I’d like to begin this post by saying that I would never think of lying to someone from the FBI. Not only would it be obvious to them that I was lying because I happen to be a terrible liar, but I’d be committing a felony. The FBI can do bad things to you if they catch you in a lie.
But what if they lie to us, the American public? Well, that’s different. Based on the number of times I’ve caught them lying, both to me personally as well as to the public by way of a deceptively worded report, I’d hypothesize that they do it anytime it suits their purpose. NOTE: If you happen to be with the FBI and you feel I’m depicting you and your colleagues unfairly, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Otherwise, if all remains quiet, I’ll presume that you agree with me.
The subject we’ll be addressing today is a lie that was told under oath by someone from the FBI as part of the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ investigation into JFK’s murder. Because the lie was told under oath, people automatically believed him, and for good reason. Most people wouldn’t dream of lying under oath. Most of us have been taught that the penalties for perjury are no fun.
However, as a government agency that may have a lot to cover up, particularly regarding the assassination of the country’s 35th president, the FBI might view things differently. They might consider lying under oath as the quickest, most efficient way to alter the narrative. Even now, almost 48 years after he delivered his testimony, the lie has become solidified into the country’s consciousness regarding JFK’s assassination.
However, I’d argue that the FBI records underlying his testimony tell a different, more nuanced story. I don’t know about you, but if given a choice between what an FBI guy said to some lawmakers during a Congressional hearing and what the raw, unfiltered data say, I’m going with the unfiltered data 100% of the time.
We’ll be doing this as a Q&A, and, dear Good Man readers, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What lie are you referring to?
I’m referring to the lie of omission that was made by James H. Gale during his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in September 1978. In 1963, Gale was an FBI inspector who was assigned to review how FBI agents had handled Lee Harvey Oswald’s case prior to JFK’s assassination and to report on any deficiencies in their actions. In his testimony in which he read from a report he’d written on December 10, 1963, he claimed that Oswald hadn’t been placed on the Security Index because agents at the time didn’t feel he’d met the criteria, though he himself disagreed with their assessment. That’s what he’d written in his report and that’s the story he told the committee members in September 1978.
But Gale didn’t tell the whole truth, which is one-third of the truths he’d sworn he’d be upholding that day. If Gale had been telling the whole truth, he’d have said that, even if he was no longer on the Security Index at the time of JFK’s assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald had indeed been on the Security Index at around the time of his attempted defection to the Soviet Union. He would have added that, somewhere along the line, Oswald had been removed.
How do you know Oswald was on the Security Index?
Since July 2024, I’ve been building my theory that the words “see index” written sideways in the left margin of someone’s FBI records indicate they were on the FBI’s Security Index. In addition to Ronald Tammen’s “see index,” I’ve discovered dozens of people, many with rather seamy reputations, who had those two words written on their FBI records. In my September 1, 2024, post, I revealed that the words “see index” were also written in the left margin of one of Lee Harvey Oswald’s FBI records dated November 9, 1959, shortly after he attempted to defect to the Soviet Union.
More recently, I presented a more detailed argument that the words “see index” written sideways in the left margin were indeed FBI code for the Security Index. I provided multiple examples that enable us to say with confidence that (to the best of my knowledge) the theory is true.
(You may want to skim through that post to refresh your memory on some of the terms, especially the difference between the Security Index and the Reserve Index. If you don’t have the time, in a nutshell, the Security Index consisted of individuals thought to be especially dangerous or a threat to national security who were to be rounded up and incarcerated during a national emergency. The Reserve Index consisted mostly of alleged communists and were second in priority to the Security Index in a national emergency, with those in section A being of higher priority than section B.)
But that’s not all. I have additional evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had been on the Security Index.
What additional evidence?
It has to do with something called a Security Flash Notice, which had been put out on Lee Harvey Oswald by way of a memo dated November 4, 1959, five days after he officially attempted to renounce his American citizenship and defect to the Soviet Union.
It’s well known among JFK researchers that Oswald’s Security Flash Notice had been canceled several weeks before JFK’s assassination, on October 9, 1963. The timing of that action is suspicious, to be sure. According to James Gale’s December 1963 report, the agent who was censured and put on probation for canceling Oswald’s Security Flash Notice was Marvin Gheesling, who oversaw Oswald’s case in the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, also known as Division 5.
But, to my knowledge, what hasn’t been brought out until today, on this website… (cue trumpets)
…is that the FBI didn’t put out Security Flash Notices on just anyone undergoing a security investigation. The person had to already be on either the Security Index or the Reserve Index.
We’ll get to the question of how we know Oswald was on the Security Index and not the Reserve Index momentarily. For now, let’s just say that Oswald’s Security Flash Notice is another indicator that he’d been on the Security Index but was for some reason removed. Canceling Oswald’s Security Flash Notice was a big deal, no question. I’d contend that his removal from the Security Index would have been far bigger.
What’s a Security Flash Notice?
A Security Flash Notice was a notice distributed by the FBI’s Identification Division at the request of an agent or field office who wanted to be alerted about any updates concerning a person on the Security Index or Reserve Index.
We’ve talked about the Identification Division a lot in the past. They’re the division that maintained all of the FBI’s fingerprints—both criminal and civilian, including anyone in the military. They were one of the first divisions if not the first division to be alerted about any arrests that were made concerning someone on the FBI’s radar on any given day across the country.
The Identification Division would disseminate the Security Flash Notice to all field offices asking to be alerted about any arrests or other information regarding the Security Indexer of interest. They would then forward responses to whomever submitted the request.
In Oswald’s day, it was required that the Identification Division already have a set of the person’s fingerprints in order for a Security Flash Notice to be placed. Later, in 1971, officials sent out a memo saying that if someone on the Security Index didn’t have a set of fingerprints already at the FBI, agents should submit a Security Flash Notice anyway. If one of the field offices discovered that the Security Indexer had been recently arrested, they could obtain a set of prints that way.
What form was used for the Security Flash Notice?
God bless you and your obsession with minutia. The Security Flash Notice form was number FD-165. This form was essential because the Identification Division was generally out of the loop when it came to security cases. They occupied a separate building from the agents in Division 5 and they had a different filing system than the rest of the Bureau. People in Identification probably never had the opportunity to stumble across a “see index” notation on an FBI record or to hold a Security Index card in their fingerprint-inked hands. They needed to be alerted separately about someone on the Security Index, and the Security Flash Notice form was how that was accomplished.
Weirdly, so far, I’ve found only two filled-out FD-165s online for actual cases. More often, I’ll find mentions of either the Security Flash Notice or the FD-165 in an FBI report, saying that it was either submitted, canceled, or something else. I’ve also found mentions of a Security Flash Notice on someone’s rap sheet, which is how we learned that Oswald’s Security Flash Notice had been canceled on October 9, 1963.
Here’s a Security Flash Notice form for Judith Coplon, a Soviet spy.
And here’s where the cancelation of Oswald’s Security Flash Notice is mentioned on his rap sheet.
How do you know that they only used Security Flash Notices for the Security Index or Reserve Index?
If you’ve ever wondered why I sometimes spend large chunks of my day reading rules and regs manuals, this is why. We know that Security Flash Notices were only used for individuals on the Security Index or in section A of the Reserve Index because Section 87 of the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations in November 1960 says so. I expressly chose the November 1960 version because it was updated three years before President Kennedy was assassinated, and therefore it was the version that was ostensibly followed to the letter by agents in Division 5 during Lee Harvey Oswald’s time.
Allow me to reproduce the relevant passage here, paying particular attention to item C:
Security flash notice (form FD-165)
(A) Flash notices shall be placed with the Identification Division on security index subjects (and reserve index A subjects) who have identification records. Form FD-165 is used to place and cancel these notices and to obtain a transcript of subject’s record.
(B) Do not maintain a security flash notice for security index (or reserve index A) subject when no identification record for subject exists in the Identification Division.
(C) Do not place a security flash notice on a subject of a security investigation who is not included in the security index or reserve index A. (bold added)
So…yeah. James H. Gale, as the FBI inspector charged with reviewing the Oswald case, would have seen the November 9, 1959, memo with the “see index” written sideways in the left margin. But even if I’m wrong about the meaning of “see index,” and I don’t believe I am, he would have seen the November 4, 1959, memo with the recommendation and handwritten notation to put out a Security Flash Notice on Oswald. He would have seen the October 9, 1963, notation on Oswald’s rap sheet stating that the Security Flash Notice had been canceled. And, in his position as inspector, he would have been fully apprised of the rule (or was it a regulation?) that Security Flash Notices should not be placed on someone who wasn’t already on the Security Index or in section A of the Reserve Index. Why was none of this mentioned in his December 1963 report? Why didn’t he bring it up during his testimony in September 1978? Why did we have to wait until today to learn it? (My guess? See paragraphs 2 and 4 of this post.)
How do you know that Oswald wasn’t on the Reserve Index instead of the Security Index?
Let’s refer once again to the FBI Manual of Rules and Regulations. I should probably state here that this manual isn’t for the feint of heart, not just because of the boredom involved, although there’s certainly plenty of that to be had. It’s because all of the pages in the online document have been mixed up by both page number as well as version. It is, for want of a better term, a sh*tshow. So…you know…you’re welcome.
The reason we know that Oswald was on the Security Index and not the Reserve Index was because someone filled out an FD-128 form on him as well as Marina in September 1963. (Marina’s case was also interesting, but we’re only focusing on Lee today.) As you’ll recall from our earlier discussion, the form FD-128 was used when the Office of Origin for someone on the Security Index was transferred to another field office. On September 10, 1963, an FD-128 was completed by the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Field Office transferring the Office of Origin for Oswald’s case to New Orleans. You’ll note that none of the lines are checked—not the one for being on the Security Index and not the one for the Security Flash Notice, which is…interesting. But to answer your question, if he were on the Reserve Index, the SAC would have submitted an FD-128a, not an FD-128.
But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s some pertinent language from the 11-14-60 manual:
“When the office of origin for a security index (or reserve index A) subject against whose identification record a notice has been placed is changed, form FD-128 (or FD-128a), submitted to change office of origin, should show that a security flash notice has been posted with the Identification Division. An extra copy of the form FD-128 (or FD-128a) should be specifically sent to the identification Division in order that its records will show the new office of origin to which future records will be submitted.”
Hold on. Oswald’s FD-128 is dated September 10, 1963, but there’s no checkmark saying that a Security Flash Notice had been placed. Shouldn’t there be a checkmark, since it hadn’t been canceled at that point?
Good catch. Based on the above paragraph from the 11-14-60 manual, it appears that there should be a checkmark if the Security Flash Notice hadn’t been canceled. What’s more, just a few minutes ago, I discovered a rap sheet dated five days earlier, September 5, 1963, and that Security Flash was still open. So yeah, I think there should definitely be a checkmark there.
So what do you think? Is it just me, or do we have some breaking news here? And if so, who do I need to tell?