneath the “see index,” is the notation 2-D. Based on other FBI records I’ve studied, I’ve deduced that this notation tells us that the Department of Justice—with the D standing for Department—received two copies of Ron’s records, or at least two copies of the top record. This wasn’t normal for a missing person case. 

In fact, it was pretty extreme for any case. The DOJ generally stayed out of the FBI’s day-to-day business. Only once in a while would they receive a copy of an FBI report. If I see any D at all on an FBI report, it’s usually a 1-D. The 2-Ds are far less frequent. In addition to Ronald Tammen’s 2-D, Jack Ruby warranted a 2-D, as did James W. McCord, Jr., the Watergate burglar, and his entourage, and Thomas Peasner, the Korean War POW who was allegedly brainwashed by his Communist captors and high on the U.S. Army’s and FBI’s radar when he returned. Peasner was also of interest to the House Select Committee on Assassinations for being a pianist at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club and for going missing after purchasing an assault rifle on November 9, 1963.

The “SEALED ENCL” stamp

Ron’s FBI record dated 5/9/73 from the Cincinnati Field Office to Acting Director William D. Ruckelshaus contains a stamp that says “SEALED ENCL.” Sightings of this stamp are rare. The word “SEALED” signifies that whatever enclosures were included, they were of the “hot potato” variety and not for just anyone to see.

Here are the records I could find in which the FBI used the SEALED ENCL. stamp, in addition to Ron Tammen’s:

  • Patricia Hearst kidnapping
  • Atlanta Child Murders

I’ve also found one record for each of the following people or cases that has the word “Sealed” handwritten over the stamped word “Enclosure”:

  • Richard Colvin Cox
  • Carlos Marcello
  • Hank Greenspun
  • Kensalt (RFK assassination)
  • U.S. Supreme Court bomb threat

A record for the following person has a typewritten notation to please forward in “Sealed Envelope”

  • Frank Chavez

The 10s

It’s the 10s in the upper-right corner of Ron Tammen’s FBI records that I think are by far the most prominent telltale sign that Ron Tammen was capable of assassinating J.D. Tippit. The 10s are found on records that seem to occupy the highest danger level—code red sort of stuff. Yes, a few Communists were given 10s, but I don’t think Ron got his 10s for embracing Communism. Judging from everything I’ve learned about him, he would have ascribed to the “better dead than red” philosophy.

Many of the 10s dealt with assassinations or assassination plots against holders of high offices, domestic or foreign. Others dealt with bombings or bomb plots. Others with mass murders. Others concerned politicians and other officials who’d been threatened with personal or widespread harm if they didn’t accede to the perpetrator’s demands. Others were Cuban exiles intent on overthrowing Fidel Castro. In the assassination category, I’ve found 10s on FBI reports for Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination. There are 10s on assassination plots against Spiro Agnew and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. There are 10s on Jean Rene Souetre’s records when he was being investigated for the Kennedy assassination. Recently, I found a 10 on the attempted assassination of George Wallace by Arthur Bremer. 

So far, I’ve been floating the theory that the 10s signify that the FBI’s liaison to the U.S. Secret Service was likely cc’d, which means that the Secret Service was too. However, not all FBI records that involved the Secret Service received a 10. I could still be wrong. Still, the 10s are important and they signify something that could be considered a threat to the U.S. president, the vice president, and others in their circle of dignitaries, the very people that the Secret Service is responsible for protecting.

While it’s possible that Ron was involved in bomb plots or extortion plots, he may have been capable of assassination as well. 

3) Ron already had an ‘in’ with the CIA

It’s not as if Ron Tammen didn’t know someone affiliated with the CIA. Ron’s psychology professor, Lt. Col. St. Clair Switzer, was identified in March 1952 as a potential consultant to the CIA for Project Artichoke and I strongly believe he was named along with Major Louis J. West for a well-balanced interrogation research center in January 1953. For a period of time, Switzer appeared to be serving as a liaison to the USAF surgeon general for experiments conducted by Louis Jolyon West for Project Artichoke. Additional evidence tells us that he was assisting a high-level hypnosis researcher—possibly West—during the 1956-57 academic year on topics that were skirting the edge if not completely out of bounds of what’s ethical. We also have anecdotal evidence that Ron Tammen was being hypnotized before his disappearance in April 1953.

Therefore, it isn’t too far-fetched to think that, if the CIA had something to do with Ron Tammen’s disappearance, and I believe that they did, they would have maintained that relationship for as long as they needed him. As we heard from Robert G. Vinson, the CIA isn’t easy to say no to. In November 1963, it had been over ten years since Tammen was driven away from Fisher Hall. I imagine that he would’ve become quite adept at whatever they’d been training him to do by then.

Are there other people who might qualify as the second Oswald?

In his 1976 book “The Taking of America,” author Richard E. Sprague suggests that the Oswald look-alike who shot J.D. Tippit was William H. (Billy) Seymour. I still need to read Sprague’s book. (As I said, it’s difficult to keep up with all of the JFK books that are out there, but it’s on the list.) Seymour was closely associated with Loran Eugene Hall, who is frequently mentioned in the JFK files, and both were linked to the Cuban exiles in Miami, Florida. 

I’ve done some looking into Seymour’s FBI files, and, to be honest, I think Ron’s files are more incendiary than Seymour’s. Of course Seymour and Hall were included on the Security Index. That’s no surprise. However, whereas Ron had a bunch of 10s on his FBI records, Seymour and Hall had 5’s and 9’s. Seymour and Hall also had a 1-D, as opposed to Ron’s 2-D. Seymour was on their radar, to be sure, but, from what I can tell, it was mostly as Hall’s accomplice. I can’t help but feel that Ron had attained a heightened level of concern.

Here’s a little background intel on Seymour, courtesy of the FBI. Note that Ancestry.com lists his birthdate as January 12, 1937, so I’m pretty sure he was 26, not 23.

Some background info on William (Billy) Seymour; click on image for a closer view

Admittedly, Seymour looked kind of like Oswald too. Kind of. But he was listed as 5’6” tall—two or three inches shorter than Oswald, and three inches shorter than Ron. That’s noticeably short for an American male, so noticeable that it would likely be the first characteristic a witness would think to mention. Other features were that his eyes were blue and he weighed 140 pounds. I wouldn’t say that he matched the description given by Vinson (5’7”-5’9”, 150-160 pounds). Also, he certainly didn’t match the 5’10”, 165 pound, approximately 30 description that was read over the Dallas police radio, which ostensibly led J.D. Tippit to summon Oswald’s look-alike to his car.

From what I can tell, Sprague doesn’t mention the red Ford Falcon sighting in his book, and Robert Vinson hadn’t come forward yet.

Billy Seymour sounds as though he was involved in the assassination plot somehow—he certainly was hanging around with the right people. Also, he has been linked to a different sighting involving a woman named Sylvia Odio. However, I still think it’s worth considering Ron Tammen as a candidate for the Tippit murder.

Are you thinking what I think you’re thinking?

Maybe? I am now proposing that Ron Tammen may have been an assassin, but not just any assassin. I am proposing that he was a hypnotic assassin—otherwise known as a Manchurian Candidate, employed by the CIA. Before he disappeared, Ron was a sweet, kind, studious guy whose lifelong dream was to earn a nice living and to find his place in society. How does that guy wind up on the FBI’s Security Index with marks on his records that are sure to get the attention of the people who were tasked with protecting the country’s top leaders?

We also have anecdotal evidence that, before he disappeared, he was being hypnotized by someone who later was assisting with Project Artichoke. Although Project Artichoke began as a program dedicated to interrogation research for the military through the use of hypnosis and drugs, it quickly drifted into the darker territory of creating hypnotically programmed assassins. According to Jeffrey Kaye and H.P. Albarelli, Jr., “…it is Project Artichoke that encapsulates the CIA’s real traveling road show of horrors and atrocities, not MK/ULTRA which, although responsible for its own acts of mindless cruelty, pales in comparison.”

Honestly, say what you will about this idea, but is it possible that Ron may have been a government-sanctioned human weapon—not a bomb plotter, but the bomb itself? It’s the only way that I can see Ron Tammen receiving those scribbles and stamps on his FBI documents without ostensibly ever having been arrested. It’s also the only way that I can see a person like him having the audacity to kill someone—a cop of all people—in cold blood and in broad daylight.

But it’s just a theory.

Is there any way to find out if your theory is correct?

I’ve had a crazy thought. The National Archives and Records Administration holds the exhibits from the Warren Commission.  They have the light-colored jacketThey have the brown long-sleeved shirt. They also have the sweater that Oswald was wearing when Jack Ruby shot him. Has anyone ever thought to run some comparative DNA tests to determine if those three items were worn by the same person? 

Granted, that light-colored jacket is old, and I’m sure any DNA that might be on it (through shed skin cells, a loose hair, a crumb of food the look-alike had been eating, I don’t know) is likely to be degraded as well as contaminated by the people who handled it. Maybe the DNA is still good on the inside of the jacket if no one tried it on—I’m no DNA technician. I think the blood on Oswald’s sweater seems more likely to still be viable versus whatever DNA might be on the brown shirt, but again, I’m not a DNA technician.

But hey, this is all we have. If there isn’t a match between the light-colored jacket and the black sweater, the brown shirt, or both, then I would suggest that they test the jacket against Marcia Tammen’s DNA, which is in CODIS, to see if there might be a match there. 

The J.D. Tippit murder is central to the entire JFK assassination story. It was referred to as the Rosetta Stone by Warren Commission assistant counsel David Belin, and one of the chief reasons for proclaiming Oswald’s guilt for Kennedy’s assassination. 

What do you think? Would the NARA archivists be up for solving this decades-old question? Who do I need to call to make it happen?

Why are you doing this? Aren’t you afraid that people will make fun of you?

If anyone should put Ron’s name out there as a contender, I guess it should be me. It’s OK. I’m willing to take the jabs, though I do reserve the right to block any unnecessarily mean people and garden-variety trolls.

What are your thoughts on the Warren Commission?

Oh, I think they were bending the narrative to their liking. We know they were ignoring some potentially important witnesses. And, who knows, they may have even been altering deposition testimony of the people they did speak with.

Why do you think that?

Take a look at this exchange after Earlene Roberts finished her deposition. The whole reason for a person who was deposed to sign their transcript is to ensure its veracity. Judging by this exchange, Earlene Roberts did not verify that her deposition transcript was accurate. In fact, Joseph A. Ball, senior legal counsel to the Warren Commission, was pushing for her not to return to review the transcript and sign it. Why? Did he see a problem with something she’d said? 

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it, or you can waive the signature.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can’t see too good how to read. I’m completely blind in my right eye.

Mr. BALL. Do you want to waive your signature? And then you won’t have to come back down here.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, okay.

Mr. BALL. All right. You waive it then?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. Do you want me to sign it now?

Mr. BALL. No; we couldn’t, because this young lady has to write it up and it will be a couple of weeks before it will be ready.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, will you want me to come back or how?

Mr. BALL. Well, you can waive your signature and you won’t have to come back to do that-do you want to do that?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Okay, it will be all right.

Mr. BALL. All right. The Secret Service will take you home now.

Mrs. ROBERTS. All right.

Mr. RAZL. Thank you for coming.

Mrs. ROBERTS. All right.

Considering that the killing of Officer Tippit was the “Rosetta Stone” of the JFK assassination, I’d think that, of all the witnesses, the testimony of the last person to see Lee Harvey Oswald roughly 10 minutes before that killing took place would be something that they’d want to get 100 percent right. But then again, I’m no expert.

Disclaimer: I did my best to provide you with the most accurate details I could find pertaining to the Tippit murder. But with all of the inconsistencies in the Warren Report, it’s hard. If you happen to be a JFK expert and you notice a discrepancy in something I’ve said, please let me know. But also, please go easy on me. I really did try.

The sabbatical, part 3: Who was St. Clair Switzer assisting during the 1956-57 academic year?

Hi guys. As you may recall, I mentioned in a recent post that the podcast Bizarre Butler County would be airing an upcoming episode on Ron Tammen, which was scheduled for release sometime in October. As it turns out, they’ve been experiencing technical difficulties, and likely won’t be posting that episode until December. During our July interview, I provided Taylor Powers and Sarah Kennel with some breaking news about how I think St. Clair Switzer was spending his sabbatical during the 1956-57 academic year. I was planning to release this blog post shortly after the Tammen episode had dropped so I wouldn’t be stepping on their scoop. However, Taylor and Sarah have graciously given me the green light to post it now, before the Tammen episode airs. I’ll be sure to give you the heads up as soon as it does.

So…what’s the big reveal that I’ve been sitting on since July?

It has to do with the two letters

It all starts with those two letters we’ve discussed in past posts. The letters are dated December 6, 1956, and February 8, 1957, and, even by MKULTRA standards, I’m sure they’ve raised their fair share of eyebrows over the years. In the December letter, one researcher poses a dozen questions on the topic of hypnosis to another researcher. These aren’t your typical questions that might be posed by someone interested in using hypnosis in a clinical setting to help a patient improve his or her life. These are jarringly bold questions about using hypnosis to control people, and they get more and more outrageous as they go, beginning with (1) how to produce amnesia in someone on a regular basis and (2) how to induce hypnosis in someone without their knowing it, all the way to (11) possible experiments that might be considered “too dangerous, too shocking, too ‘unusual’ for routine testing” and, finally, (12) how to hypnotize someone by force. Ostensibly, nothing was out-of-bounds. Everything was on the table. 

In the February letter, the writer thanks the recipient for his responses to those jarringly bold questions, which, sadly, aren’t included within the MKULTRA documents that have been released to the public. He is also hoping to schedule some additional time with the recipient. In both letters, the writer cautions the recipient to destroy the letters on his end because the topics are “most sensitive and are very highly classified” (letter 1) and “highly sensitive” (letter 2). Fortunately for us, someone decided against destroying the two letters on the writer’s end of things; otherwise we wouldn’t have the evidence that I’m about to present.

But first, I’d like to take this moment to express my gratitude to the CIA for allowing us to see in letter 1 that the recipient was a professor at Rutgers University and in letter 2 that he suffered from arthritis, thus enabling us to claim with 100 percent certainty that the recipient was Griffith Wynne Williams, an esteemed psychology professor and prolific hypnosis researcher. (The Rutgers info is an obvious giveaway, and I’d learned about Williams’ health condition from someone who knew him.) See how good it feels to embrace transparency in government, CIA? Let this be an inspiration for you to continue down this path! 

If, on the other hand, those two tidbits of PII were left uncovered as a mistake, well…words can’t express the joy one feels when an agency that considers itself untouchable stumbles a little. God Bless Human Error!

I’m also convinced that the letter writer is St. Clair Switzer. I believe this because:

A) Switzer had known Griffith Williams during his days working under Clark Hull at the University of Wisconsin, when Williams was a doctoral candidate and Switzer was a master’s student.

Something Switzer was known to do while he was a professor at Miami was to ask for occasional assists from the superstar psychologists he’d met during his days with Hull. These included M.A. (Gus) Wenger (no relation), E.R. (Jack) Hilgard (also no relation), and Hull himself (if we were related, I would’ve told you that a long time ago). It makes total sense that Switzer would ask Williams for guidance about some uncomfortable, dare I say unethical, questions regarding hypnosis, now that Williams had become renowned in the field. I mean…he couldn’t exactly go to a total stranger with those sorts of questions, could he? 

B) The letters contain telltale Hull-isms.

One example is his use of the opening “My Dear” in letter #1 when addressing his colleague, which is pure Clark Hull.


The opening to the December 6, 1956, letter to Griffith Williams sounds a lot like Clark Hull; click on image for a closer view

That’s how Hull began every single letter to Drs. Switzer and Patten, whether typed or handwritten, and probably to everyone else he knew, including Williams.

Here are just several of Hull’s “My dears” over the years. I have many more examples on my laptop.

Switzer had been known to use that opening as well, inspired, no doubt, by his graduate school adviser. In 1930, after earning his master’s degree under Hull, he used it in a saccharine letter to Alfred H. Upham, then-president of Miami University.

St. Clair Switzer’s awkward attempt at prose in a letter to President Upham. “Neither tongue nor checkbook…” may be one of my favorite cringe phrases ever. Click on image for a closer view.

I think Switzer must have decided against using “My Dear” in letter #2 because it would have been too over-the-top for this purpose. I mean, good Lord, we’re talking about MKULTRA here. A little gentility is fine, but a double dose would have been too weird.

Another example is the writer’s use of the term “Ph.D. thesis” instead of “dissertation” in the paragraph following the jarringly bold questions. This was also a practice favored by Hull.


This phrase found in the December 6, 1956, letter to Griffith Williams sounds a lot like Clark Hull and also St. Clair Switzer; click on image for a closer view

Although the usage is correct according to Merriam Webster, the conventional practice is to call a person’s culminating research a thesis when they’re pursuing a master’s degree and to reserve the word dissertation for the Ph.D. That’s how most people talk, at least. I’ve found that users of the word thesis when applied to the doctoral degree are generally academics who probably have a Ph.D. themselves—including Drs. Switzer and Hull. Here are highlighted examples from both men.

Clark Hull refers to a “doctor’s thesis” in a letter to Switzer; click on image for a closer view.
In this letter to Switzer, Clark Hull refers to a thesis three times. Two are in reference to a doctoral thesis, while one is in reference to Switzer’s master’s thesis after it had been published. Click on image for a closer view.
This is the second page of a letter from St. Clair Switzer to Jack Hilgard. He mixes it up a little, first referring to people hurrying to get their doctoral thesis in on time. He later refers to the final chapter of his dissertation.
In another letter to Jack Hilgard, Switzer discusses research that he plans to reference in his doctoral thesis. Click on image for a closer view.

I can’t help but think that, four years after Hull’s death, Switzer was trying to woo Williams with a little nostalgia for their former mentor’s endearing idiosyncrasies. It’s as if he’s saying: “Don’t worry too much about my newfound interest in controlling large groups of people by surreptitiously hypnotizing them. I’m the same old lovable Doc.”

C) The timing couldn’t be better.

Switzer was on a sabbatical from the fall of 1956 through May or June of 1957, a timeframe within which the two letters originate. Because the writer was a professor (per the “Ph.D. thesis” reference), there’d be no other time that someone in academia could commit to helping a major researcher with their “very highly classified” research than while they were on sabbatical. Otherwise, he’d be too busy with his own research, not to mention courses, office hours, faculty committees, and other demands related to the “teaching straight-jacket” that Switzer referred to in a letter to Gus Wenger (still no relation) when he’d begun making plans for his sabbatical. Those plans ultimately fell through, thus freeing up Switzer to work with someone else.

Was it Jolly? Was it George? 

As you probably know, I’ve struggled with the identity of the person whom I believe Switzer was assisting regarding the very highly classified research that year. In my first post on the subject of Switzer’s sabbatical, I suggested that he was working with  Louis Jolyon West, who by then was at the University of Oklahoma. At the youthful age of 32, West was becoming one of the foremost heavy hitters doing Artichoke and MKULTRA research at that time. And this is an important point: he was already doing it. He already was working on very highly classified research. In March 1955, he’d begun his infamous MKULTRA research project known as Subproject 43, Psychophysiological Studies of Hypnosis and Suggestibility. According to Colin A. Ross, M.D., he was given Top Secret clearance for this work. In February 1956, he’d submitted a proposal for a continuation of that research. Although the CIA records don’t indicate it, I’m fairly sure he received the money. I feel this way based on notes that had been scribbled in response to the CIA’s receipt of West’s proposal. 

Front page of notes on Jolly West’s proposal for an extension to Subproject 43; click on image for a closer view.
Back page of notes on Jolly West’s proposal for an extension to Subproject 43; click on image for a closer view

Here’s one of the more telling excerpts on the back page:

To me—The budget is out of line for what we have in mind, namely, testing effects and influences of certain drugs on hypnotizability.

In fairness to [REDACTED], all this should be gone over thoroughly with him—in detail. Will do within next 2-3 wks.

At the top of page one is the following sloppy note, circled and in slightly different handwriting, signed by S.G., whom I believe to be Sidney Gottlieb.

“Feel this should be [word??] to drugs & induction of hypnosis—and scaled down accordingly—”

A close-up of Sidney Gottlieb’s comment about Jolly West’s proposal; click on image for a closer view.

Although the fifth word or words is maddeningly illegible—Is it limited to? Knocked to? Or maybe “less and keep” to?—I know what Sidney is saying. He wants Jolly West to stick to drugs and the induction of hypnosis and to scale things down, especially the budget. So it seems to me that Jolly West did receive a second year of grant money, especially since someone else was planning to go over the parameters thoroughly with him within the next 2-3 weeks. 

But, OK, just for fun, let’s say that West didn’t get his extension on Subproject 43. He still had plenty of research dollars coming in for sensitive, highly classified research. On July 1, 1956, he signed a $32,800 contract between the Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center at Lackland AFB and the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. The contract was titled “Research Involving Psychological Reaction to Stresses Encountered in Military Captivity,” and he’d obtained a Secret clearance to conduct that research. 

To the best of my knowledge, no remnants of the actual research studies he’d conducted exist online. Most notably, I can’t find a Materials and Methods section anywhere that tells us what research methods were being used on his POW subjects—not even in the contract itself, which I obtained from the UCLA Archives. Do I think that hypnosis was somehow used in conducting that research? I do! After all, that’s what interrogation research was all about—hypnosis and drugs. Even more convincingly, his Subproject 43 extension proposal discusses “a number of ways in which hypnotic suggestions can bring about states of marked psychological stress,” which was the focus of his Air Force contract.

Part 3 of Jolly’s proposal indicates that Jolly was hypnotizing POWs to create psychological stress; click on image for a closer view.

Maybe Sidney Gottlieb and his gang weren’t all that impressed with Jolly’s “psychological stress” talk in part 3 of his proposal—someone labeled it as “meaningless” on the front page of their notes—but I, for one, am happy it’s in there. I’m also happy that the CIA redactors didn’t blacken it out.

TV gif. Seth Meyers on Late Night with Seth Meyers sits at his desk and gives a big shrug to the audience while a wide smirk spreads across his face.

Once again, thank you, CIA! This is what democracy looks like!

Therefore, at the time the two letters were written to Griffith Williams, Louis Jolyon West was swimming in research dollars and was conducting very highly classified research having to do with hypnosis, at least on POWs, but perhaps on a broader audience as well. 

But between you and me? I think he got the MKULTRA extension too.

I’m saying all of the above because of another document, this one written two days before the second letter to Williams, on February 6, 1957. The document is a proposal on developing a hypnotic messenger, and, initially, I thought it had been written by West. I thought this because a) its timing fits snugly between the two letters; b) I knew that West had an interest in developing a hypnotic courier; and c) the proposal’s author stated that he was being assisted by a man for the year—an academic who “is thoroughly familiar with hypnotism at the theoretical level”—which made sense if his assistant was on a sabbatical and which also sounded a lot like Switzer. But the proposal’s request of $10K seems below West’s going rate, and it was written in a more layperson-friendly sort of way than a West proposal.

It was after reading George H. Estabrooks’ book “Hypnotism” that I realized that Estabrooks had written the hypnotic messenger proposal. A few of the giveaways were his preference for the word hypnotism over hypnosis as well as his use of the term “hypnotic messenger” (also a favorite) and the early appearance of his most oft-repeated statistic that one in five adults can be hypnotized into a somnambulistic (deep hypnotic) state.

And that’s where things have stagnated for a while: with me feeling 99 percent sure that Switzer wrote the two letters to Griffith Williams, which means that he was potentially helping a big-deal researcher such as Louis Jolyon West on highly classified hypnosis research. However, it could also mean that he was potentially helping George Estabrooks on his hypnotic messenger project. I couldn’t determine which one it was. Or was it both? Adding to this conundrum is the fact that West was at the University of Oklahoma while Estabrooks was at Colgate University in Hamilton, NY, which logistically seems tough to pull off for a guy living in Oxford, Ohio. Estabrooks would have been closer, but Switzer did have access to Wright Patterson AFB. He could have flown to Oklahoma now and again. Likewise, West could catch a flight to Dayton if need be.

The word that gives it all away

Then, as I was preparing to tape the podcast Bizarre Butler County with Taylor and Sarah, I decided to read through those two letters one more time.

In the second paragraph of the February 8, 1957, letter, the writer wrote this:

“The problem of the use of hypnosis by a public speaker or some related technique which could be used by an individual to control or influence a crowd is of considerable importance and as you have noted there is very little information along these lines anywhere. This area is particularly interesting to [REDACTED]. He told me that he will obtain [REDACTED]’s book immediately.”

“Hold on,” thought I. “Did he just say REDACTED’s book? If the REDACTED he’s referring to is the REDACTED I’m thinking it is, then that is an enormous clue!”

In February 1957, there was probably one book and only one book on hypnosis that would have been of utmost interest to a person seeking surreptitious ways to control a crowd through hypnosis. That would be George Estabrooks’ book “Hypnotism,” which, as luck would have it, was being published that very year as a new and revised edition.

My beat-up, dog-eared 1957 copy of Hypnotism, by George H. Estabrooks; click on image for a closer view

“Hypnotism” first came out in 1943 and was written in a friendly, nontechnical, plain-language sort of way. It was a huge best seller. It was even recommended reading by the Book-of-the-Month Club. 

But that doesn’t mean it didn’t get into the nitty gritty of how hypnosis could potentially be used in surreptitious ways. Whereas other hypnosis researchers would write about conventional issues pertaining to hypnosis, Estabrooks went straight to the controversial. You want to hypnotize someone without their knowledge? No problem! You want to give them a posthypnotic suggestion to do something that goes against their morals? Piece of cake!

One of the more noteworthy chapters is Hypnotism in Warfare, in which he discusses the creation of the Super Spy, not unlike the hypnotic messenger he was hoping to create in the summer of 1957. Another chapter titled Hypnotism and Human Affairs gets into how dictators employ the principles of hypnosis to get crowds of people to give them their allegiance and do their bidding.

Of course, George Estabrooks covered the less controversial topics in his book as well, but he made those chapters wildly readable too. By 1957, certainly other books had been published on the topic of hypnosis. But as I told Taylor and Sarah, two books that were sure to occupy the bookshelves of most hypnosis researchers were Clark Hull’s Hypnosis and Suggestibility, published in 1933, and George Estabrooks’ Hypnotism, first published in 1943. If you needed to consult a stodgy classic textbook about what hypnosis is, scientifically speaking, or how suggestibility can be measured in a laboratory, then you turned to Hull. If you were more in the mood for a lively book that describes all the possible ways in which hypnosis can be used out in the real world—in medicine, in criminal justice, and even in war—then Estabrooks was your guy.

Because the writer of the February 8, 1957, letter says that the major hypnosis researcher with whom he’s working will be obtaining the book “immediately,” it appears that it must already be out. So the question is: when was the publication date of the newly revised version of Hypnotism? My copy only says that it was published in the year 1957. When I spoke with Taylor and Sarah, I’d found sources that said it was published on January 1, 1957. I’ve since learned that a customary practice for when the date isn’t known is to use January 1 as a placeholder. 

Here’s the copyright date on my copy of Hypnotism. Click on image for a closer view.

Later, courtesy of the New York Times, I learned that the new and revised edition of Hypnotism was published on May 1, 1957. This was confirmed in a later printing of the second edition, which stated the publication date was May 1957. So we have our answer—May it was!

The new revised version of Hypnotism, by G.H. Estabrooks, was published in May 1957. Click on image for a closer view.

Granted, the major hypnosis researcher could go out and buy the book immediately, in February. However, it would be the first edition that he’d be buying, which had been out for 14 years. The most recent printing was in 1955. If he’s going to go to the trouble of buying a copy, I think he should wait till May….and I think he likely did.

One possibility is that the letter writer had some inside information about the new book that was coming out. Maybe he’d been in touch with Estabrooks and was letting Williams know about the book in an indirect way, though he got a little ahead of himself as far as when it would be available. 

But that’s not what I think happened. I think that in his response to the December 1956 letter, Griffith Williams probably gave a heads up to the letter writer that Estabrooks’ new and revised book was going to be coming out soon. Williams would have been on the inside track for information like that. I don’t know if Williams and Estabrooks talked much, but news of a forthcoming book would have made its way into newsletters of their professional societies and by word of mouth at conferences. So I can see Williams telling the letter writer (likely Switzer) that Estabrooks’ book will be out soon, and Switzer erroneously jumping to the conclusion that it would be available immediately. The sentence “He told me that he will obtain [REDACTED]’s book immediately,” sounds as if they’re promising to follow up on a recommendation that Williams had made to them.

What’s especially clear to me is that the major hypnosis researcher who is conducting very highly classified research from December 1956 through February 1957 and beyond is not George Estabrooks. Therefore, I think we can surmise two things:

1) I believe the two letters involve four men: the letter writer (likely St. Clair Switzer), the letter recipient (Griffith Williams), the major hypnosis researcher (still unknown, though possibly Louis Jolyon West), and George Estabrooks, the writer of the hypnotic messenger proposal and author of the book Hypnotism.

2) The letter writer—whom I believe was St. Clair Switzer—is working with the major hypnosis researcher. He might be helping Estabrooks too, since Estabrooks’ hypnotic messenger proposal fits within Switzer’s sabbatical and also was dated within two days of the second letter. But if we have to choose between the two researchers, I believe that St. Clair Switzer was working with the researcher with boatloads of funding and Secret or Top Secret clearance—the one who also had lots of questions about how far they could take hypnosis experimentation, no matter how dangerous, shocking, or unusual.

Interested in your thoughts.

Two years after the massive fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis in 1973, the director of the NPRC felt the need to destroy Top Secret Air Force records that had survived the fire 

Guess where the records originated from

The last time you and I discussed the July 12, 1973, National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire in St. Louis, we learned something curious. We learned that, nearly two years after the firetrucks had driven away and the firefighters had gone back to their homes, after all the soggy and charred debris had been cleaned up and disposed of, after surviving files had been reshelved for safekeeping and calm and normalcy had been restored, the NPRC director felt the need to burn up some more files.

The files in question had been described in a February 1975 memo as 2,470 cubic feet of Top Secret “Air Force Research and Development case files.” They’d been housed in the now-destroyed vault on the building’s sixth floor and moved to a third-floor vault soon after the fire. The reason NPRC Director Warren B. Griffin provided for their necessary destruction now, two years later, was as follows:

“It has since been determined that the integrity of individual series and cases has been completely destroyed and that the intellectual control over the records is completely lost.” 

His dire assessment confused me. I had no idea what he was talking about with regard to the “integrity of individual series and cases,” but how was intellectual control completely lost over files that had been safely secured in a third-floor vault since July 1973? 

I thought and I thought, and I came up with a slightly different, albeit more cynical, explanation: I suggested that Air Force officials were afraid of what was about to be revealed by the Church Committee as it was beginning its investigation into abuses by the CIA, FBI, and U.S. military in their intelligence activities. I reasoned that the Air Force decided to burn the evidence beforehand and Griffin was the foot soldier who was assigned the unscrupulous task.

But that was just a hypothesis.

In March 2024, I submitted two FOIA requests to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which now oversees the NPRC. (The General Services Administration had employed the National Archives staff at the time of the fire, but that ended in 1985.) One FOIA request was for the descriptive listings of the records that were to be incinerated, and one was for the Standard Form (SF)-115, which would authorize their destruction, both of which were alluded to in Griffin’s memo. I attached a copy of Griffin’s memo to help them in their search. I then went for a run.

On August 20, 2025, NARA sent me 21 pages. I just read them yesterday. (Don’t judge. I was slammed that week, and truth be told, when I saw their email come in, I pretty much assumed I was in for a letdown. I figured that I’d have to determine what my next move would be, so I let their email sit in my inbox. Imagine my surprise when I finally opened the email and found actual responsive records. Good on them!)

I’m only going to share the SF-115 with you today. I’ll need to spend some time with the other documents, and I also happen to think the SF-115 is a big deal.

First here’s what the records to be destroyed consisted of, per the form signed by Herbert G. Geiger, who headed up the Information Management and Resources Division for the National Archives at that time:

“Fire and water damaged research and development records consisting of contractual and procurement documents, drawings, technical progress summaries, technical reports, testing documents, scientist notebooks, correspondence, and various other materials which were accumulated and maintained primarily at the Air Force Systems Command (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base). ca. 1951-63.”

So that’s new information, right? Those 2,470 cubic feet of R&D records that Warren Griffin wanted destroyed ASAP originated from Wright-Patterson AFB, a base that’s 50-some miles from Miami University, and was a home away from home to St. Clair Switzer, Ron Tammen’s psychology professor. But get a load of the years: 1951 to 1963! 

Of all the Air Force bases in all the world whose records had to be purposely incinerated for questionable reasons, did they have to choose our Air Force base for the years that we happen to be most concerned about? 

Before we move on to the SF-115’s next paragraph, let’s talk quantity. What does 2470 cubic feet of R&D records even look like? According to the National Archives one cubic foot of records equals approximately 2500 sheets of paper. Granted, it’s just an estimate, but by my calculations, Griffin had felt he’d lost intellectual control over roughly 6 million pages of Top Secret Air Force records. No wonder he was feeling a little panicky.

According to the SF-115, the reason that the Wright-Patterson AFB records needed to be immediately destroyed was stated similarly to Griffin’s memo, though Geiger didn’t want to stop there. He didn’t want people to forget about the fire and the water that the documents had withstood. Also, we learned of another vault that was housing a portion of the surviving records:

“Approximately 1530 cubic feet of the above records are presently located in the third floor vault in the Military Personnel Records Center, St. Louis. The remaining 940 cubic feet are in the vault in the Civilian Personnel Records Center, St. Louis. At the time of the fire at the St. Louis Center on July 12, 1973, these records were in the 6th floor vault. The 6th floor was completely destroyed. The records are damaged by fire and water. The integrity of individual series and cases is completely destroyed. Intellectual control over these records is completely lost. In their present arrangement, they are not serviceable. Their value for archival research is limited, and does not justify the time and labor required to reconstruct cases and series.”

“Disposition: Destroy Immediately.”

There’s also a handwritten note at the bottom: “These records are scorched, burned, and water-damaged. Because of their brittle condition, they disinte-grate if handled,” followed by the initials pL 1//7/75. The word “easily” is added below the “disinte” part of disintegrate, as if to underscore the point and ward off any potentially diehard archivists who would argue against their destruction.

Click on image for a closer view

Which sounds believable, right? There was a big fire. LOADS of documents were destroyed by the heat and flames and water. Why not these documents too?

I guess I could see what Geiger and pL were saying, except for one minor detail: it’s not true.

Two years earlier, when staff of the NPRC were in clean-up versus cover-up mode, they were keeping meticulous records of how they were handling the classified records that had been in the sixth-floor vault. We learned in one July 1973 memo, for example, that the Top Secret Air Force records were stored in 17, five-drawer file cabinets. The word damp is used to indicate that those records were being handled along with the damp-but-salvageable records, though they’d put that word in quotation marks when it came to the Air Force records. It’s as if they were saying they’re in the damp-but-salvageable group, but they’re not really “damp” per se. In an earlier memo, we learned that those Top Secret file cabinets were described as “safes.” They also shared some great news: “Material in safes are in wrapped packages or wrapped boxes—all numbered. Our present impression (based on previous visit to vault area) is that this material is in fair to good shape.”

So let’s see. We now know that the Top Secret Air Force files had been protected by wrapping of some sort not to mention the surrounding metal of the file cabinet safe, which sounds even sturdier than a typical file cabinet. Also, the contents were assessed to be in “fair to good shape.” Yet, two years later, Geiger and pL had decided that the materials were in terrible condition—scorched, burned, and water-damaged, and, if given the chance, they’d disintegrate easily in their hands.

What’s more, in addition to Griffin’s worry about losing intellectual control over the files, both he and Geiger had claimed that “integrity of individual series and cases has been completely destroyed.” But how could that have been possible if all of those wrapped packages and boxes were numbered in their respective file cabinet drawers? It sounds to me as if the integrity of the individual series and cases was still very much intact.

But Warren and Herb bring up an interesting point worth delving into a little. What exactly did they mean by the word “cases”? In his memo, Warren had described the Air Force files as “Research and Development case files.” I’m no expert, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the word case has a human ring to it, doesn’t it? When I think of aeronautical research, I don’t think of the study of turbines and jet propulsion engines and who knows what else as “cases.” Those investigations are usually called studies or projects. But cases? Cases tend to involve human beings…people who are research subjects. We already know that Wright-Patt researchers conducted studies on pilots, such as for instrument design, oxygen thresholds, etc. I’m guessing any of those records from 1951 through 1963 would have been intentionally burned in 1975, unfortunately. But who knows, maybe there were other human studies that would’ve been burned at the same time—perhaps they were the reason behind the burning. I’m thinking of Projects ARTICHOKE and MKULTRA, for example?

I have one last piece of news to share. Remember the study I told you about called Project Rabbit on which I could find no information? One astute reader then straightened me out and said that it’s not Project Rabbit, it’s Project “Rabbit”—with the all-important quotation marks. Project “Rabbit” was a CIA and U.S. Air Force collaboration in which human intelligence or HUMINT agents known as “Rabbits” would parachute behind enemy lines during the Korean War for intelligence gathering and other clandestine purposes.

I’d written a FOIA request to find out more about a Project “Rabbit” conference that was held at Wright-Patterson AFB on December 23, 1952. 

I heard back from their representative last Monday. He told me that “A thorough search reasonably calculated for any segregable, releasable information in existence and relevant to this Freedom of Information Act request was conducted. During that analysis, no responsive records were discovered.”

Gosh, let’s see…a conference at Wright-Patterson AFB involving a Top Secret project in which human agents were trained to carry out intelligence activities in enemy territory in 1952? I can’t imagine what happened to those records.

****

Comments? Questions? If so, I’d love to hear them.