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.

The sabbatical, part 2: Supporting evidence of two theories I have about St. Clair Switzer’s role in Project Artichoke

Well, hello! Lately, I’ve been doing some behind-the-scenes work on the Ron Tammen case, and haven’t had much time to think up, let alone write, a blog post. That’s probably a good thing since I’m not really at liberty to talk about most of what’s going on anyway. There will come a day when I’m able to go public with what it is I’ve been doing, but alas, today’s not that day.

Still, I’ve recently made a few discoveries that I am able to divulge, two of which I’ll be divulging now. They have to do with the years 1956 and 1957, when St. Clair Switzer took time off from his professorship at Miami University to go on a sabbatical. I’m intensely interested in this period because I’m trying to figure out what he was doing during that sabbatical and who he was doing it with. 

The two discoveries are as follows:

1) We were right! The ARTICHOKE researcher whose personality was so off-putting to Air Force brass that he was required to work through a hand-picked liaison to the Surgeon General was Louis Jolyon West!

Back in September 2023, I posted about how it appeared that a young Louis Jolyon West had a personality that didn’t exactly mesh with buttoned-down military types, even though he himself was a major in the U.S. Air Force’s Medical Corps. In a memo dated July 24, 1953, Morse Allen, who was chief of the Technical Branch in the CIA’s Office of Security, was describing how a promising ARTICHOKE researcher whose name was redacted had elicited several red flags during a recent full-field investigation. Allen reported to his boss that, sure, the guy was “‘talkative,’ somewhat ‘unconventional’ and a ‘champion of the underdog’ but, according to all informants, he does not discuss classified information and can be trusted with Top Secret matters.” (I have a question though: what were those aforementioned informants doing chit-chatting about classified intel with this young researcher before he had clearance? Sounds to me as if they’re the ones who couldn’t be trusted with Top Secret information, ya’ know?)

Later in that post, I shared a CIA memorandum written months earlier, on September 23, 1952. In that memo, whose author’s name is redacted, two individuals were being discussed, one of whom had a “propensity to talk.” The other was described as having “nothing to contribute in the line of research,” however it appears that he had redeeming qualities too. When addressing how to ameliorate their talker problem, the author stated that “I could assure Col. REDACTED that any project involving REDACTED would be coordinated with him. In accordance with the new procedures for handling ARTICHOKE, OTS [Office of Technical Service] will be obligated to check with OS [Office of Security] and OS would automatically check with REDACTED in view of the fact that REDACTED is a consultant of, and of primary interest to the Surgeon General.” 

The memo went on to say that a colonel who’d spoken with a representative of the Office of the Surgeon General had called to say that the new protocol successfully allayed their concerns. What’s more, the representative “had advised him that he thinks very highly of REDACTED and that it will be essential to keep him cut into the picture.”

In that post, I hypothesized that the talker was Jolly West and the Surgeon General’s proposed liaison who was to be “cut into the picture” was St. Clair Switzer. I pointed to the words “air research” that had been written above the liaison’s name as supporting evidence, since Switzer had worked in the Air Research and Development Command in Baltimore in the summer of 1951.

Click on image for a closer view.

In another post, I zoomed in on the scratched out name of the proposed liaison, which clearly started with the letter S and had roughly the same number of letters as Switzer. Here, I’ll show you again:

Click on image for a closer view.

The Surgeon General at that time was Harry G. Armstrong, who had close ties to Wright Patterson AFB, which is how I think he’d come to know and trust Lt. Col. Switzer. But again, this was all just a hypothesis.

Two years have gone by since I made those bold assertions, and so far, they’ve been sitting quietly on my blogsite with barely a mention from anyone. (It’s fine. I’m fine.) Today, I’m presenting supporting evidence that Jolly West indeed had to work through a liaison with the Surgeon General’s Office, even though the new evidence is a document from 1956, three and a half years after the September 1952 memo, when Harry G. Armstrong was no longer the Surgeon General.

My new evidence is Jolly West’s proposal for a second year of funding for his now infamous MKULTRA Subproject 43, Psychophysiological Studies of Hypnosis and Suggestibility. His cover letter was addressed to SG—Sidney Gottlieb—who, as head of the Chemical Division of the Office of Technical Service, had been put in charge of MKULTRA. Near the end of the letter, West mentions work he’d been doing for the Air Force and says that he may be traveling to Washington, D.C., very soon. “REDACTED will know about it before I will; if you want to see me, get in touch with him and find out whether the Surgeon General is going to be calling me up there next week.”

Thanks to MuckRock for making this document available. Click on image for a closer view.

Interesting, isn’t it? By that time, Louis Jolyon West was chair of the Department of Psychiatry, Neurology and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine; he’d just completed his first year overseeing his major MKULTRA subproject (which was considered admirable back then); and he was in charge of a project requested by USAF Headquarters to develop recommendations on “training for survival and resistance to interrogation” (also impressive). Still, apparently, there were channels he was expected to go through, and he needed to wait for someone else to tell him if the Surgeon General wanted to see him or not.

And so, there we have it. In February 1956, a few months before Switzer’s sabbatical began, the system that had been worked out in 1952 was ostensibly still in place. West would communicate with Gottlieb’s Office of Technical Service. Gottlieb would consult with someone presumably from the CIA’s Office of Security, who would touch base with a contact sanctioned by the Surgeon General’s Office as to whether the Surgeon General would be summoning Jolly West for a sit-down. Granted, this is just one-half of my hypothesis. We still don’t know if St. Clair Switzer was the other half, though, if he was in 1952, I’m thinking he wasn’t in 1956. (I’ll tell you why in a second.) But any amount of corroboration is good corroboration and I think worth mentioning.

2) I have more proof that St. Clair Switzer was an employee of the CIA!

Back in 2022, I brazenly hypothesized that St. Clair Switzer was an employee of the CIA, not just a consultant. My logic was this: In December 1956 and February 1957, which was in the middle of Switzer’s sabbatical, someone who sounded a lot like Switzer had written two letters to Switzer’s former colleague and fellow Clark Hull protege Griffith W. Williams about a classified project that was exploring ways to hypnotize people through a variety of means ostensibly without their knowledge. We know for a fact that the recipient was Griffith Williams because the first letter refers to the recipient’s post at Rutgers, where Williams was a psychology professor, and the second letter refers to his recent bout with arthritis, which was a health condition that Williams had endured for years.

What was perplexing to me was the letter “A” next to the writer’s redacted name. In the 2022 post, I’d attempted to crack the CIA’s code of letters and numbers written on MKULTRA documents and concluded that A stood for Agency, since people who were known CIA employees consistently had an A by their name, whether their name happened to be redacted or not. The letter C, which is next to Williams’ redacted name, stood for consultant, I’d deduced.

If you’d like to see what I mean, here are a couple examples of memos in which known CIA officials Morse Allen and R.L. Bannerman have As by their names as opposed to the Cs, which are next to blackened names of people with whom they were consulting:

Sample 1

Document provided thanks to TheBlackVault.com; click on image for a closer view

Sample 2

Document provided thanks to TheBlackVault.com; click on image for a closer view
Document provided thanks to TheBlackVault.com; click on image for a closer view

And so…because I was 99.9 percent positive (and still am) that the two letters were written by Doc Switzer and because the letter writer had an A next to his name, then logic would dictate that Switzer was an Agency insider. 

And there that blog post sat for three years with nary a peep from anyone. (Again, it’s fine. I’ve come to terms with the fact that people have interests outside of Ron Tammen. I don’t understand it, but I’ve come to terms with it.) Incidentally, this is also why I don’t think Switzer was the Surgeon General’s liaison in 1956. In Jolly West’s cover letter for his MKULTRA proposal, the person who is supposedly the Surgeon General’s liaison has a C next to his name. Note that Jolly West also has a C next to his name.

Aaannnnnyyyway…remember the hypnosis expert I recently wrote about who liked to use the word “injunction” when he described giving a hypnotic subject a basic command like “relax” or “go to sleep”? Until I came across that person’s missives, I’d only seen the word injunction used to describe an order that was handed down in a court of law by a judge or magistrate. To date, I’ve found no other hypnosis experts during that time period or any time period who have ever used the word injunction when describing that part of the hypnotic process. And trust me, I’ve looked. In fact, I’ve never come across anyone who has used that word in that way at all. 

Nevertheless, I found this very rare usage of the word injunction in three Project ARTICHOKE documents. It first appears in a write-up dated March 28, 1952, three days after St. Clair Switzer’s name (I’m 100% positive) was proposed by Morse Allen as a possible consultant for ARTICHOKE. Griffith Williams was another suggested name (I’m quite sure).

Then, in October 1955 and February 1956, several months before Switzer’s sabbatical, the word popped up several times in two reports discussing the covert, or disguised, induction of hypnosis. Based on my inability to find any other hypnosis expert occupying the planet at the time who used that word in that way, I hypothesized that all three documents had been written by the same person.

But here’s what’s intriguing about that hypothesis: the author of the March 1952 write-up was clueless about Project ARTICHOKE. He’d ostensibly been given a few broadbrush details about what they were looking to do in the area of hypnosis and the collection of information from an enemy and he did a little brainstorming. He then hand-delivered a write-up of his ideas to someone whose office was within driving distance who obviously did know about the program, even though they ostensibly weren’t with the CIA. According to their cover letter dated October 1, 1952 (Happy Anniversary, by the way!) to the official now in charge of ARTICHOKE, injunction guy was still very much in the dark. For these reasons, I think we can state with 100 percent certainty that the March 1952 writer was not an Agency insider.

Do you know who was an Agency insider? The person who wrote the February 1956 report. He had an A next to his name.

I still think that the three documents were written by the same person. However, my theory has evolved and branched out. I now think that, sometime between 1952 and 1956, injunction guy was hired by the CIA—not unlike the person who wrote the two letters to Griffith Williams during the 1956-57 academic year, whom I also believe was CIA. 

This could be evidence that we’re talking about one person and one person only, St. Clair Switzer.

Wouldn’t it be so great if, despite everything that the CIA has done to try to withhold the identities of its long-dead ARTICHOKE and MKULTRA actors, what with its over-the-top use of redactions and the deceptive games it likes to play with the American people, pretending to comply with FOIA and all…wouldn’t it be great if the singular feature that would help us identify one of its own would be someone’s inflated ego? I can just picture him then, seated at his typewriter, marveling at his importance, striving to impress. How could he, someone who viewed himself a writer, have known that his instinct to use a fancy word that no one ever uses in that context instead of a more typical word that would enable him to blend in would ultimately lead to his unmasking? I’d call that poetic justice. 

Coming later this month, another interesting discovery about Switzer’s sabbatical 

This past July, I was interviewed again by Miami Student journalists Taylor Powers and Sarah Kennel for their podcast Bizarre Butler County. In that discussion, the three of us talked more about the Tammen mystery, and I provided a little breaking news that I hadn’t shared with anyone. I still haven’t shared it with anyone.

I’ll give you a hint: It has to do with Doc Switzer’s sabbatical and a small clue regarding who he may have been working with. Because I like to honor the breaking news that I provide to fellow journalists, I won’t be breaking it here. You’ll need to wait until that podcast episode, which I’ve been told is going to air later this month. I’ll let you know the date as soon as I know. I’ll also write up a blog post with supporting documentation to accompany that episode after it drops.

Injunction dysfunction: How a 1950s researcher’s fondness for a weird word when describing the hypnotic process could help us figure out his role in Project Artichoke

Today we’re going to talk about the word injunction. Whenever I stumble upon the word, I think of a legal order, handed down by a court of law, telling someone that they need to do something or to stop doing something. In fact, it’s often used alongside the word court, as in a court injunction.  Wikipedia has a very nice write-up on the word injunction, which you are welcome to read at your leisure.

But our friend Merriam Webster has provided a second meaning for the word injunction, as if we needed one. And that meaning is: an order or admonition. 

P.S. Of any kind.

P.P.S. No court of law required. Just, you know…someone gives you an injunction to do something (or to not do something) and you do it (or not). The thing is: No one uses it this way.

No, seriously, I’ve been living on earth for a while now, and I’ve even been in the presence of some very smart people with very large vocabularies, and not a soul has ever used the word injunction in this way when I was with them. 

Like have you ever heard a kid say: “My dad gave me an injunction last night to do my homework or else.”

Or has your boss ever said: “I need you to have the report on my desk by the end of the week. That’s an injunction.”

Or, after visiting the dentist, have you ever told someone, “The appointment went fine, except she kept giving me injunctions to open my mouth wider.”

Exactly. No one talks that way. That would be weird. 

Except, there once was a person who did use the word injunction in this way…sometimes repeatedly.

This person was a hypnosis expert in the 1950s, when the federal government was on the prowl for as many hypnosis experts as it could find. Even though I’ve found no other hypnosis experts of that time period (or ever) who used the word injunction to describe a hypnotic instruction, command, or suggestion, it was this person’s go-to. For example:

“…a man might be given hypnotically (with injunction to ‘forget’ the incident) a strong compulsion to keep a secret diary.”

Or

“Injunctions to forget the hypnotic indoctrination might be tried.”

OR

“Injunction to accept subsequent non-hypnotic instructions from an ‘agent’ might be tried out.”

Those three injunctions were found on page one of a two-page write-up dated March 28, 1952, on how hypnosis might be used to gather intelligence from an enemy. While most hypnosis experts were never tempted to use the word even once in that way throughout their careers, he or she (Who am I kidding? It’s the CIA in the early ‘50s—I’m pretty sure it’s a he) found reason to use it three times in one two-pager. 

Click on image for a closer view

We’ll talk more about this write-up shortly, because I find its timing to be noteworthy in addition to the route it took to reach the people in charge of Project Artichoke.

But right now, let’s jump to 1955…October 25, 1955, to be exact. On this date, an expert in hypnosis is writing a summary on the various ways in which the CIA could induce a hypnotic trance within a subject without their knowing it—what he refers to as disguised induction. In the memo, he discusses using such methods as anxiety-reducing drugs as well as medical instruments that serve as an object of fascination for the subject while providing an excuse for an operator to encourage the subject to relax without raising suspicion. Among the medical instruments he mentioned were an electrocardiograph (EKG), which measures electrical activity of the heart, and an electroencephalograph (EEG), which measures electrical activity in the brain.

In paragraph 7, he says this about the EKG and EEG: “These machines offer a situation where the subject is in a resting condition and amenable to direction of his sensory powers at the machine (fascination) which coupled with relaxation injunctions may result in achieving hypnosis.”

Click on image for a closer view

Relaxation injunctions? Could this be the same guy as the one on March 28, 1952?

Four months later, on February 28, 1956, someone is writing an interim report titled Hypnosis and Covert Operations. Disguised induction of hypnosis is still the end game. Among other techniques, the report leads with the use of the polygraph as a disguised pretest of someone’s hypnotic susceptibility, as well as a way to measure a person’s physiological changes as they are entering and exiting a hypnotic trance. 

In paragraph 6, which discusses a far riskier technique involving a subject’s carotid arteries, the author says this: “It is possible to combine a stern injunction of ‘sleep!’ with carotid pressure to obtain hypnosis…,” before cautioning the reader about how dangerous the method is, how it requires a lot of practice and perfect timing, and in no way could it be considered a disguised induction of hypnosis. I mean, good grief, he’s got his hands around the subject’s neck!

Click on image for a closer view

In the very next paragraph, he’s back to describing medical instruments, and is singing the praises of a BMR machine, which measures basal metabolic rate. In addition to diverting the subject’s attention and helping them to relax, “the BMR has the added advantage of control of inspired air. Breathed through a mask (which is the measuring device), the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide inhaled can be controlled. With the oxygen decreased, the subject is rendered more susceptible to hypnosis. This can be coupled with injunctions to ‘relax,’ ‘go to sleep if you like,’ ‘sleep,’ [sic] so that induction might be accomplished.” 

Click on image for a closer view

I don’t know about you, but I generally don’t permit just anyone to control my oxygen intake, especially if someone with the CIA happens to be in the room. But hey, we’ve found one more “relax” injunction and three “sleep” injunctions, so that’s good news. Also, is it me, or is this guy beginning to sound as if he’s trying to make the word “injunction” catch on? Despite his efforts, I haven’t seen any evidence that it did.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking: sure, it’s weird that the word keeps popping up from time to time, and it does appear that the writer in October 1955 and February 1956 is the same person, since he’s writing about the same topic. But how can we be sure that it’s the same person as the writer of the two-pager of March 1952? And if it is the same person, how can we figure out who the person is?

Two great questions. I suggest we address them backwards. First, I’m going to tell you who I think it is, and then I’m going to tell you why.

I think it’s St. Clair Switzer. (But I think you already knew that.)

My reason has to do with three clues:

Clue #1: The number/letter combo in the top right of the October 1955 and February 1956 memos

As we’ve discussed in the past, many, but not all, of the CIA’s MKULTRA documents that were released to the public have a combination of numbers and letters in the top right corner. Here’s an example:

Click on image for a closer view

Here’s another one:

Click on image for a closer view

The series starts with an A/B, which, according to Colin Ross, M.D., stands for Artichoke/Bluebird. Then, there’s a single number, often written as a Roman numeral, which I believe represents a major grouping. The range for these numbers is I (1) through VII (7). Then there are two numbers separated by either a comma or a slash. The first of the two numbers is a smaller category within the large grouping, while the second represents a document’s number in a series within that category.

The October 1955 memo has the following number/letter combo: III, 6/15

Click on image to link to the full document

The February 1956 memo has the following number/letter combo: III, 6/19

Click on image to link to the full document

Picture it like this: Think of a file cabinet with seven drawers. The III group occupies the third file drawer, and within the III drawer are (from my count) seven file folders. Each file folder within the III drawer contains a stack of documents, which vary in number. The thickest stack is in folder #2. It contains at least 135 documents. Within the #6 folder is a much smaller stack, numbered from 1 to 19, though several documents are missing. The October 1955 memo and the February 1956 memo both occupy the III file drawer in the #6 folder.

Do you know what other record occupies the III file drawer in the #6 folder? The March 25, 1952, memo in which Morse Allen tells Cmdr. Robert J. Williams that he’s spoken with legendary hypnosis expert Clark Hull, and Hull suggested that they contact his two prized former assistants, namely St. Clair Switzer and Griffith W. Williams. (The names are redacted, but I’m positive of this.)

Click on image to link to the full document

The number at the top of the March 25, 1952, memo is III, 6/9. In other words, whoever did the numbering decided that the three memos have something in common and should be categorized accordingly. Note that I don’t think all of the memos in the #6 folder involved St. Clair Switzer, but I believe these three memos do. 

Clue #2: The date of the March 28, 1952, two-pager

Three days after St. Clair Switzer and Griffith Williams were identified as individuals to be contacted for Project Artichoke, someone typed up the two-pager about possible ways to use hypnosis to obtain information from the enemy. What’s intriguing about this write-up, other than its over-the-top usage of the word injunction, is that it’s forwarded to someone at the CIA by way of a memo written by a third party. The cover memo is dated roughly six months later. We’ll get to that memo in a second. 

Because Morse Allen wasn’t the type to sit around and wait, I think that he or perhaps another official reached out to both Switzer and Williams on or around March 25 (a Tuesday). By March 28 (a Friday), someone—it seems logical to infer that it would’ve been one of those two men—had typed up the document after giving the matter some serious thought. Based on what I know about Doc Switzer, my money is on him. He would have treated a phone call from Morse Allen or another official as an assignment to be handled with utmost urgency. (An injunction, if you will!) I’ve seen his response time in other situations—he could turn around a lengthy request from a person in a high place within a day. What the two-pager’s author did next offers up another important clue to his identity.

Clue #3:  The date of the cover memo introducing the March 28, 1952, two-pager

Whoever wrote the two-pager had hand delivered it to someone who was in-the-know about Project Artichoke. Strangely, the cover memo is dated 1 October 1952, which seems like a long time for that entity to be sitting on something that the CIA and military were clearly interested in.

Here’s a copy of the cover memo:

Click on image to link to the full document

It’s short, so I’m going to write it up here as well.

Memorandum for: [REDACTED]

Subject: Matter Possibly Related to Project ARTICHOKE

1. Attached hereto is a memorandum delivered to this office by [REDACTED]. This was one of a number of operational suggestions that Mr. [REDACTED] brought to this office which he understood was interested in new ideas. He has no knowledge of Project ARTICHOKE and has been informed that his suggestion has been forwarded to the interested office.

2. The memorandum is being forwarded to you since it is understood that your office has assumed overall direction of Project ARTICHOKE and the matter appears to be related to some aspects of Project ARTICHOKE. 

Who I think wrote the cover memo

Unfortunately, the writer and their workplace are both redacted, but I still think I know its origin. I believe the cover memo writer was someone on a military base. Think about it: the only insiders regarding Project Artichoke were a select group of people within the CIA and the military, and no one would dare pull a pop-in at the CIA.

As for which military base, I think I know that too. We discussed above that the two most likely authors were either St. Clair Switzer or Griffith W. Williams. And of those two men, the only one who had an association with a military base was St. Clair Switzer.

Therefore, I think the origin of the cover letter was someone at Wright-Patterson AFB—most likely the Wright Air Development Center’s (WADC’s) Aero Medical Laboratory, where Switzer was well known. The person who called him on or around March 25 likely gave a broad description of the kinds of questions that they were seeking answers to, but they wouldn’t have given him the full details of the program—not yet. They certainly hadn’t disclosed the name Artichoke. They were probably assessing his interest and availability regarding a classified project having to do with hypnosis, and he wanted to show them just how interested and available he was.

Why I think it was so late

So why would someone at Wright Patt wait until October 1 to forward Switzer’s memo to the officials overseeing Project Artichoke?

I can think of two reasons. First, on September 30, 1952—the day before the cover memo was written—Project Artichoke was officially transferred from the Office of Scientific Intelligence to the Inspection and Security Office (I&SO), where Morse Allen was employed, with research support from the Office of Technical Services and Medical Sciences staff. (They’d been discussing this transfer for months, but this appears to be the final word.) The changeover involved a major reorganization in which duties were transferred from one person to another and copious files were handed over as well. To forward a memo on the first day of Artichoke’s new management structure doesn’t seem late at all. In fact, it seems really on the ball. 

Click on image to link to the full document

Second, a memo that was probably fresh in their brains, dated September 23, 1952, may have also played a role. In the last paragraph, it was mentioned that the Surgeon General of the Air Force—a man named General Harry G. Armstrong—had requested that someone be “cut into the picture” for Project Artichoke. Of course, that person’s name was redacted, but in my September 19, 2023 post, I go deep into why I think Switzer was the person named in that memo. Namely, Armstrong  had strong ties to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, so they shared that connection. What’s more, Switzer had been stationed for a portion of the previous summer at the Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) in Baltimore, which oversaw the Wright Air Development Center. I think that carried a lot of weight, since someone had handwritten “air research” above the person’s redacted name. 

My theory is: the people at Wright-Patterson AFB probably hadn’t waited six months to send the two-pager to the CIA. They’d likely forwarded it in March 1952 to someone at OSI. However, when Project Artichoke was switched over to I&SO’s purview, someone at Wright Patt probably thought it wouldn’t hurt to forward the two-pager to them as well, especially now that they knew that the Office of the Surgeon General would approve.

If I’m correct that St. Clair Switzer had written the injunction memos of 1952, 1955, and 1956, you can be sure that this will open up new areas of study. It also confirms one guess I’d made a long time ago concerning two other documents that I believe Switzer wrote. But we’ll save that discussion for another day. 

Any thoughts? Have you ever used the word injunction in this way before? If not, try it out on your friends, coworkers, and anyone else you know and tell us about it!

Many thanks to The Black Vault for making these documents accessible.

Did you know that there was another Top Secret project at Wright-Patterson AFB in the early 1950s involving the CIA’s most controversial group?

Me neither

It’s been a long time since you and I have chatted about Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (aka Wright Patt) and its ostensible ties to Project Artichoke and/or MKULTRA. If you’re new here, Wright-Patterson AFB is located about 55 miles north of Oxford, Ohio, home of Miami University. Ron Tammen’s psychology professor, Dr. St. Clair Switzer (aka Lt. Col. St. Clair Switzer), knew it and its brass well. I’ve hypothesized that Wright Patt was stop number one after Ron was (ostensibly) driven from Miami’s campus late at night on April 19, 1953. A couple days ago, I decided to check to see if any new information had been posted online concerning the people who worked at Wright Patt in the 1950s and the experiments that they conducted there. 

And so…into the weeds I hopped…

…and then I became Energized…

Because, although my attempts to find new information on hypnosis and drug experiments at the Dayton facility came up empty (for now), I discovered a document that told me of another Top Secret project that researchers at Wright Patt and the CIA were collaborating on. Its name?

Project Rabbit. 

Photo by Gary Bendig on Unsplash

Have you heard of it? Neither have I! No, seriously, I’m finding nothing about a Project Rabbit online anywhere that fits what this memo is talking about. There’s info on a past program of the Departments of Defense and State involving the processing of visas for refugees from Afghanistan. There’s a book with the title Project Rabbit Hole, which is on a different topic. There’s an album with that title too. But I’m finding no Project Rabbits anywhere, and trust me, I’ve checked—and rechecked—all of my go-to places.

Here’s the document that I’ve found, dated December 18, 1952, that mentions Project Rabbit. This memo was made public as part of the JFK releases—first in 2017 and 2018, and then in 2022, with the latest version disclosing the name of the second guy in a list of three. 

The 2022 release of the December 18, 1952 memo; click on image for a closer view

Because it’s difficult to read, I’ll rewrite it here:

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

18 December 1952

Commanding General

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Dayton, Ohio

Attention: PMGO [? I’m not 100% sure about these letters; I’ll explain my logic later, below], Air Force Development Center

Subject: CHRIST, David L.

HEYERT, Martin

DRISCOLL, Walter G.

Dear Sir:

We have been requested to advise you of the security clearances granted by this Agency to the above mentioned persons, who are scheduled to attend a conference at your Command on 23 December 1952 in connection with Project “Rabbit.”

Please be advised that, based on full field investigations and National Agency name checks, the above mentioned persons were granted security clearance for access to CIA information classified through Top Secret on the dates set forth opposite their names below:

CHRIST, David L.          24 November 1950

HEYERT, Martin           11 June 1952

DRISCOLL, Walter G.   25 May 1951

If we can be of further service in this matter, please advise.

FOR THE ASSISTANT DEPUTY/INSPECTION & SECURITY

Ermal P. Geiss

Acting Chief, Security Division

I&SO/ACS:kad

CC: Files of subjects

Chrono

Security Officer, Armament Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB

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

I don’t want to dwell too long on this topic since I don’t think it has a ton to do with Ron Tammen or the people with whom he came into contact. However, I’m sharing it because I think it shows that the higher-ups at Wright Patt—the PMGO, if you will, and whoever else—were in communication with one of the more controversial groups at the CIA in the 1950s. I’m talking about TSS, aka the Technical Services Staff, the same people who were up to their eyeballs in Project Artichoke and MKULTRA.

The three people who are mentioned in this memo—David L. Christ, Martin Heyert, and Walter G. Driscoll—were in the Applied Physics Division of TSS. They were experts in things like radio signals and transponders and other topics about which I know very little. Let’s put it this way: to the best of my knowledge, they weren’t conducting hypnosis and drugs research, unlike the folks in the Chemical Division, headed by Sidney Gottlieb. However, it’s within reason to think that they were developing the tools and technologies that the folks over in Chemical (plus anyone else, for that matter) needed to do the things they were doing. In 1967, Gottlieb was put in charge of the entire TSS operation, but in 1952, a guy named Willis A. Gibbons, who’d formerly been in the rubber manufacturing business, oversaw TSS. Gibbons was Gottlieb’s immediate boss. His signature is at the bottom of many of the MKULTRA Subprojects.

So who were these three guys who were planning a trip to Dayton, Ohio, to discuss matters of utmost secrecy, camouflaged by the name of an adorable woodland creature, two days before Christmas? (No seriously, what was so urgent about Project Rabbit that the head honchos at Wright Patt thought December 23 would be the perfect day to talk about highly sensitive and probably scary stuff of national import, thus forcing the attendees to drive or fly back to their homes and families roughly 24 hours before Christmas, while their wives were expected to hold down their respective forts while doing all the last-minute preparations for the big day? I’m sorry, but that’s just bizarre—and thoughtless—even for the fifties.)

Back to the three guys…

David L. Christ

Yowza—talk about kicking things off with a bang. David Lamar Christ is probably the reason that this Wright-Patterson memo was released with the JFK assassination records. David Christ was a radio and audio engineer, which was a useful skill for people who liked to listen in on other people’s convos without their knowledge. Because CIA operatives loved their pseudonyms, he also went by the name Daniel Carswell as well as Philip Alpher.

One noteworthy thing about David L. Christ, Daniel L. Carswell, and Philip L. Alpher was that he’d been imprisoned in Cuba for three years—beginning with his arrest in September 1960 and ending with his release through a prisoner exchange in April 1963. Apparently, he’d been setting up audio surveillance equipment in a Chinese news agency in Havana and got caught. After a military trial, and a couple stopovers at Cuba’s military intelligence headquarters and a prison in Havana, he and two other Americans were soon performing hard manual labor on the Isle of Pines. He remained there until his release.

Also, remember the three so-called tramps who were spotted in the boxcar of a stopped train near the Texas School Book Depository and marched across Dealey Plaza immediately after JFK’s assassination? According to Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield, coauthors of “Coup d’Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy,” David L. Christ (or Daniel L. Carswell or Philip L. Alpher) was one of the tramps. The other two were (allegedly) Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt, two people we’ve become very familiar with on this website. As we’ve discussed in earlier posts, Frank Sturgis and Ron Tammen both share the distinction of having the number 10 scribbled in the top right corner of several of their FBI records.

So, 8-plus years before all of that ☝️ ☝️ ☝️occurred, David L. Christ, THE David L. Christ, was sitting in a conference room at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, about an hour away from Oxford, Ohio, discussing Project Rabbit.

Martin Heyert

I don’t know a lot about Martin Heyert, but I do know a few things. I know he was a physicist who had expertise in such subjects as radar systems and devices for locating targets. I know that, in 1953, he attended a radio engineering convention in New York along with about 10 other people in TSS, including David Christ and Walter Driscoll. And I’m pretty sure that I know why the CIA had redacted his name in the 2017 and 2018 JFK releases of the December 18, 1952, memo, but unredacted it in 2022. 

Either the 2017 or 2018 version of the December 18, 1952, memo; click on image for a closer view

Whereas David L. Christ had died in 1985 and Walter G. Driscoll had died in 1993, Martin Heyert passed away only recently, at the age of 94, in 2022, the same year that the CIA released his name to the public. So I think that they withheld his name while he was still alive and then released it after he died. 

What I find interesting about that is that they cited exemption 3 when they redacted his name. Exemption 3, which is also referred to as exemption (b)(3) in the Freedom of Information Act, says that a federal agency can withhold information that is exempted in another statute, which is a super vague catch-all category. They used exemption (b)(3) when they exempted Clark Hull’s and St. Clair Switzer’s names in the March 25, 1952, memo too, for example. Why they didn’t lift the redactions on Hull’s and Switzer’s names after they died is because the (b)(3)’s were accompanied by (b)(1)’s in the March 25 memo, which is more specific and has to do with information “to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.” 

March 25, 1952, memo with Clark Hull’s and St. Clair Switzer’s names redacted. Note all of the (b)(1)’s and (b)(3)’s in the righthand margin; click on image for a closer view

Does the CIA overuse national defense as a reason for keeping information classified? You betcha! For example, they’ve kept the (b)(1) designation next to the title of Clark Hull’s 1933 classic book (paragraph 2, lines 5 and 6), which is:

[                                                                                                ] (b)(1). 

Just kidding! It’s “Hypnosis and Suggestibility: An Experimental Approach.” Martin Heyert is buried in Baltimore’s National Cemetery.

Walter G. Driscoll, Ph.D.

Physicist and biomedical engineer Walter G. Driscoll, Ph.D., probably had the most distinguished career of the three men. From 1940 to 1946, he was working for the FBI as chief of the Chemistry and Physics Laboratories, solving crimes through the analysis of paint, wood, soil, you name it. After receiving his Ph.D. in engineering in 1951, he began his brief stint with the CIA. I can’t tell if he was embarrassed by his association with the CIA or if he was instructed not to tell a soul about it, but his online bio omits his time at Langley as if it never happened. In a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), he described his past position as chief of the Applied Physics Division as if it was with the Department of Defense instead of the CIA. 

But make no mistake: he worked at CIA Headquarters from at least May 1951, when he received his Top Secret security clearance, through 1953. It was during that period that he’d become aware of some of the things his colleagues in the CIA were doing through Project Artichoke. Case in point (see the Mary Ferrell Foundation website for all the details): there was an incident described in a January 1952 memo written by Morse Allen in which “our people” (I presume the CIA) had sent a Bulgarian expat to a U.S. military hospital in Panama because they were concerned that he would become a double agent. They declared to the hospital staff that he was psychopathic, even though they knew it was a lie. The man, named Dimitrov, though the CIA referred to him as Kelly, was so angry about his treatment that the CIA considered using the “Artichoke approach” to help foster in him warm, fuzzy thoughts toward the United States. (A memo from 1977 says that it didn’t happen.) It was Walter Driscoll who’d provided information about this controversy to Morse Allen, perhaps the most in-the-know foot soldier for Project Artichoke ever. And if Walter Driscoll is bringing Morse Allen up to speed on issues pertaining to Project Artichoke, he must have known a lot. Roughly 12 months after that conversation with Morse Allen, Driscoll was attending a meeting on Project Rabbit at Wright Patt.

Shortly thereafter, Driscoll made the decision to get out of the spook business. In 1954, he moved to Cambridge, MA, and became director of research for Baird Associates, a manufacturer of scientific instruments. He continued moving up the ladder, being named director of university research at his alma mater, Boston College, and later, director of research and facilities development at St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, as well as director of its new Department of Biomedical Engineering. See what I mean? He was a solid researcher who led a distinguished career who just so happened to know something about Wright Patterson AFB and Project Rabbit.

You know what we haven’t done in a little while? A Q&A!

What are you hoping to achieve by telling us about Project Rabbit, since it doesn’t appear to pertain to Ron Tammen?

I’m telling you this because A) even though Project Rabbit most likely doesn’t pertain to Ron, I believe that Wright-Patterson AFB and the CIA’s Technical Services Staff most likely do pertain to him. And B) at the very least, we’re helping humankind by uploading Project Rabbit into the great Googlesphere. From this point forward, if anyone should conduct a search for “Project Rabbit,” they’re going to wind up here. I want to help that person or persons get started on their journey.

You’d mentioned earlier that you had a guess as to what PMGO stood for. What’s your guess?

Although I’m not 100 percent positive, I think that the letters after the word “Attention” are PMGO, and if so, they likely stand for Provost Marshal General’s Office, even though that’s an Army term, not the Air Force’s. As it turns out, the writer of the memo, Ermal P. Geiss, had been a lieutenant colonel in the Army, so he may have written it out of habit in describing the number one person in charge of policing and security at a military facility. 

As long as we’re on the subject, I believe that Ermal got the name of the center wrong too. He called it the Air Force Development Center, which didn’t exist at Wright Patt. The facility he was attempting to contact was the Wright Air Development Center, aka WADC, which was the center in which all research and development was conducted on the base. The WADC was a subsidiary of the Air Research Development Command, or ARDC, located in Baltimore, which was the R&D hub for the entire Air Force. As you may recall, St. Clair Switzer spent a portion of the summer of 1951 working at the ARDC.

Are there any clues regarding what Project Rabbit was about?

Yes! You’ll notice at the bottom of the memo that one of the carbon copies went to the Security Officer of the Armament Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB. The Armament Laboratory was one of 12 laboratories at WADC. Another laboratory, the Aero Medical Laboratory, was where the biological and psychological experiments were conducted. The Aero Medical Laboratory was also responsible for supervising research and development into biological warfare.

Based on the notation at the bottom of the memo, I believe that Project Rabbit had something to do with research coming out of the Armament Laboratory at Wright Patt. I know, I know. If you’re anything like me, who has zero interest in armaments and armament-related accessories, you may have briefly dozed off just now. But armaments can be interesting too, especially armaments that involve Top Secret knowledge courtesy of the CIA. I have additional thoughts concerning what that Top Secret knowledge might pertain to, but I’ll hold off until I have more information.

Do you plan to do anything more with this info?

I’ve submitted a FOIA request to Wright-Patterson AFB asking for all materials—agenda, attendees list, abstracts, and proceedings—of the Project Rabbit conference of December 23, 1952. I’ll post their response as soon as I receive it.

Hey, wasn’t Ron Tammen’s birthday yesterday?

Correct! It was! Yesterday — July 23, 2025 — was Ron’s 92nd birthday. Happy Belated Birthday, Ron Tammen, wherever you may be. 🎂 If you’re alive, reach out!

Thanks to the National Archives and Records Administration and the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents accessible.

For the 72nd anniversary: the latest JFK docs, a bunch more 10s, and a surprise appearance from a high-level intelligence official named L’Allier

Hello! It’s April 19, a rather momentous date on the calendar, wouldn’t you say? After all, April 19 marks the first day of the Revolutionary War (250 years ago today!). Also the first fatalities of the Civil War were incurred on April 19 (164 years ago today!), as were the deaths and imprisonment of Cuban exiles on day 3 of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (64 years ago today!). Plus, let’s not forget about the inauguration of the White House bowling alley (78 years ago today!). (I threw in the last one to help lighten the mood.) But you’re not here to discuss any of those events, and neither am I. We’re here to discuss updates on Ron Tammen, who, 72 years ago today, went missing from Miami University on the night of April 19, 1953. 

Some of you may be wondering what JFK, the number 10, and an intelligence official with a chic-sounding surname might have to do with Ron Tammen, and to you I say: You must be new here! Thank you for visiting my website, fair and noble recruits! It’s wonderful to have you along, although I’m afraid you have some serious catching up to do. As for you regulars, it’s good to see you too! I think you can guess by the headline where we’re going today. I’m referring, of course, to the missing person documents that the FBI had been keeping on Ron, and all of the stamps and scribbles they’d made on them—stamps and scribbles that I believe hold bona fide clues into what happened to him.

Because the topics we’ll be covering today are, oh, I don’t know…all over the map and occasionally venturing into the weeds, you might say?…I think it’d be best if we did this as a Q&A, which, for you newcomers, happens to be my favorite format. I’ll try my best to keep you in mind as we go. However, if I happen to ramble on about something and you have no idea what I’m talking about, feel free to ask in the comments box at the end. 

Lastly, you can click on any of the documents included below for a closer view.

OK! Here we go!

Q: Did you find anything that might pertain to Ron in the latest release of JFK documents?

A: I believe you’re referring to our fairly recent discovery that some of Ron’s stamps and scribbles are the same as those found on a number of people who were investigated for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Indeed, I’ve been searching the documents that were made public last month for any of the aforementioned scribbles and stamps and the results have been intriguing. 

As of today, I’ve found three FBI documents that fit the bill: one of the documents has an ST-102 stamp, just like Ron’s; one of them has a big number 10 in the righthand corner, just like Ron’s; and one has a series of numbers in the righthand corner, including the number 10 (just like Ron’s), plus, as an added bonus, the names of several FBI agents, two of whom appear to be associated with the number 10. 

(For you newcomers, here’s a link to Ron’s FBI documents, so you can see the ST-102 stamps and number 10s. Note that all of the important stuff is on the early documents, ending 5-22-73.)

Here are the new documents I found:

ST-102 stamp

May 1963 CIA document containing a list of members of a “Provisional Government of the Republic of Cuba in Arms”; source is a Cuban exile; ST-102 stamp is on page 2

Number 10

January 1967 FBI memorandum on Santo Trafficante, Jr., a powerful mob boss who oversaw businesses in Florida and Cuba

Series of numbers that includes a 10 (1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11)

July 1969 National Security Agency (NSA) document on communist nationals traveling to Latin American countries; COMINT stands for communications intelligence

Q: Whoa.

A: Right? I don’t want to get all presumptuous just yet, but there seems to be a theme taking shape here, doesn’t there? And if I had to put that theme into words, I’d say that the same people at the FBI who happened to be keeping an eye on Ron (for whatever reason) were also tracking people affiliated with Cuba—be they pro-Castro, anti-Castro, or mobsters who did a lot of business in Cuba. 

Bear in mind that Ron’s documents don’t just have commonalities with Cubans and their associates in the mob. His records have signs and symbols that are shared by famous and infamous people with no Cuban ties as well. You’ll see examples of some of these other people later in this post.

Q: That NSA document seems important. What can you tell us about the names of the FBI agents written on it?

A: When I initially saw the numbers next to several people’s names, I thought that they might be referring to divisions of the FBI, which would have been very mundane and super boring. In other words, I thought that the numbers 9, 10, and 11 were in reference to FBI Divisions 9 (Special Investigative Division), 10 (Inspection Division), and 11 (Legal Counsel), and those people were cc’d. But I don’t think that anymore. Let me correct that: I still think the people listed were cc’d, however I now know that every single person on that list whose name I’m able to decipher was employed with Division 5, or Domestic Intelligence, at that time. That is very exciting news.

Here’s why I’m excited: it now appears that the Domestic Intelligence Division was assigning the numbers to its own people. Maybe the numbers—from 1 to 11—represent traditional units or sections, maybe they represent special teams or squads of some sort, or maybe they represent certain individuals. I believe that these are the groups or individuals who were cc’d in the top right corner of some people’s FBI documents, including Ron Tammen’s.

Here are the last names of the people I’m confident about, along with their full name and one or more of their areas of expertise within Division 5:

Nasca
Vincent (Vince) Nasca
Expert on Cuba, Cuban exiles

*Note that there’s a 5 in front of Nasca’s name, which I think may pertain to the division number. I don’t know why they felt the need to do that, but I think it’s interesting that it appears before his name while the other numbers appear at the end, following a dash. You can see Nasca’s name on the May 1963 CIA document as well.

Harrell
Eugene R. Harrell
Expert on non-Soviet communist countries; also worked on the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971

F.X. O’Brien
Francis X. O’Brien
Expert on South America

A.W. Gray
Arbor W. Gray
Expert on internal security, i.e., communists and revolutionaries labeled as “new left”

Branigan
William A. Branigan
Expert on counterespionage, Russian intelligence

Wallace – 9 
Howard H. Wallace 
Expert on counterintelligence

McGuire – 9 
James F. McGuire 
Worked the night desk, and also worked on Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination investigation (MURKIN)

Of course, wouldn’t you just know that two names of which I’m not 100 percent certain are next to the number 10? I do have my guesses though, which are:

Tansey – 10 
Fred Anthony Tansey
Midnight supervisor who took part in a wide range of international cases, including the JFK assassination investigation.

Schwartz – 10 
Leon Francis (Frank) Schwartz
In 1969, when the NSA document was produced, he was working as a liaison with the U.S. Air Force and representing the FBI on the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB). He would become the liaison to the CIA in 1972.

For readers who aren’t sure that this is Frank’s name—if it looks a little too short to you—trust me, I thought it looked a little too short too. However, I think someone else had written the names since they appear to be in the same handwriting, and if so, I wonder if the writer had misspelled Schwartz. It looks as though they’d forgotten to include the c and possibly the t. But what makes me think it’s still Frank is the distinctive, sloppily printed initials over the name, especially the F in the center which connects to a lazy S. Those have Frank’s name all over them.

Here are several examples of Frank’s initials for comparison:

In addition, I’ve checked the FBI’s “Dead List” for every FBI agent with names like Shultz, Schultz, Shay, Sheehy, Skelly, plus any other permutations, and zero possibilities have turned up. The most promising contender was an agent named Henry A. Schutz who’d played a large role in the JFK assassination investigation. However, he was in the General Investigative Division, which is Division 6, not 5 or 10, so I’m thinking it isn’t likely to be his. If Frank Schwartz turns out to be the formidable number 10, that would be consistent with another mark on Ron’s documents: the “lf” mark in the right margin of four of them. In past posts, I’ve proposed that the lf’s were made by Schwartz as well.

R.K.? Doerz? – 11

This last one has me stymied. The FBI’s Dead List and old routing slips weren’t much help either. Of course, I’ll keep at it, but if you’d like to try your hand at figuring out who it might be, feel free!

Q: What do you think the purpose of the numbers was?

I think the numbers in the righthand corner were for internal communication purposes—strictly for FBI staff, and perhaps only for certain key FBI staff. Maybe group 10 dealt with some of the more hot-button cases. Maybe they gave him a 10 for another reason. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to get into the heads of the FBI guys who assigned the numbers, at least not today. 

That said, there are a few things we can definitively say about Ron’s 10s:

They came from Domestic Intelligence. We already concluded that Ron’s docs had been floating around the Domestic Intelligence Division when we found his “See index” notation. This just confirms it. Don’t you just love it when we’re right?

Whatever their meaning, those numbers carried a lot of weight to officials within the FBI. Remember all of the 8s that had been given to Lee Harvey Oswald’s docs? Most were written at the top of FBI documents but others were written at the top of other agency documents that had been sent to the FBI, such as those of the State Department or Naval Intelligence. I think we can now conclude that it was the FBI, and only the FBI, that was using the 1-11 numbering system on the documents they produced or acquired.

Sometimes the cases were international while others were domestic. For example, in cases where the State Department had asked the FBI to conduct a security check for someone’s visa application, the FBI would write the number at the top of their copy or, in the case of Marina Oswald’s visa application, in a relevant box. Fittingly, Marina’s 8-1 follows the letters Ci, which likely signifies the Counterintelligence Section within Domestic Intelligence.

One other thing I’ve discovered is that I now believe the numbers were included as part of the FBI’s distribution list for that document. So again, you know Marina Oswald’s visa application that was marked 8-1? I now think that it means that whomever in Domestic Intelligence had been assigned the number 8, that Intelligence staffer or staffers received one copy of Marina’s visa application. A standalone 8 with no dash would indicate that they received one copy as well. If it had said 8-2, they would have received two copies. I think I’ve seen one 3 after a dash, but I’ve never seen a number bigger than that—usually it’s just 1’s and 2’s.

Q: How did you arrive at that conclusion?

A: I remember the exact moment. I was looking through some old FBI documents, which should surprise exactly no one by now. Some of my very best days are spent looking through old FBI documents. (Paradoxically, some of my most mediocre days are spent looking through old FBI documents too. To be honest, I don’t think that I’ve ever experienced a really bad day when reading old FBI documents.) 

The documents in question were Message Relay sheets. I was looking at the black-and-white digital versions, but the originals had been made of either a green bond or yellow paper. From what I can tell, these brightly colored cover sheets were used to accompany important memos and teletyped messages that were to be relayed from one of the FBI’s field offices, be it domestic or foreign, to one or more other parties by way of FBI Headquarters. Printed on the Message Relay sheets was a list of federal agencies and officials (e.g., Vice President, President, CIA Director, Attorney General, Secret Service, Secretary of State, etc.) with a square box next to each agency. The boxes would be checked for each intended recipient. At the top of the sheet were two blank areas reserved for Special Agents in Charge (SACS) of the domestic field offices, and Legal Attachés (Legats), stationed in the FBI’s foreign offices. The agent who was filling out the sheet—the message relayer—would write in the names of the recipient offices by hand. 

As I was going through the documents, I noticed that the message relayers were also writing the same dashed numbers on the Message Relay sheets that I’d been tracking on the other FBI documents. What’s more, the dashed numbers were written in the same general vicinity where the SACS and Legats were to be written, after the word “TO.” And that’s when it hit me. 

“They’re people!” I said to myself. 

“They’re people who aren’t already represented on the checklist!” I added. 

As for who these people might be, I do have a thought. It has to do with the special agents whose official job responsibilities are to serve as the point of contact for federal agencies, not to mention the FBI’s legal attachés. These employees of the Domestic Intelligence Division are called liaisons. Although I haven’t located a document that tallied the number of liaisons in 1969, the year of the NSA document, it appears to have been 11. (A document from July 1970 stated the number indirectly, and I had to do some math, which is why I’m hedging a little.)

The liaisons would have needed to be kept in the loop regarding anything that the federal agencies whom they covered had received from FBI Headquarters, and yet they weren’t represented on the checklist. That supports our fledgling theory. However, there are aspects to this theory that don’t mesh well with the list of agents on the NSA document. For example, Frank Schwartz was a longtime liaison, but I can’t tell if Wallace, McGuire, or Tansey were. Also, on the NSA document, they’d written down two names each for numbers 9 and 10, and liaisons tended to operate solo. Nevertheless, I think it’s a possibility worth keeping in the backs of our minds.

Here’s one of the Message Relay sheets with the numbers 2-2 and 8-2 near the Legats column.

Here’s a Message Relay sheet in a slightly different format that includes an elusive 10. I’ll tell you who the subject is later. It’s pretty wild.

Q: I remember that you’d also noticed that the term “FD-217” was sometimes written near the numbers in the righthand corner, although it isn’t written on Ron’s documents. Any idea what that’s about?

A: I’m really glad you brought this up. Did you happen to notice the FD-217 on Santo Trafficante’s FBI doc above, next to his 10? I continue to think the reference to FD-217 pertains to the numbers in the upper righthand corner.

As I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, the term “FD-217” is in reference to a special FBI form that I’ve been trying to get my hands on. My hope is that it carries instructions regarding what number to assign to a particular document.

This should be an easy request, but the FBI has already demonstrated that they have no intention of giving me what I’m requesting. Even though the FD-217 form is listed in the Table of Contents of the FBI’s Book of Forms, and I have pointed that out to them, they claim that they can’t find it. That takes a whole lot of chutzpah, wouldn’t you say? In my appeal to the Department of Justice, I wrote:

“I am appealing this request because their response that the FBI is unable to locate a blank copy of form FD-217 is not credible, particularly after I pointed them to the FBI Form Book and the relevant page in the Table of Contents. If it were classified information, that would be a different situation. However they’re claiming not to know where it is, which is clearly a false statement. Under FOIA law, there is no exemption for information that the FBI simply would prefer I not have access to. Therefore, I ask that you remand my request and order them to provide to me what I’m entitled to receive.”

I’m hoping the DOJ does the right thing and remands my FOIA request and the FBI sends me the form ASAP. Irrespective of how they respond, I will be posting all responses in full on this website. I look forward to hearing from them soon.

Q: What if it turns out you’re wrong about what the numbers mean?

As long as we get to the answer, I’m OK with being wrong sometimes. Also, regardless of its meaning, I feel confident that Ron’s 10 was assigned to him by someone in the Domestic Intelligence Division. 

Domestic Intelligence. 

That is soooo not nothing.

Q: Speaking of Ron’s 10s, you mentioned that you’ve found others?

A: Yes! Here’s my list to date, some of which you’ve already seen. I’ve decided to group them alphabetically by topic. Some 10s are large and jump out at you right away. Others are smaller or very light. Some occur on their own, while others are present in a series. Most are in the top righthand corner, though some are in the right margin. Some are representative samples for a given case. Admittedly, a few are judgment calls. Not all “10” documents are negative…but all seemed to have the FBI as well as one or more federal agencies on high alert. Here you go!

Assassination Attempts (Other than U.S. President/VP)

Pierre Trudeau


Author Seeking Interview on Sensitive Topic

Ron Kessler seeking interview regarding
FBI involvement in 1964 DNC Convention


Bomb Threats

Federal Building, Madison, WI

Bomb threat against Princess Diana and Prince Charles 

(Note: I’m including two Message Relay sheets plus the first page of the document that followed each. The second Message Relay sheet is the one that I spoke of earlier.)


Brainwashing/Cults

Margaret Singer, professor and cult/brainwashing expert

(Note: A large number of Margaret Singer documents marked with the number 10, plus some 9’s, can be found on The Black Vault website.)

Communist Nationals

NSA COMINT Report on travel of communist nationals to Latin American countries


Cuba/Cubans/Cuban exiles

Frank Sturgis, U.S. citizen and self-proclaimed soldier of fortune who first assisted Castro, then Cuban exiles

George Spellmeyer, U.S. citizen and owner of fishing boat found traveling between Havana and Cuban prison

Felix Padron Sanchez, et al


Extortion Victims

List of congressmen, senators, agency heads, etc.,
who received a threatening letter

Frank Sinatra, who received a threatening letter from the same person


Kennedy Assassination

Lee Harvey Oswald activities in New Orleans


Mass Murderers

Richard Speck

Sharon Tate et al (aka Charles Manson murders)

(Note: These two are judgment calls, but I thought they were worth including. The 10 in the top document, near several people’s initials, is small and underlined. The bottom 10 is in the right margin. The 1 is light, but if you zoom in close, you can see that it extends past the 0, showing that it is separate.)


Mobsters with Cuban Ties

Santo Trafficante

Salvatore Amarena, et al


Racial Matters

Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Martin Luther King, Jr.)


Sabotage/Sedition, etc.

Kent State students investigated for burning down
the ROTC building on May 2, 1970

(Note: This event preceded the Ohio National Guard taking aim and firing for 13 seconds on unarmed students, killing 4 and wounding 9, on May 4, 1970. You can read the FBI’s investigation, which appears to have been focused heavily on the burning of the ROTC building, in the FBI vault.)


Soviet Spy

Morton Sobell


Subversives

Frank Teruggi


Threats Against the President, Congress

Camilla Hall, Symbionese Liberation Army


Vice President – Possible Assault of 

(Note: I think that the agent who signed the top document looks like our friend Russell H. Horner. In a former post, I suggested Horner may have been responsible for the “Hac” notations written at the top of several of Ron’s documents. I’m still waiting on the FBI to send me his personnel file.)


Vice President – Travel Itinerary

(Note: I think it’s interesting that a memo concerning the VP’s international travels is assigned the same number 10 as two memos that concern potential assaults on the VP. I think this could be consistent with our “liaison” theory.)


White House

Sensitive records obtained illegally between 1969 and 1971 through electronic surveillance at request of President Nixon

Q: 

A: 

Q: I’m kind of speechless. I need to think on this a little more before I ask what I want to ask.

A: Totally fine. It’s a lot. We can move on to the next topic and circle back later.

Q: So who was this L’Allier person, and why do you think he was involved in Ron’s case?

A: Rolland Octave L’Allier was born in Somerset, Wisconsin, on March 2, 1910. His father, Eugene L’Allier, whose parents were both French-Canadian, had been a farmer in Somerset, which appeared to be a magnet for French-Canadians with a yen for farming. Many of their neighbors were also French-Canadian farmers. Tragically, Eugene died much, much too soon—when Rolland was just 2 years of age. As it turned out, his mother remarried another French-Canadian farmer in Somerset (as I said, there were a lot of them), so life didn’t appear to have changed too drastically for him. I think being around so many French-Canadians led Rolland to gravitate to Canada and Canadians, particularly the French-speaking ones. (I know the feeling. I love them too.) According to Rolland’s obituary, he’d attended St. Lawrence College, in Ontario, as well as the University of Montreal.

In 1941, when Rolland was 30, he and his wife, who was French-Canadian by birth, and their young son were living in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was working at the St. Paul Milk Company, though that would soon change. In October of that same year, he would be hired by the FBI and he and his young family would move to the Washington, D.C. area. I’m sure he had a great story to tell his friends about how he’d been living the dream in the milk business in St. Paul, and then, seemingly out of the blue, he was recruited by the FBI, but unfortunately, I haven’t had the chance to hear it.


Rolland L’Allier at a conference at the Harry Truman Presidential Library; photo in public domain

Despite the little I know about Rolland’s early years, I’m positive that he spoke exquisite French. From 1951 through 1959, Rolland was the FBI’s legal attaché in Paris, which sounds like the FBI’s plummest of job opportunities. He would have been the perfect choice. He had a slender build and a likable face. He looked super French, he probably sounded super French, and he had this amazing name that probably rolled off his tongue like a true Quebecois. I’m sure the Parisians ate him up like a profiterole.

In 1960, Rolland L’Allier was 50 years old. He’d been employed with the Bureau for nearly 20 years, which was generally retirement time at the FBI. It appears he wasn’t ready to retire just yet though—he had a little more petrol left in his Renault (so to speak). He moved back to the States, and was named chief of the FBI’s Liaison Section, the section in Domestic Intelligence that we’ve already heard quite a bit about today. He was in charge of all of the liaisons, including Sam Papich, who was a longtime liaison to the CIA before Frank Schwartz. In his position, L’Allier needed to be apprised of everything that the liaisons were learning from and sharing with the federal agencies and legats because he needed to alert the people at the top of the FBI. It was a heavy duty post. Put simply: he knew a lot about what other agencies in the federal government were doing and it was his responsibility to bring his bosses up to speed.

In 1962, L’Allier was tapped to become the first director of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library in West Branch, Iowa. This might sound weird at first, but it actually makes sense. In his role as chief of the Liaison Section, he’d raised concerns with the FBI leadership regarding what restrictions were being placed on documents that were being made available at the National Archives. He was particularly concerned that not enough restrictions were being implemented for some classified documents. When he was named to his new post, the people at the National Archives likely felt that they were putting the nation’s classified documents in good hands.

I forget the second part of your question. What was it again?

Q: How does a guy with those credentials come into contact with Ron Tammen’s missing person documents?

Oh, right. First let’s do a quick recap of his timeline. From 1951 through 1959, he was in Paris as the FBI’s legal attaché; from 1960 to 1962, he was stationed at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., overseeing the liaisons; and from 1962 through whenever he ended his term as director of the Hoover library, he was in Iowa. By my calculations, there’s a tiny window when I think Rolland L’Allier came into contact with Ron’s missing person documents, and that window is between 1960 and 1962.

Here’s why I think he intersected with Ron’s documents: Rolland L’Allier had a distinctive way of signing his name to FBI documents. Actually, he had two ways. One way he signed them was with a printed L and an accent mark. Like this:

His jazzier signature—his signature signature, in my view—was a large loopy L, an oversized accent mark, and a small, printed capital A to the right of the L, sometimes at a jaunty angle. Here are a couple good examples:

Now, take a look at the signature in the upper righthand corner (near the 10) of page one of Ron’s missing person documents.

There’s the big loopy L, the oversized accent mark, and, the most telling part, what appears to be a small capital A at a jaunty angle.  There’s also a squiggly line, which I’ll be addressing below. For now, concentrate on the L, the accent mark, and the A.

Let’s zoom in a little further on that A:

There are three prominent lines: two slanted lines that come together to form the point of the A (at a jaunty angle) and a third horizontal line that crosses them. I believe that Rolland L’Allier signed page one of Ron’s missing person documents alongside the phrase “all files” and the partial date of “5/28.” (Incidentally, don’t you just love the “all files” note? It sounds as though they had enough info on Ron Tammen to fill several file folders, if not an entire filing cabinet! I’m kidding, but it does seem weird.) As mentioned above, there’s also that squiggly line after the A.

Some readers may think that it can’t be L’Allier due to the 5/28 date, which, because it’s lacking a year, implies that it was signed on May 28, 1953, two days after Cleveland had sent in their report about Marjorie’s phone call, and well outside of L’Allier’s 1960-62 window. But perhaps the 5/28 represents a different year or signifies something else? I mean, how many files could there have been on Ron Tammen on May 28, 1953? It was still at least three months before Ron’s Selective Service file would be opened. By my count, there should have been precisely one. So something seems fishy there.

Also, that squiggly line was not generally part of L’Allier’s M.O., which might lead some people to rule him out as being the signer on Ron’s document. Not me though. The way I see it, Rolland might have added that squiggly line for pizzazz. Or, as shown above, occasionally he would sign his initials over his full name, which sometimes looked a little like a squiggle at the end. Like this time, for example:

Maybe a portion of his full signature had been erased. I’m not sure. All I can say is that the big loopy L plus the accent mark plus the small capital A have all the hallmarks of L’Allier’s signature on Ron Tammen’s documents. I think it’s him.

Q: What do you make of all this? 

Oh, gosh, so many thoughts. First, I think we can all agree that Ron Tammen was alive and well after he went missing and the folks in the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division were keeping their eye on him, for whatever reason. I think we can also safely say that Ron wasn’t leading the tranquil life of a bond salesman, which had been his supposed dream job.

Second, something that I haven’t mentioned to you yet is that Rolland L’Allier was extremely familiar with the CIA, not only when he was overseeing the liaisons, but also when he was the legal attaché in Paris. I’ve learned through newly declassified portions of a famous 1961 memo from Arthur Schlelsinger, Jr. to President Kennedy that the U.S. Embassy in Paris, where L’Allier had been stationed for 9 years, was also home to 123 CIA agents—one hundred twenty-three!—all of whom occupied the top floor of the Paris Embassy. So…there’s that.

Third, if it is L’Allier’s signature on Ron’s missing person documents, and if he signed it between 1960 and 1962, then that would coincide with a significant time period in our nation’s history when the United States and Cuba were butting heads, including, most famously, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the CIA’s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. If Ron was somehow, I don’t know, involved with any of that, it might help explain why Ron’s documents share so many similarities with Cubans, Cuban exiles, and mobsters who were operating out of Florida and Havana, such as Santo Trafficante. Also, don’t forget that James W. McCord, Jr., the former CIA agent and Watergate burglar who shares a few stamps and scribbles with Ron, had close ties to Cuban exiles as well.

How about you guys? What do you make of all this?

Q: Before we go there, I have a question about all of those 10’s you found that match Ron’s.

A: Sure, go ahead.

Q: If the FBI considered Ron to be somehow dangerous, adding him to the Security Index, and lumping him into the same category as mobsters and cases involving extortion, bomb threats, assassination attempts, and mass murderers, why have they been running interference for him by not disclosing his whereabouts for over seven decades? In a sense, haven’t they been putting us all in harm’s way?

A: GREAT question. If anyone from the FBI, DOJ, or CIA would like to weigh in, the floor is now open. Or, feel free to reach out to me through the contact form on this blog site and I’ll protect your identity forever.

******

COMING NEXT WEEK: For anyone in the Oxford/Hamilton/Cincinnati/etc. area, I’ll be discussing Ron’s story at the Butler County Historical Society next Saturday, April 26. If you’ve been a little too busy to keep up with the blog or you’ve been wanting to hear a condensed version of the most important details of the case, this is your opportunity. There will also be some breaking news. The 1 p.m. session is sold out, but there are still some open seats for 3:30 p.m. They do require reservations. It’s free for BCHS members and $5 for nonmembers, payable at the door. Hope to see you there!

******

Many thanks to The Black Vault, the Mary Ferrell Foundation, the National Archives, Governmentattic.org, and National Security Archive for making these documents available.

Ron, Dan, Jim, and Hank: four all-American ‘bad boys’ in the summer of ‘73

The Watergate Hotel; credit: FBI

It’s been a while since we last communicated, and for that, I apologize. It’s just that reading hundreds of pages of FBI documents morning, noon, and night can wear a girl out. Also, I don’t like to post updates unless I have something noteworthy to tell you. I respect you and your downtime that much.

Today, we’ll be discussing the very small window of time when everything came to a head with regards to the mystery of Ron Tammen. I’ll also be providing the names of a couple people whom I (currently) believe were responsible for two of the more prominent marks that appear on Ron’s FBI documents, along with a surprise discovery concerning someone else we know. Aaaaaand I think we’ll also be throwing in a little pop culture here and there, because the early 1970s played a very big role in helping this girl blossom into the Good-HeartedHard-HeadedDo-Right, and, at times, Witchy Woman who has been chasing this story down for the past 15 years.

(Speaking of the latter, I’m afraid my witchiness was on full display this week when I was on a run and some guy almost hit me with his car even though I clearly had the right of way. Let’s just say that I doubt that he’ll be making any right or left turns without first checking in every possible direction to make sure I’m nowhere in sight. Neither will any of the eyewitnesses.)

First let’s talk pop culture. I can barely recall the sorts of things I was doing in the summer of 1973, which is probably a good thing. I was woefully immature back then. I will say this: the music was pretty good, though, admittedly, there was some seriously awful stuff being churned out too. No matter what the Billboard chart says, the best song that year was, in my opinion, Midnight Train to Georgia, which was released on August 4, 1973. It’s weird to think back to a time when no one had heard Gladys Knight and the Pips sing their iconic song, but these are the days we’ll be primarily focused upon here. Put another way, in May, June, and July of 1973, Ronald Tammen, Daniel Ellsberg, James McCord, and Herman Greenspun didn’t have the opportunity to crank up that soulful tune and belt out some of the best back-up lyrics EVER as they were stress driving their sedans down D.C.’s Constitution Avenue, or the Vegas Strip, or wherever else they happened to be—at a time when they were being investigated by the FBI for acts of subterfuge that were (ostensibly) committed by or against them. 

But make no mistake: Ronald Tammen, Daniel Ellsberg, James McCord, and Herman Greenspun were being closely watched by key people at the FBI and they were being linked together in some way. (We haven’t discussed Daniel Ellsberg much, so for those who need a quick tutorial, he was actually a hero, despite the federal government’s treating him like a traitor. Ellsberg was responsible for leaking a report on the Vietnam War that showed that the government had been lying to the country all along about how things were going. The report came to be referred to as the Pentagon Papers, and its release helped bring the Vietnam War to an end. Needless to say, Nixon was not pleased with Ellsberg, and in September 1971, Ellsberg became the first victim of a now-familiar scheme by which the former president dealt with his perceived adversaries. More on that in a few.)

Instead of writing this up as a Q&A, which is usually my favorite way of reporting something important quickly, we’re going to go with a timeline. We’ll also be focusing on three familiar identifying marks that were stamped or scribbled on the FBI records of two or more of the four men during the summer of 1973. All of the men have one of the marks in common, two of the men share two of the marks, and one of the men, Ron Tammen, was given all three of the marks. The marks in question are: 

lf, 

ST-102/REC-19,

and Hac. 

Ready, set, go!

—1970—

July 1970

To set the stage, we need to start three years earlier, in July 1970, when famed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was still very much alive and in charge and carrying a festering grudge against the CIA. At the time the CIA was established in 1947, Hoover had believed his FBI was perfectly capable of protecting the safety and security of American citizens, both domestically and abroad, and he didn’t want anyone invading his turf. Nevertheless, Congress went ahead and created the CIA anyway and, up through the 1960s, the two agencies attempted to stay in their own lanes—with the FBI gathering its intelligence at home and the CIA being responsible for international operations. They kept abreast of each other’s activities through the FBI’s liaison program, which was part of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division. 

For many years, Sam Papich was the FBI’s liaison to the CIA, and he kept the communication channels open as best he could with people at high levels of both agencies. However, there were times when one agency would cross a boundary, be it inadvertently or advertently, causing the infringed-upon agency to add a new transgression to its list of grievances. By the middle of July 1970, Hoover had had enough. He discontinued the FBI’s Liaison Section, which not only had coordinated activities with the CIA, but also with some 80 other federal agencies as well as legal attaches in the FBI’s foreign offices. The Liaison Section was drastically reduced and renamed the Special Coordination Unit, which limited its coordinating activities to the FBI’s foreign offices and the White House, Office of the Vice President, and National Security Council. The CIA and FBI were officially incommunicado.

—1971—

June 13, 1971 (Sunday)

The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers, which, as we just discussed, were leaked by RAND Corporation’s former analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Richard Nixon is furious. They publish two more installments on June 14 and 15, but are ordered to stop.

June 15, 1971 (Tuesday)

In response to the New York Times series, the FBI begins investigating Daniel Ellsberg at the request of Attorney General John Mitchell.

September 3, 1971 (Friday)

Individuals affiliated with the White House, CIA, and FBI, aka the “White House plumbers,” break into the office of Lewis Fielding, Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, looking for documents they could use to discredit Ellsberg. The burglars include former FBI special agent G. Gordon Liddy and former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt. We’ll be bumping into those names again very soon.

—1972—

May 2, 1972 (Tuesday)

On this day, the world was informed that J. Edgar Hoover had died in his sleep. I won’t be getting into all the details, but suffice it to say that this was a big deal for the FBI. Soon, his “official and confidential” files would become public knowledge, as would his scurrilous special file rooms, and the illegal means by which the FBI was getting some of its intel. That’s the trouble with guarding so many secrets when you’re alive—when you die, eventually those secrets are going to come out. As the public learned of the FBI’s unscrupulous surveillance methods, Hoover’s image, as well as the image of his beloved FBI, would be severely tarnished.

May 28, 1972 (Sunday)

I’m embarrassed to admit this, but, up until yesterday, I hadn’t realized that there were in fact two Watergate burglaries. The first break-in into the Democratic National Headquarters in D.C.’s Watergate Hotel occurred on this day—Sunday, May 28—and it involved a familiar cast of characters. G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt were there as the planners and overseers, while seven burglars, including former CIA operative James Walter McCord, Jr., and six Cuban expatriates, did the work. The point of the break-in was to plant bugging devices and to photograph documents, and apparently, everything went swimmingly.

June 17, 1972 (Saturday), part 1

THIS is the date that’s best known as Watergate. In the early morning hours of June 17, 1972, a little over six weeks after Hoover’s death, five men wearing blue surgical gloves are caught in DNC Headquarters on the sixth floor of the Watergate Hotel. According to one FBI record, the five were discovered in an executive conference room area. In another document, they were discovered in the office of Phillip Seib, an assistant to DNC chair Larry O’Brien. No matter where they were standing when they were caught, this is the beginning of what will forever be known as the Watergate scandal. Eventually, it would come out that G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt were the masterminds, though they weren’t arrested that night. The five so-called burglars who were arrested were James McCord, Frank Sturgis, and three Cuban expats. As we’ve discussed in another blog post, Sturgis has been described as a soldier of fortune who’d become heavily involved in Cuban affairs, including (allegedly) helping the CIA with the Bay of Pigs. 

The FBI reports during this early period of the Watergate investigation are messier than usual, probably because new info was coming in as fast as they could type it up. There are lots of handwritten edits. The lists of the burglars’ names and aliases are marked up in a chaotic fashion. McCord’s name isn’t even included on an early report, though his alias, Edward Martin, is. In the ensuing reports, we begin to see an underlined loopy lowercase “L” in the right margin. It appears to mean something significant, like “liaison” maybe, even though, as we all know, the FBI doesn’t have a liaison dedicated to the CIA anymore. But I’m 100 percent positive that someone from the FBI would have contacted someone at the CIA about the burglary early on. They would have been nuts not to, given Hunt’s, McCord’s, and (allegedly) Sturgis’ ties to the CIA.

Here’s the underlined loopy l. Remember its location in the right margin because it’s going to be replaced soon.

June 17, 1972, part 2

The memo stating that the burglars were discovered in Phillip Seib’s office was written by the Miami Field Office at 3:10 p.m. Eastern time the day of the break-in. What’s interesting about it is that it looks as if the word Hac is written at the top, similar to the Hacs at the top of Ron’s documents. Someone has also assigned a number 1 with a dash nearby, similar to the number 10 that Ron was given. But there are obvious differences between Ron’s Hacs and the word written here. Even though the letters are nearly impossible to make out, we can see that there are at least five or six of them instead of the three in Hac. I think it’s someone’s name.

Here’s a close-up of the word at the top of the Phillip Seib memo. You can see at least 5 or 6 letters, and I think it’s someone’s name.

I have about 10 people in mind who might have written Hac at the top of Ron’s documents, and that doesn’t include the office assistants who might have been the authors as well. Plus, it could be that more than one person was involved in writing Ron’s Hacs. But this H looks so much like Ron’s, especially the one from November 29, 1963, that I can’t discount it. It’s in the right location and it has an accompanying number.

Here’s the Hac at the top of Ron Tammen’s doc from November 29, 1963. I think the H looks very similar to the one on the Phillip Seib memo, plus there’s a number nearby.

As for the name of the person who wrote the H-word at the top of the Seib memo? I think it was…

Russell H. Horner.

Russell Horner has been one of my top ten contenders for Ron’s Hac writer, and I think this Seib memo bolsters that theory. My reasons are: 1) The H resembles the H in Hac on Ron’s documents, especially the one from November 1963; 2) It looks as if the word written at the top of the Seib document could be Horner; and, most telling of all, 3) “Mr. Horner” is cc’d at the bottom of page two. 

Mr. Horner is cc’d on the Phillip Seib memo. The person above his name is Mr. Bates, who was part of the General Investigative Division.

Here’s why Russell Horner’s name is significant: The Watergate scandal was principally overseen by the FBI’s General Investigative Division (Division 6), which was headed by Charles A. Nuzum. However, Russell Horner was part of the Domestic Intelligence Division (Division 5), in the Internal Security Section. Although I can’t confirm his job title in 1972, I can say with confidence that he was the chief of the Special Records and Related Research Unit immediately before he retired, which I believe was sometime in 1974. 

What’s the Special Records and Related Research Unit, you ask? According to a Domestic Intelligence inspection report filed in August 1972, the SRRR Unit was responsible for the administration of some of the most sensitive records created by the FBI, including the FBI’s defense plans; records pertaining to “electronic surveillances and other sophisticated investigative techniques” (the inspector’s words); and records pertaining to the Administrative Index (ADEX), which was the successor to the FBI’s extremely hush-hush, never-to-be-spoken-of-aloud Security Index.

Because Horner is cc’d on the Seib document, we can state unequivocally that Domestic Intelligence was brought into the Watergate investigation on day 1. Domestic Intelligence was also the division that I believe added a number of stamps and scribbles to Ron’s pages as well—including Ron’s “see index” notation—which tells me that we’re in the right place. 

I filed a FOIA request for Russell Horner’s personnel file on December 16, 2024, to see if it might provide some additional details. I’m still waiting for the FBI to acknowledge that request. (Usually, it takes no more than a few days for them to send an acknowledgment, but I’m going to presume that their tardiness is due to the holidays and not because they don’t like my request.) Admittedly, if Russell Horner is the Hac author, then the letters H-a-c can’t possibly be an acronym for the House Assassination Committee, as I’d suggested in my June 16, 2024, post. The House Select Committee on Assassinations wasn’t established until 1976 and, as I said, I believe Russell Horner had retired from the FBI in 1974. We’ll see what I can learn from his file when I eventually get it. 

June 29, 1972 (Thursday)

Twelve days after the second Watergate break-in, and 57 days after Hoover’s death, David D. Kinley, assistant to Acting Director L. Patrick Gray, sent a memo to W. Mark Felt, now the number two man in the FBI, seeking his thoughts on how they might go about reestablishing the Liaison Section. Obviously, there was an enormous need to bring back the liaisons, particularly with regards to the CIA, and now that Hoover was gone, they didn’t have his massive ego to worry about. The next day, Felt sent a memo to Kinley offering up his thoughts, and suggesting Leon F. Schwartz, who was then chief of the Special Coordination Unit, as the potential head. Schwartz had the proper skill set and had fostered valuable contacts as a liaison with the U.S. Air Force and other agencies including those in intelligence. Edward S. Miller, head of Domestic Intelligence, let Mark Felt know that he had other people in mind as candidates to head up the Liaison Section. It would take the FBI a few months to set up the new chain of command, and by October 1972, Leon F. Schwartz was the new liaison to the CIA.

July 17, 1972 (Monday)

To the best of my knowledge, the lf mark first appears on the McCord Watergate documents on this date, replacing the loopy lowercase L in the right margin. Although he isn’t officially named as the liaison to the CIA until October, I think Leon F. Schwartz would have been the most obvious person who could immediately step in to assist in communicating with the CIA during the early months of Watergate. He was still the chief of the Special Coordination Unit at this point. Also, the lf marks appear on the McCord documents through at least June 25, 1973, when Schwartz had been the official liaison to the CIA for 8 months. The initials often appear near sentences in which a topic relevant to the CIA is mentioned. Quite simply, he had to have seen these documents. For this reason, I think lf stands for Leon Francis, the FBI’s main conduit to the CIA. I think he kept his last initial off to keep his identity secret.

—1973—

We’re now into 1973, when everything eventually comes together for our foursome. Unfortunately, this is also where the timeline can get a little confusing. One day we’re talking about one guy and the next day, we’re totally focused on someone else. I suppose that’s what happens when four people’s lives seemingly converge in the eyes of the FBI. But note that we’re still primarily concentrating on the three marks—the lf, the ST-102/REC-19, and the letters H-a-c. And don’t worry about trying to keep everything straight. I’m going to summarize it all at the end and (spoiler alert!) I’m including a colorful chart.

January 8, 1973 (Monday)

The Watergate trials begin. By the end of the month, five of the seven have pleaded guilty, while two (McCord and Liddy) were convicted. Because James McCord cooperated with the prosecution (he wrote a letter to Judge Sirica explaining that Watergate was much bigger than people realized), he served only 4 months in prison. Frank Sturgis served 13 months in prison, E. Howard Hunt served 33 months, and G. Gordon Liddy served the longest time—52 months.

January 17, 1973 (Wednesday)

The trial of Daniel Ellsberg and his friend and former colleague Anthony Russo begins. This was actually their second trial. The first had been declared a mistrial after it was revealed that the FBI had illegally wiretapped a conversation between Ellsberg and his attorney. According to an extremely helpful and detailed write-up from the University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Law, the men faced “fifteen counts related to the theft of government documents and espionage. If convicted on all counts, Ellsberg faced the prospect of a 105-year prison sentence.” 

May 8, 1973 (Tuesday)

In response to a request from Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray, Edward S. Miller, of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, wrote a memo to Mark Felt describing everything the FBI knew pertaining to the CIA’s involvement in the Daniel Ellsberg case. The memo, which has sizable redactions, includes details concerning the break-in into Lewis Fielding’s office by Hunt, Liddy, and several others, including several Cubans. Someone signs lf on this document.

May 9, 1973 (Wednesday)

After receiving an anonymous tip, the Cincinnati Field Office writes to FBI Headquarters asking for a comparison of fingerprints between Ron Tammen and an employee of Welco Industries. The reason for the tip is that Hamilton Journal-News reporter Joe Cella had written a 20-year anniversary article about Ron Tammen’s disappearance, and the tipster thought Ron’s photo looked like someone they knew. I’m forever grateful to Cella for writing his article and to the anonymous tipster too. If this sequence of events hadn’t happened, I don’t think we’d have the stamps and scribbles on Tammen’s documents that we’re able to use for comparison today.

May 11, 1973 (Friday)

Judge William Byrne dismisses all charges against Daniel Ellsberg, citing government misconduct. He lists the Hunt-Liddy break-in into Lewis Fielding’s office and the FBI’s illegal wiretaps among his reasons.

May 14, 1973 (Monday)

This is the first date-stamp appearing on Ron’s records after the Cincinnati Field Office sent in their fingerprint request. Other date-stamps, which I believe represent various divisions or sections within the FBI, include June 5, June 8, June 14, and June 27. This is intriguing, since FBI Headquarters had written to the Cincinnati Field Office on May 22 letting them know that Ron’s fingerprints weren’t a match to the man from Welco Industries. But they continued to be interested in Ron’s case, and passed around his documents for at least another month. 

June 14, 1973 (Thursday)

Most of Ron’s documents carry a stamp dated June 14, 1973, in the lower lefthand corner, which is preceded by the number 70. (The 70 means something to the FBI, no doubt, but I have no idea what.) Nine of Ron’s documents received the June 14 date-stamp, four of which carry the initials lf.

June 15, 1973 (Friday)

The VERY NEXT DAY, Richard G. Hunsinger signed his initials as the “approving official” at the bottom of a report from the FBI’s Chicago Field Office with the subject “JAMES WALTER MC CORD, et al.” As you may recall, Richard G. Hunsinger is the FBI official who’d grown up in Oxford, Ohio, graduated from Miami University, and served in the Administrative Division at FBI Headquarters for most of his career. His mother, Leah Hunsinger, was a cashier at Oxford National Bank for many years, the same bank that was headed up by people with extremely close ties to Miami, and where Ron Tammen and Dorothy Craig both had checking accounts. 

RGH’s initials can be seen midway down the page on the left side. Also, note the lf in the right margin.

For comparison, here are two samples of his initials that I’d retrieved from other documents:

What’s odd about this discovery is that, normally, Richard Hunsinger had nothing to do with the Watergate investigation. Why would a guy who mostly dealt with personnel matters throw himself into the middle of the FBI’s high-profile investigation of James McCord? Also, how coincidental was it that the Watergate document that he’d signed and that someone marked lf was dated one day after Ron Tammen’s missing person documents had reached someone’s desk, and that they, too, would receive 4 lf’s? It almost appears as if someone had alerted Richard Hunsinger about Ron’s documents and he stepped in to help out in some way.

If that’s what happened (and I have no idea if it did), the next question is why would someone think to alert him? I have a theory. In a Cincinnati Enquirer article datelined April 29, 1953, an FBI representative had visited Oxford “on his own time this week to discuss the case and to give advice” despite the fact that the FBI had told them that they had no jurisdiction over the case. Could the FBI rep have been Richard Hunsinger, who may have been home visiting his parents and, like a good fed, he was letting it be known that this trip was not being funded by taxpayers? If so, perhaps he’d written up a report on the Tammen case back in 1953—a little summary perhaps, not unlike a tip they might receive from anyone off the street. Twenty years later, one of his colleagues might have found his summary while investigating the newly invigorated Tammen case, and gave him a heads up. Maybe it’s just serendipitous, but it does seem weird and I thought you should know.

July 9, 1973 (Monday)

By this point, the Senate Watergate hearings were in full swing, and some fascinating new details were coming to light. For example, James McCord had revealed that E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy had been planning to burglarize someone else—a guy named Herman (Hank) Greenspun, the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, in early 1972. On July 9, Acting Director L. Patrick Gray sent a memo asking the special agents in charge (SACs) of the Las Vegas and Washington, D.C., offices to investigate the Greenspun case at the request of the Special Prosecutor’s Office. Someone has written lf immediately next to E. Howard Hunt’s name in this memo.

July 13, 1973 (Friday)

The SAC from Las Vegas submits a report on the Hank Greenspun planned burglary. Hac is written in the righthand corner, just like Ron’s, and nearby is the number 4 with a dash. Four Domestic Intelligence agents have signed their names or initials immediately adjacent to the number 4, which makes it appear as if that’s the division where the number came from. Admittedly, Russell Horner isn’t one of them, although, if he’s the man responsible for the Hac notation, I suppose he’d already left his mark.

July 26, 1973 (Thursday)

On this date, documents for James McCord et al are given the ST-102/REC-19 stamp combination for the first time. For the next 13 days, up through August 8, his records will receive these two stamps. 

July 30, 1973 (Monday)

The FBI Director’s Office writes a memo to the SAC in Las Vegas, instructing him to interview Hank Greenspun. Hac is written in the top right of the document, again, just like Ron’s, along with the 4 dash. And even though we’re really not discussing this notation in detail today, the words “see index” in the left margin look to me as if they were written by the same person who wrote “see index” on Ron’s record.

This is where we’ll end our timeline, with the caveat that James McCord’s ST-102/REC-19 stamps extended through August 8, immediately after the release of, you guessed it, Midnight Train to Georgia. I wish we could end on a more exciting note—it would have been cool if Richard Hunsinger had initialed the July 30 memo—but that’s another downfall with conducting a timeline of FBI documents. The documents say what they say and the timeline ends when it ends. 

Summary and a chart

As promised, below is a chart that shows when the various marks were made on the documents pertaining to the four men. To simplify things, we’re looking at ranges of time to help you visualize how the notations on Ron’s documents either overlapped with some people’s notations, or, at other times, preceded or succeeded them. Either way, these four men’s documents (and, to the best of my knowledge, only these men’s documents to date) received the same marks within a short period of time, which tells me that they were being handled by the same people and were considered somehow related.

CAPTION (click on image for a closer look):

Ron Tammen — The approximate timeframe in which Ron likely received his lf, ST-102/REC-19, and Hac notations was May 14-June 27, 1973. My logic is that this is the range of dates in which he received date-stamps after the Cincinnati Field Office reached out to FBI Headquarters. There’s a chance that he received one or more of the marks after June 27, however, I want to be safe in my estimate and I need to specify an end date.

James McCord — McCord’s documents have two separate timeframes. His lf timeframe is approximately July 17, 1972 – Jun 25, 1973, the range of dates in which I’ve seen that notation on his documents. His ST-102/REC-19 timeframe is roughly July 26 – August 8, 1973, the range of dates when his docs have both of those stamps. Although our chart cuts off at July 30, I extended his ST-102/REC-19 line to symbolize that we’re incorporating a little of August.

Daniel Ellsberg (and CIA involvement) — To date, I’ve found one document with an lf mark that pertains to Daniel Ellsberg’s case, and it’s dated May 8, 1973. I believe he likely received the lf on that day or shortly afterward.

Hank Greenspun — Evidently, the FBI didn’t know about the potential burglary of Hank Greenspun until James McCord disclosed that info during the Senate Watergate hearings. Based on the documents that carry the notations, the range of dates in which his documents likely received the lf and Hac is roughly July 9-July 30.

Oh, we’re in luck. It looks as though we have time for two Q&As before we open this up to comments. 

Q: What does this tell us about Ron?

A: As I’ve said before on this blog site, it appears as if Ron might have been working with James McCord in some capacity. But it makes you wonder…what about Watergate? Was Ron Tammen on the sixth floor of the Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972, and did he somehow manage to evade the police? 

Remember when I told you about the letter James McCord had written to Judge Sirica that helped him get a reduced sentence? In that letter, he told the judge that “Others involved in the Watergate operation were not identified during the trial, when they could have been by those testifying.”

If McCord is to be believed, there were more people involved in the Watergate break-in than the seven people who were tried. Do I think that one of the “others involved” might have been Ron? I’m not ready to say that yet. But I think it’s something worth pondering.

Q: You said that if Russell Horner is responsible for the Hacs on Ron’s and Hank Greenspun’s documents, then there’s no way it stands for House Assassination Committee. Does that mean that you don’t think Ron was among the people who were included in the JFK assassination investigation?

A: Glad you asked. I honestly don’t think we can rule it out yet. Here’s why: I think everything we’ve discussed above establishes some close connections between Ron Tammen, James McCord, and Hank Greenspun. (Daniel Ellsberg’s situation was different. He was an anomaly in my view—a heroic anomaly, but an anomaly nonetheless.) Both McCord and Greenspun were included in the HSCA’s investigation. You can see for yourself by visiting maryferrell.org and running searches for “McCord AND HSCA” and “Greenspun and HSCA.” So I think it’s still a possibility.

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

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation, TheBlackVault.com, and the National Archives and Records Administration for making these documents available.

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

Sending heartfelt care and concern for everyone who is currently dealing with the LA wildfires. If you, like me, are feeling a little powerless during this crisis, here’s a fairly comprehensive list of resources we can contribute to:

https://www.lahsa.org/news?article=1014-resources-to-support-those-during-the-l-a-fires

This too:

https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/how-to-help-la-fire-victims

Move over James McCord. Ron Tammen had something in common with another famous guy with CIA ties

(Plus—hello!—another assassination plot)

Before we get into my next post, I’d like to say a little something about the election we recently endured:

If you know anything about me, you probably know how I’m feeling right about now. I haven’t exactly been keeping my beliefs hidden on some of the key issues over the years:

  • On Hitler and Nazis/fascists and the people who wish to emulate them? They make me sick. They’re the most morally repugnant and spiritually bankrupt people on the planet.
  • On racism and xenophobia? I despise it in all its forms. I believe diversity makes us stronger. 
  • On LGBTQIA+ rights? 100% for. I believe sexual orientation has a genetic component, and I also think that people should just mind their own business and let everyone live their lives.
  • On science and medicine? I have the highest regard for scientists and medical professionals. During Covid, I advocated for masking and, when the vaccine was available, getting one. 
  • On transparency and truth-telling in the press, politics, and government? I expect nothing less. If I think someone who knows something about the Tammen case is intentionally attempting to mislead me or distract me from the truth, I will make a very huge stink over it.

I could go on but I think you get my drift. 

Here’s what I personally plan to do to make it through the next four years: I will continue to seek the truth about Ron Tammen, which will include submitting lots of new FOIA requests and fighting the good fight in whatever form it takes. I will continue to trust my eyes and my ears when conducting my research, even if someone in a position of authority tries to tell me something entirely different. During my off hours, I will continue to volunteer at the local food bank and clothing room to help people who are struggling, be they Americans by birth or, if the words on the Statue of Liberty still have any meaning at all, immigrants and refugees. I will treat the people and pets I encounter from day to day with kindness and respect. I will call out racism, fascism, antisemitism, and misogyny whenever and wherever they rear their despicable heads, and, as an added bonus, I won’t be taking any crap from bullies and narcissists. And finally, because I’m footing the bill, if someone should ever attempt to submit a comment that runs even the slightest bit counter to the principles I’ve described above, they will be granted exactly 0.00 column inches on this blog site. Their views are not welcome here. Everyone clear on that? OK, moving on. I won’t be taking questions. 

The number in the top right corner

As you know, I’ve been spending a lot of time trying to figure out the meaning behind the marks on Ron’s FBI documents, and, thankfully, all those hours have paid off. First and foremost, we’ve learned that Ron had been on the FBI’s Security Index, which not only tells us that the FBI and DOJ knew he was still alive (there was no need to put him on the Security Index if he was dead), but they were keeping close tabs on him because they thought he was either A) dangerous or B) a threat to national security. When I first made that discovery, it became my go-to talking point whenever someone asked me how my research was coming along. It’s kind of like when my nephew at the age of three or four had just seen The Empire Strikes Back and felt the need to tell everyone in his universe the most jaw-dropping revelation of the film. (He was too young to understand the importance of spoiler alerts.) But make no mistake: in this girl’s opinion, the finding that Ron Tammen was on the FBI’s Security Index is tantamount to learning that (spoiler alert!) Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father. Strike that. It’s way bigger because it’s true.

Photo by Matthew Ball on Unsplash

One mark that’s taking me a little longer to figure out is the number that appears near the top righthand corner of ten of Ron’s documents, always hovering near the letters Hac. Today we’re going to discuss that number and a few other people that have one, including a person who is well-known in JFK circles. This is a fitting topic for today because this is also the 61st anniversary of the day that’s etched on every Boomer’s brain. It’s the day when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while riding on the back of a black Lincoln Continental convertible waving to onlookers in downtown Dallas.

The number we’ll be discussing is 10.

Click on image for a closer view

To begin with, the FBI guys of yore were incredibly prescient for choosing to jot down the seemingly more sensitive marks by hand as opposed to giving them their own stamp. While I’ve found that Google and other search engines recognize the letters and numbers on FBI stamps, they don’t pick up on handwritten scribbles. As a result, I’ve had to conduct assorted searches regarding various iterations of related topics and read through the results page by page until I’ve found whatever scribble I’m looking for that day, be it a “Hac” or a “Ph” or an “lf “or a “see index” and now, a 10. 

Well, I have good news. Not only have I found several 10s, but I’ve found some 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and so on up to 10 and even an 11 and possibly a 15. Although I’m still not sure about what each number means, I do have some thoughts regarding their overall significance and who may have assigned the numbers.

The number that got me started on my learning curve was 8, which had been assigned to none other than Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina. Similar to the placement of Ron’s 10, the Oswalds’ 8 usually appears in the upper right corner of their respective documents. Sometimes the 8 appears alone, like Ron’s 10, while other times it appears with a dash and a 1 (e.g., 8-1). And although I haven’t seen this with the Oswald documents, other people’s 8s were sometimes followed only with a dash (e.g., 8-).

Here are some examples of Lee and Marina Oswald’s 8s:

Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view

The document that seems to shed the most light is dated 9/12/61. Someone from the State Department’s Division of Security was seeking information about Marina Oswald from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. The Oswalds were still living in Minsk at that point; they didn’t return to the U.S. until June 1962. 

Click on image for a closer view

About midway down the page, we see that the office seeking the information was the Visa Office. To the right of that box is another box that seeks to know “REASON FOR REQUEST OR TYPE OF PROGRAM” under which is typed in all caps “VISA SECURITY CASE.” And directly above those words, someone has handwritten the letters “Ci” and the number 8-1.

Ostensibly, it appears that the 8-1 has something to do with visas and any security-related issues that pertain to obtaining one. Otherwise, why would someone have made those notes inside the box? Judging by the fact that Marina was Russian, I think it’s safe to presume that the FBI and State Department were on high alert about her, so the 8-1 is likely a red flag. 

As for what the Ci means, I’ve come up with a couple possibilities. I wonder if it either refers to the CIA , shortened to Ci, or perhaps counterintelligence, which was part of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division back then. The FBI file number for this case begins with the number 105, which is the classification for foreign counterintelligence, so that tracks. The CIA was heavily involved with the visa-granting procedure too, and, like the FBI, it was often the recipient of requests for security information from the State Department. Could it be that the CIA assigned the numbers based on some sort of code or scale, and then communicated those numbers to the FBI, State Department, etc., when the agencies were in need of their input? That way, the CIA wouldn’t have to share everything that they knew about someone—they could distill their intel down to a number that signifies the person’s degree of risk, kind of like how the National Hurricane Center categorizes hurricanes. Another possibility is that the State Department sought the security information from the other agencies and they themselves assigned the numbers. I’ve noticed that the State Department uses hyphens a lot in their recordkeeping. 

To err on the side of caution, I think we can state for now that Marina’s 8-1 was indeed a red flag, and may have communicated sensitive information to the State Department’s Visa Office. I think we can also conclude that 8-1 pertains to national security, since that was one of the main purposes for the State Department’s Security Division. Also, if a person’s FBI document has a number in the righthand corner, I think we can presume that they were being investigated by the FBI plus at least one other federal agency, such as the CIA or State Department, since I don’t think the number was assigned by the FBI. Despite those inferences, we also know that Marina was granted the visa, because Lee was permitted to return home in June 1962, accompanied by Marina and their new baby. As concerned as everyone seemed to be, the State Department eventually gave the OK.

It bears mentioning that, from what I’ve ascertained, the Oswald documents were given the 8s and 8-1s only if they were dated before November 24, 1963, the date when Jack Ruby assassinated Lee Oswald on national television. Like the FBI’s Security Index, it appears those 8s were only good while Oswald was alive. After he was killed, the info that the 8s contained was no longer relevant. 

I’m posting three other documents with an 8 or an 8- or an 8-1 on them. One is about Thomas Peasner, who you may recall I wrote about on this website. The document is dated around the time that he’d been interviewed by military intelligence about his ostensible communist leanings. The other documents concern people tied to Cuba, including the CIA’s attempts to send “hoodlums” to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view

In the FBI’s eyes, Ron was a 10. So was Frank Sturgis.

Here’s why I feel the need to talk to you today. We already know that Ron has been linked by stamps and scribbles to James W. McCord, one of the Watergate burglars, and a former operative for the CIA and Project Artichoke. Now we have a tie to Frank Sturgis, another of the Watergate burglars, who also has been linked to the CIA. Sturgis was frequently referred to as a soldier of fortune, and in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he inserted himself into some high-level antics between the United States and Cuba, including, it’s believed, the Bay of Pigs. In short, Frank was a pill. He also went by the name Frank Fiorini.

Credit: Frank A. Sturgis; Nixon Presidential Library

Here’s the document I’ve found in which Frank is given a 10-1.

Click on image for a closer view

Interestingly, Frank was given a 4-1 on another document, which matches the 4-1s that can be found on Hank Greenspun’s documents describing an alleged burglary plot in Greenspun’s Las Vegas Sun office in early 1972. As you probably recall, Hank Greenspun and Ron Tammen have similar Hac notations on their FBI records.

Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view

In addition, another document of Frank Sturgis’ has a 1- beneath the 4-. I’ve found another 1- on a document describing five people found in Phillip Seib’s office at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., the night of the Watergate burglary. Frank Sturgis was one of those people. That document also appears to have a Hac written at the top, though the word is illegible and looks like it has a couple extra letters. I have a theory on what it says, but for now, you have to admit, the H looks similar to the Hacs on Ron’s and Hank Greenspun’s records.

Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view

According to researchers Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield, Frank Sturgis was one of three so-called “tramps” who were pulled by Dallas police from a railroad boxcar shortly after Kennedy’s shooting. They were then marched across the square to the Criminal Courts Building as cameras flashed. The authors assert that E. Howard Hunt and someone who went by the name of Dan Carswell were the other two tramps.

But that’s not all.

Two other documents that carry the elusive number 10 are as follows:

  • An assassination plot in April 1969 against Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, father to the current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau— The 10 is preceded by a 7 and 4. The threat was made by way of several phone calls from someone in Oklahoma City. (The records are heavily redacted, so it’s tough to tell what actually happened.) I don’t believe it ever made the newspapers.
  • An investigation into the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and whether the organization was being influenced by communists—Martin Luther King, Jr., was the organization’s president from its start in 1957 until his assassination in 1968.
Click on image for a closer view
Click on image for a closer view

Look, I realize there are discrepancies, and I also know that some very above-board people were saddled with a number in the upper righthand corners of their FBI docs. But I do know similarities when I see them, and it does appear that Ron was being tied to some famous names having to do with Watergate and, OK, I’ll say it, the assassination of JFK and other assassination plots. And so I have to ask: when do these similarities to Ron’s documents become totally predictable and not at all surprising?

###

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

The imposter

Why did a press officer for the military send a fake photo of Richard Cox to a Cincinnati newspaper in 1953?

It’s Halloween, a day when people often saunter by the ol’ blog site to learn of any recent developments concerning Ron Tammen’s case. On that front, I’m still deep diving into Ron’s FBI documents and focusing on a couple scribbles that someone had made, but I’m not yet ready to share what I’ve found. So let’s talk a little bit about Richard Cox instead.

As I’m sure you know by now, Richard Cox was another college-aged guy from Ohio who disappeared three years earlier than Ron. Although he disappeared from a different school—he was a cadet at the United States Military Academy in West Point, NY—I’ve wondered if the two cases might be related.

I’m not the only one who’s entertained that idea. On May 5, 1953, the Cincinnati Times-Star FAMILY Magazine published an article about Tammen’s case, and the article discussed Cox’s case too. The reporter was Gilson Wright, a journalism professor at Miami University who’d made extra money serving as an on-call correspondent (aka a stringer) for newspapers in the region. As we’ve discussed many times before, I’m not a huge fan of his reporting on Tammen, since I feel that he was being intentionally misled by university administrators who didn’t want certain details to get out about Tammen’s case.

As you’ll soon see, apparently university administrators weren’t the only ones who were intentionally misleading Gilson Wright. 

The article the newspaper ran concerned three college students with Ohio ties who’d disappeared after being spotted in the vicinity of their respective dorms at their respective universities: Ron Tammen, Richard Cox, and Ruth Baumgardner. I’m not going to discuss their individual cases here today. You can look them up online.

Here’s what we will be discussing: the photo that was published of Richard Cox. It’s not him. It’s not even close.

The source of the photo would have ostensibly been a press officer for the West Point Military Academy or the U.S. Army—I don’t know which. I can conclude this because that’s how things were done before the internet. If a newspaper was publishing an article about someone and they wanted an accompanying head shot, they’d contact the person’s affiliated organization and ask their press office to please send them one. But instead of sending the photo that had been published widely at the time of Cox’s disappearance, which was this…

Richard Colvin Cox

…someone opted to send this:

The photo that appeared in the May 5, 1953, Cincinnati Times-Star FAMILY Magazine depicting Richard Colvin Cox; Used with permission

I have questions. 

My first question has to do with every reference to Cox in the article. They never got his name right. In the photo caption and elsewhere, Gilson Wright or an editor misidentified Richard Cox to be William Cox, which was bad enough. But then Wright referred to Richard Cox as “Cadet William Scott” in paragraph 3 of the article, which was even worse. So my question is…how did that happen? (No, I’m serious. How?)

Another question I have is who the poor guy was who was being misidentified as Richard Cox, or rather William Cox, by his own alma mater. His sweatshirt tells me that he was probably a jock. Judging by the size of his neck and a nose that may have been broken a long time ago, I’m going to guess that he was a wrestler or football player. 

I’ve been going through past issues of West Point’s yearbook, the Howitzer, and, although I’ve found a student who somewhat resembles our guy, it’s really too tough to say. I feel this way because I don’t have a lot of faith in that photo. Of the three photos in the article, the “Cox” photo stands out as the weirdest. Ron and Ruth look normal, but Cox’s photo looks as if it’s been doctored—as if his outline had been traced and carefully cut out of another photo and placed on a white background. Why do that when you have a perfectly great photo of the real Cox in his prestigious Whites? His other features look strange too. Did they darken William’s eyes and futz with his hairline? He almost looks more like a drawing than a real person.

One thing I can say with confidence is that I’ve found someone in the 1949 Howitzer who is wearing the same sweatshirt as the one that William is wearing, so I think William graduated around the same time that Richard Cox disappeared.

Someone from the 1949 Howitzer was wearing the same sweatshirt that “William” Cox wore in the photo that was published May 5, 1953; although this person was a soccer player, this wasn’t their uniform. I think the sweatshirts could be worn by anyone, especially athletes.

If someone should recognize this person, please let me know. As I’ve said, I have a hypothesis, and I may check in with that person’s family members to see if I’m right. I’ll keep you posted.

My third question is the most important one: why would a press officer send the wrong photo of Richard Cox to a reputable Ohio newspaper? By 1953, Richard had been missing for three years. Surely, they had to know they’d sent the wrong guy. 

I have a theory on that question too. My theory is that the Army already knew what had happened to Richard Cox by then and they didn’t want to remind people what he looked like. In the book Oblivion, by Harry J. Maihafer, the author contends that Richard Cox was working for the CIA after he disappeared. Imagine if they’d published his photo in the paper and two weeks later, his cover was blown by a well-meaning family from Cincinnati who happened to be vacationing in Florida or some such place.

One piece of evidence we have to back up this hypothesis is that on January 14, 1953, three years to the day after Richard Cox disappeared, J. Edgar Hoover had sent an urgent Teletype to the special agent in charge of the New York Field Office. The teletype said that the FBI was to discontinue their search for Richard C. Cox because the Army had “WITHDRAWN REQUEST FOR FURTHER BUASSIST” [i.e., Bureau assistance].

Click on image for a closer view.

If the Army was calling off the FBI in January of 1953, what’s a self-respecting PR flack for the Army or the Military Academy going to do when Gilson Wright gives them a jingle four months later and asks them for a nice photo of the guy in question? 

I dunno—maybe start rummaging through the supply drawer looking for an X-ACTO knife? That’s just a theory too.

***********

Sending a big shout-out and thank you to The Miami Student journalists/podcasters Taylor Powers and Sarah Kennel, who have featured the Ron Tammen story on their podcast Bizarre Butler County. We covered a lot of territory in our discussion, including some of the new stuff. Give it a listen!

Walking tour stop #8: A Korean War POW who worked at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club in 1963 and who bought a rifle shortly before Kennedy’s assassination but who then disappeared has something on his FBI docs that looks very much like one of Ron’s docs

Our last stop will take a little longer, since we’re going to need some background. This post has to do with Thomas Rodman Peasner, Jr., whom I’ve brought up before, most recently when we discussed his 2-d notation, which was a number-letter combination on page one of Ron’s FBI documents as well. The other two people that I could find who had the 2-d/2-D notation are James McCord and Jack Ruby, both of whom we’re familiar with.

So, who was Thomas Peasner? Tom Peasner was a musician—a pianist and a composer. He was born in Pittsburgh on October 19, 1929, 10 days before the stock market crash that spiraled into the Great Depression. His father worked in the steel industry as did most of the men in their neighborhood. His mother worked at home, as did most of the men’s wives. In the 1940s, his family moved to Dallas, Texas, where Peasner attended Bob Storey Junior High School and, later, Crozier Technical High School

As a high schooler, Tom Peasner was tall and slender with a flop of wavy dark hair. During his senior year, he was the accompanist for the chorus club in addition to serving as its president. Tom dated one of the cutest and smartest girls in his class, Ethyl Lackey (she went by Eve), and it doesn’t tax the brain to understand why Eve went for Tom. There’s just something about a real-deal musician, amiright?

After graduating from high school in 1947, Tom attended Oklahoma A&M University in Stillwater for a short while and also played in the Richard Walls’ Orchestra there. But then, in August 1949, Tom joined the Army. After the U.S. entered the Korean War in June 1950, Tom was sent to the front lines.  

On April 23, 1951, Tom Peasner was captured by the CCF—the Chinese Communist Forces—where he was taken to a prison camp named Peaceful Valley. He was soon moved to Mining Camp, and, in September 1951, was permanently relocated to Camp #1, on the Yalu River, which separates North Korea from China.

I’ve seen no indication that he was ever tortured. He’d lost several toes on his left foot, but according to a fellow prisoner’s account, it was Tom’s own actions that led to this. Apparently, he had a disease that caused his feet to feel intensely overheated at times. He tried to relieve the discomfort by burying his bare feet in the snow, which led to a bad case of frostbite and the need for amputation.

The foot incident notwithstanding, Tom Peasner did manage to make quite a name for himself in and around Camp #1. To summarize the words of more than 80 fellow prisoners who’d spoken with U.S. Army interrogators after they were freed, he was well known as one of the most dedicated champions for the communists—commonly referred to as “progressives” at that time—in the entire camp.

That’s right. Tom Peasner, with the dark, wavy hair and the mad piano skills, had turned into a hardcore communist.

Before we judge, let’s put his situation into context. When Tom Peasner was captured by the Chinese in April 1951, he was all of 20 years old. In those days, the Armed Forces hadn’t been training soldiers on what to do if they were captured by their communist foes—they were generally operating under the “don’t get caught” playbook. At the time of their capture, American POWs in Korea were left to their own devices. So there he was, a scared 20-year-old without a clue of what to do or say and probably thinking less about his country’s national security and more about getting through this nightmare alive. 

Before the Chinese entered the war in October 1951, the North Korean People’s Army was in charge of the prison camps. They treated prisoners ruthlessly. Of the roughly 3000 American prisoners who died in captivity, many if not most were during the “death marches” that were conducted by the NKPA.

By the time Tom Peasner was captured, the Chinese had taken over the camps, and they had a different philosophy regarding the treatment of its prisoners. When a prisoner was brought to a camp, the Chinese would offer him their hand in friendship as opposed to a bayonet to the ribs. Prisoners would be rewarded with special privileges when they cooperated (such as cigarettes, better food, and the ability to leave camp on occasion) and punished when they didn’t. Many of the Army POWs chose to cooperate with the communists, some ostensibly converting to communism, and others just pretending. 

Tom did pretty much everything that a soldier could do in order to become a turncoat: he was writing letters and newsletter articles advocating for the interests of the Chinese, he was making recordings to be broadcast by Radio Peking, he sat on Camp #1’s leadership committee called the Peace Committee, he attended voluntary lectures and study groups, and he was occasionally singled out to go on walks with party leaders, which was reserved for only the truest and bluest of reds. It was honestly as if he was vying for MVP of Camp #1. If they’d had a marching band, he probably would have tried out to be drum major.

Now, imagine what it would have been like to be Tom Peasner on the day of his release from captivity from the Chinese, on August 16, 1953, as part of Operation Big Switch. Do you think Military Intelligence would have liked to have a word with him? Um, yeah, I think so.

Just like the other POWs, Tom went through several interrogation sessions. In one momentous session conducted on August 24, 1953, aboard the USNS Marine Adder, his Phase II interrogator, a man by the name of George H. Rodgers, described him as “apparently successfully brainwashed,” which is…interesting. Because you guys? Returning POWs who’d been described as “brainwashed” were exactly the sorts of people that the CIA had wanted to speak with as possible human subjects for Project Artichoke.

Here’s what George H. Rodgers had to say about Tom Peasner. The fact that the only copy available is a negative photostat makes it especially creepy.

In fact, at a CIA Artichoke conference held four days before Peasner’s Phase II interrogation, agenda item 2 says:

[REDACTED] opened the Conference by stating that Mr. [REDACTED] of the SO [CIA’s Security Office] and [REDACTED] were on a trip involving interrogation of returning POWs from Korea. The purpose of the trip was twofold—[REDACTED] was primarily interested in learning what had been applied in the way of so called “brain washing” techniques by the Communists, planning to use this information in connection with an operation in his office. It was explained that [REDACTED’s] interest was along similar lines and, in addition, anything that might be developed would be of interest to the ARTICHOKE program. These interests were explained in more detail by [REDACTED] who stated that the ARTICHOKE program was interested in any techniques or methods which could be used offensively or defensively.

Click on image for a closer view.

What do YOU think? Do you think that the CIA’s Project Artichoke people would have had any interest in speaking with Thomas Peasner, who was characterized by his fellow POWs as being one of the most ardent supporters of communism and by an interrogator as being “apparently successfully brainwashed”? I’d bet my life on it.

An Army photo of Tom and Eve after he was released from Camp #1; it’s from the same negative photostat copy, but at least we can see how happy they are

Fast forward to 1963. Tom Peasner has moved on with his life. He and Eve had married after he was honorably discharged from the Army, though, unfortunately, they’d split several years later. He went on to earn a bachelor’s degree with honors in music from North Texas State College, and he was working as a pianist at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. According to an FBI report, on November 9 (a Saturday), he’d left his employment there—which sounds as if he quit—and immediately went to a Sears and Roebuck to purchase an automatic rifle with a check that would later bounce. That was 13 days before JFK’s assassination.

Here’s the February 16, 1964, report, written after an Arlington police officer contacted the FBI’s Dallas Field Office with the tip. As it so happens, the officer had direct knowledge of the incident, since he worked part-time at Sears as a detective.

Click on image for a closer view.

My favorite line in the report is the last one: “Peasner purchased this automatic rifle prior to the President’s assassination, and has since disappeared.”

Allow me to summarize the scenario thusly: A POW who’d been labeled as brainwashed by Army intelligence and who (I’m quite sure) had been “interviewed” by someone from the Project Artichoke team at some point was working at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club in November 1963. Then, less than two weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, he quit his job, went straight to Sears and Roebuck to write a bad check for an automatic rifle, and disappeared.

Questions? Concerns? 

If you attempt, like I did, to obtain information from the FBI regarding what they did in response to receiving this potentially explosive lead, they will likely tell you what they told me. They destroyed it. Here’s their exact wording:

“Records potentially responsive to your request were destroyed.”

They also checked the box that said “Records potentially responsive to your request were transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration, and they provided file number 100-HQ-405298 as a reference.

Let’s put the above development in perspective. The write-up on Thomas Peasner and his rifle was included in the Warren Commission Report, on page 44 of Commission Document 736, FBI Clements Report of 03 Apr 1964 re: Ruby/Oswald, to be super specific. If the FBI had investigated that lead and discovered any information that would either support or refute its potential relation to JFK’s assassination, wouldn’t you think they’d hang onto it or send it to the Warren Commission? But no. Whatever they did or didn’t do as follow-up has (ostensibly) been destroyed. As for what’s at NARA, I know all about file number 100-HQ-405298. Here’s a list of what’s available on maryferrell.org for that file number. I’m sure NARA is no different. Most are dated from the 1950s. Unless the FBI record is dated after February 16, 1964, it doesn’t pertain. Other than requests for documents on Peasner from the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 and from the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998, I’ve located nothing after February 16, 1964.

This concludes our backgrounder on Thomas Peasner. I’d now like to show you an FBI document on Peasner that has a scribble in the left margin that resembles one of Ron’s scribbles. That scribble is, “see index,” which refers to the FBI’s Security Index.

Here’s Peasner’s:

Click on image for a closer view. Zoom in on the left margin.

Here’s Ron’s again:

Click on image for a closer view. Zoom in on the left margin.

And here’s the “see index” on the document discussing the planned burglary of Hank Greenspun’s safe, of which James McCord is one of the persons who was implicated. We’ve discussed how this “see index” resembles Ron’s, but now we can see that it resembles Peasner’s too:

Click on image for a closer view. Zoom in on the left margin.

You guys, they look to me as if they were written by the same person. There’s the same lowercase s in cursive but also, look at how the slash of the x is so long, it looks like a y. They also look as if they were written at roughly the same time.

And now, my announcement:

I think that the FBI believes Ron Tammen and Tom Peasner and James McCord have something in common. And because James McCord was doing Project Artichoke work for the CIA, and Ron Tammen has a tie to Project Artichoke through St. Clair Switzer, and Tom Peasner has a probable tie to Artichoke through his POW interrogation experiences, I think Project Artichoke may very well be what links them to each other. 

I just wonder what—if anything—this might have to do with the assassination of JFK.

Coming next: The Walking Tour After-party

Thanks to maryferrell.org and TheBlackVault for making these documents available.