WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

[Jason Ward]

23 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Juts a couple points, for now.

-------I want to suggest that Ruth Paine gets attention, scrutiny and black eyes here, on this forum, that are significantly out of proportion to any role she had. Paul Trejo is to thank for that because of his zealous, over-the-top insistence on her saintliness. We end up spending so much effort in refuting Paul's folly that we dig deeper and look harder and scrutinize he story more than it deserves. Paul's zealotry has the opposite effect that he indents.

------- If Veciana met LHO and DAP, as I believe they did, in early September, that would point to LHO's involvement in the plot, from that time at least. This timeframe agrees with Gene's analysis, above.

 

Michael, I don't see a shred of documentary or testimonial evidence indicating Ruth is other than what she claims.  Absent an evidence-based connection with the CIA and/or the conspiracy, everyone is assigning her a role based on conjecture.  Her family wealth or CIA contacts do not make her Oswald's controller, but she joins dozens of other people who are rightfully scrutinized and even suspicious.   After 50+ years and all the other aspects of Ruth, there's just nothing there except irrational insistence that all people who seemingly benefit the conspiracy must be part of the conspiracy.   That's a fallacy so I tend to agree with Paul.  But thanks for recognizing that perhaps everyone's gone overboard in trying to drown Ruth.  My main frustration is: can't we just argue about it for a month or two, then agree to disagree and move on?   There are arguments at least from 2013 saying the exact same thing in the same mouths as those arguing in 2017...and anyway, it doesn't make much difference whether Ruth is a conspirator or saint in my opinion.  If Ruth is or is not pulling Oswald's strings, nothing much changes.  We want to know who set the plan in motion and who pulled the trigger(s), the little housekeepers and alleged babysitters that may show up are momentarily interesting, but largely just a functional irrelevancy which distracts us from The Big Solution.   IMO.

I'm going to review your Veciana point and get back with you, thanks for bringing it up.

 

thanks for the valuable insight

Jason

[Jason Ward]

27 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

With Oswald still being on the FBI's watch list the plotters could not think of recruiting Oswald.

Why not?

It appears that manufacturing and destroying evidence or breaking the law is almost routine in this era for the FBI/CIA.   So Oswald is on the watch list....or not... either way they have the administrative and operational power to make whatever they want with this point.  To me it's kind of like saying you can't hire a killer who has a murder warrant out for his arrest.   If you're Hoover, you simply change the evidence to match the desired narrative.

Jason

[Michael Clark]

19 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

she received a Divine Calling to learn the Russian language

Paul, do you have a citation or quote for this, or are you just making it up?

 

dev·o·tee

ˌdevəˈtē,ˌdevəˈtā/

noun

noun: devotee; plural noun: devotees

1. a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something.

   "a devotee of classical music"

   synonyms:

   enthusiast, fan, lover, aficionado, admirer; More informalbuff, bum, freak, nut, fiend, fanatic, addict, maniac "a devotee of rock music"

   • a strong believer in a particular religion or god.

     "devotees of Krishna"

     synonyms:

     follower, adherent, supporter, advocate, disciple, votary, member, stalwart, fanatic, zealot; More believer, worshiper "devotees thronged the temple"

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, do you have a citation or quote for this, or are you just making it up?

It's in the Warren Commission volumes, Michael.

The clearest thing in the world here is that you've never read it.  Do you read anything except the Internet?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

It's in the Warren Commission volumes, Michael.

The clearest thing in the world here is that you've never read it.  Do you read anything except the Internet?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, I don't send people off to find something in a massive ducument like the WCR. I provide the quote. If I can't take the time to provide the quote I qualify my answer with an "IIRC" or similar statement. Your mode is disrespectful.

[Paul Trejo]

4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, I don't send people off to find something in a massive ducument like the WCR. I provide the quote. If I can't take the time to provide the quote I qualify my answer with an "IIRC" or similar statement. Your mode is disrespectful.

MY mode is disrespectful?!

[Jason Ward]

38 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

    .  .  .

Now of course I might be wrong about Ruth Paine. Maybe it was sheer luck that Oswald got the job. But I think she and Linnie Randle disagreed about what Linnie had actually told Ruth. It seems she never told Ruth of a job opening at the Book Depository. There was an interesting thread about this here on the Forum some years ago, maybe I can find it... And Ruth not telling Oswald about that other (better!) job he could've gotten fits into the picture.

I also find it very strange and unusual that a devoted anti-Communist such as Ruth Paine would house a committed Marxist together with a Russian woman that could well have been a KGB spy. The whole story is highly unbelievable in my eyes. And of course she knew nothing about the rifle Oswald supposedly kept in her garage...

1. The focus on how Oswald gets a job at the TSBD with Ruth's help presumes that the TSBD is an essential prop in this drama.   It's not.   They could have left everything else the same but simply kept Oswald unemployed and this still works.  It may even work better.   They can still have him shooting Tippit, lured into the Texas Theatre and just say he was seen running off the Grassy knoll, to get on the bus that sets the whole lightning fast capture of the assassin narrative in motion.   Granted, the TSBD is a nice to have element, but it's not a must have part of the patsy explanation considering their ability to make up evidence.

2. I don't think there's a strong certainty of the rifle's location at anytime.   There's just too much contradictory or missing information.  From the moment Micahel Paine thinks he's handling camping equipment in a bag while unpacking from the failed New Orleans adventure, to the moment Oswald is seen target practicing at the Sportssome, to the moment Buell Frazier transports curtain rods, to the moment DPD shows a rifle to the cameras, to the moment the fake money order is created to retroactively tie Oswald with a Carcano....the rifle(s) are in the Twilight Zone of existence.   No one can say for certain where, when, and how they move about.   I say forget the rifle, it's a ball of confusion.

 

Jason

[Jason Ward]

50 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

I find little evidence in the Mexico City episode that the CIA was behind it.  

And actually Jim Garrison's "New Orleans" theory still plays the major role in Mexico City, in my reading.

My "primary document" would be the Lopez Report, which published the FAKE FPCC resumé that Oswald had in Mexico City.  That came from New Orleans, and was established by Guy Banister, Ed Butler and the whole New Orleans Team.

IMHO, Jim Garrison gave the first solid evidence of the Patsification of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Ok, so we're on the same page that the Mexican documents we have today don't do much to connect Oswald with the assassination, be it as patsy or otherwise.  IMO the whole strange Mexico tale has no reasonable connection to the assassination we can rationally discern unless you start with the idea that everything Oswald does is a puppet stringed dance towards one day being the fall guy.   To me, we have little evidence that Mexico is anything but another round of enhancing Oswald's legend as a committed communist and Castro disciple.   I just looked up a few details in Mary Ferrell's chronology and see that "LHO"used a birth certificate to cross the border in Laredo....even though he received a quick passport over the summer and would've needed a passport to obtain a visa. hmmmm...

As to your point that the New Orleans cell instigates the Oswald-as-patsy component of the conspiracy, ok, fine.   I don't want to argue much.   You may be right and I'll be thinking about that today.   However, couldn't your evidence in this point be equally supportive of Oswald-as-yet-another cog in all the Cuban schemes?  What your specific evidence that Oswald is tied to Kennedy's death via the New Orleans guys and not instead tied into the anti-Castro hysteria and intrigue?

 

Jason

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Ok, so we're on the same page that the Mexican documents we have today don't do much to connect Oswald with the assassination, be it as patsy or otherwise.  IMO the whole strange Mexico tale has no reasonable connection to the assassination we can rationally discern unless you start with the idea that everything Oswald does is a puppet stringed dance towards one day being the fall guy.   To me, we have little evidence that Mexico is anything but another round of enhancing Oswald's legend as a committed communist and Castro disciple.   I just looked up a few details in Mary Ferrell's chronology and see that "LHO"used a birth certificate to cross the border in Laredo....even though he received a quick passport over the summer and would've needed a passport to obtain a visa. hmmmm...

As to your point that the New Orleans cell instigates the Oswald-as-patsy component of the conspiracy, ok, fine.   I don't want to argue much.   You may be right and I'll be thinking about that today.   However, couldn't your evidence in this point be equally supportive of Oswald-as-yet-another cog in all the Cuban schemes?  What your specific evidence that Oswald is tied to Kennedy's death via the New Orleans guys and not instead tied into the anti-Castro hysteria and intrigue?

 

Jason

Paul's claim is that LHO was trying to go to Cuba to kill Castro. He claims that LHO was in Mexico City with his rifle. He claims that LHO was trying to obtain an "instant visa". The documentation shows that LHO was trying to obtain a Transit Visa to Russia, via Cuba. Paul claims that Guy Bannister and (I believe) David Atlee Phillips "wanted LHO to kill Castro".

I will try to find the posts from Paul that lay this out.

[James DiEugenio]

Mexico City does not connect LHO to the assassination?

Are you serious?

Bob Baer just spent six hours saying that on television.  David Phillips spent all kinds of time and energy sending in his assets to make it look like Oswald had met with people in MC in that regard.  The WR makes clear that Kostikov was a KGB agent at the time of Oswald being there and says he met with him.

LBJ put the whole mask of atomic warfare over the Warren Commission because he told Warren that Oswald was meeting with Russian agents and Castro  representatives.  Thus triggering the cover up.

Again, everyone can make their own choices about what to believe, but to to say MC had nothing to do with the plot simply defies the facts.

Edited August 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

2. I don't think there's a strong certainty of the rifle's location at anytime.   There's just too much contradictory or missing information.  From the moment Micahel Paine thinks he's handling camping equipment in a bag while unpacking from the failed New Orleans adventure, to the moment Oswald is seen target practicing at the Sportssome, to the moment Buell Frazier transports curtain rods, to the moment DPD shows a rifle to the cameras, to the moment the fake money order is created to retroactively tie Oswald with a Carcano....the rifle(s) are in the Twilight Zone of existence.   No one can say for certain where, when, and how they move about.   I say forget the rifle, it's a ball of confusion.

Jason

Jason,

I'm not seeing how you can dismiss the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine -- the residents of the home with the garage in which the key evidence against Oswald was found.

If you dismiss their testimony -- then everything becomes guesswork at that point.

If you accept their evidence -- then the trail is solid.

I don't like speculation -- I prefer to work with testimony and first-hand reports of people who were there.

Now -- some people do fib -- so I give most weight to sworn testimony -- but if I need to add - I don't GUESS.  I seek first-hand reports.

So --

1.  In addition to the sworn testimony of Michael and Ruth Paine, who say that Oswald's rifle was never among the items moved from New Orleans;

2. In addition to the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald, who says that Oswald's rifle was surely in Ruth Paine's garage after Oswald returned from Mexico City

3. We have Gerry Patrick Hemming's claim to AJ Weberman that from Miami he convinced Oswald to hand over his rifle to somebody outside the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/1963.

This is the core of it.

Now, let's also add the findings of Jeff Caufield (2015) that J.D. Tippit attended General Walker's JBS meetings at Austin's BBQ in Dallas in 1963. 

This connection suggests to Caufield the scenario that J.D. Tippit's role was to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the street ASAP after the JFK shooting. 

Oswald did not take the bus or the taxi (as those WC witnesses are unbelievable).   Somebody drove Oswald to his rooming house, and then to the Tippit scene.

Tippit tried to kill Oswald, but Oswald evidently out-drew him.  That's what Jeff Caufield opines.

Since there were too many witnesses at the Texas Theater, the rogue plotters in the DPD could not shoot Oswald there.

Jack Ruby -- the pimp and bootlick to the DPD -- was then talked into finishing the job -- with promises that he would be a national hero.

General Walker's dreams all came true that weekend -- his boys had killed JFK and also his April shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, with paramilitary precision.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

18 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Ok, so we're on the same page that the Mexican documents we have today don't do much to connect Oswald with the assassination, be it as patsy or otherwise.  IMO the whole strange Mexico tale has no reasonable connection to the assassination we can rationally discern unless you start with the idea that everything Oswald does is a puppet stringed dance towards one day being the fall guy.   To me, we have little evidence that Mexico is anything but another round of enhancing Oswald's legend as a committed communist and Castro disciple.   I just looked up a few details in Mary Ferrell's chronology and see that "LHO"used a birth certificate to cross the border in Laredo....even though he received a quick passport over the summer and would've needed a passport to obtain a visa. hmmmm...

As to your point that the New Orleans cell instigates the Oswald-as-patsy component of the conspiracy, ok, fine.   I don't want to argue much.   You may be right and I'll be thinking about that today.   However, couldn't your evidence in this point be equally supportive of Oswald-as-yet-another cog in all the Cuban schemes?  What your specific evidence that Oswald is tied to Kennedy's death via the New Orleans guys and not instead tied into the anti-Castro hysteria and intrigue?

Jason

Jason,

I'm not saying that Mexico City shows little connection to the JFK assassination - - I'm only saying that it shows little CIA connection.

It was the FBI (not the CIA) who invented the story of a "bus ride" for Oswald to Mexico City.  Oswald went to Mexico as a passenger in a car (says Mexican Immigration).

The Guy Banister plot to kill JFK is all over the Mexico City episode.  Let's begin with the Fake FPCC resume.  It screams JFK plot -- to blame the COMMUNISTS.

As for the question about the New Orleans guys (that Jim Garrison discovered) versus the Anti-Castro hysteria -- I see no difference at all.  They are one and the same.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Well Jason, there you go with your intellectual idol Paul Trejo.

How can anyone doubt the word of Hemming?  You know the caravan into Dallas with the hit team?  A la Marita Lorenz and Ozzie and Howard Hunt.

I now await you to say that Paul is also correct about Walker being the mastermind behind the assassination.

Edited August 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul's claim is that LHO was trying to go to Cuba to kill Castro. He claims that LHO was in Mexico City with his rifle. He claims that LHO was trying to obtain an "instant visa". The documentation shows that LHO was trying to obtain a Transit Visa to Russia, via Cuba. Paul claims that Guy Bannister and (I believe) David Atlee Phillips "wanted LHO to kill Castro".

I will try to find the posts from Paul that lay this out.

Jason, here is the a link to a thread that has the whole Transit vs. Instant visa thing laid-out. It is incoherent now. You can see that Paul was editing his responses for up to 4 days after he originally posted.

On 5/19/2017 at 8:53 PM, Michael Clark said:

Paul, we posted simultaneously.

 

Paul,

Post anything that uses the wod "instant"., in the record.

I am making this progressively easier for you.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[Paul Trejo]

28 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul's claim is that LHO was trying to go to Cuba to kill Castro. He claims that LHO was in Mexico City with his rifle. He claims that LHO was trying to obtain an "instant visa". The documentation shows that LHO was trying to obtain a Transit Visa to Russia, via Cuba. Paul claims that Guy Bannister and (I believe) David Atlee Phillips "wanted LHO to kill Castro".

Michael,

You got some of it right, and some of it wrong.

1. Guy Banister wanted to kill JFK, and he wanted to use LHO as his Patsy.

2. To sheep-dip his Patsy (without letting the Patsy know it) he convinced LHO that he would get a job in the CIA if he would participate in a Cuban plot to kill Fidel Castro.

3.  Although Guy Banister would have given anything to kill Castro -- that was not his only goal in life.  His equal goal was to kill JFK.

4.  When LHO went to Mexico City -- as he told Marina Oswald often -- and as she testified often to the WC -- it was solely and only to get to Cuba.  Not to Russia.

5.  The only reason that LHO went to the Russian Embassy was because the Cuban Consulate refused to give LHO an instant visa to Cuba, as he foolishly demanded.

6.  Though DAP wanted LHO to get into Cuba to help kill Fidel Castro -- Guy Banister knew better -- Guy Banister knew for a fact that LHO would never get into Cuba with this stupid Fake FPCC resume that they had made for LHO in New Orleans.

7.  Not only the Cuban Consulate, but also the Russian Embassy laughed LHO out of their offices that week.

8.  Guy Banister knew that was going to happen -- he laughed his head off all week, probably.  That was exactly the way he planned it.

9.  While LHO was in Mexico City, a rogue CIA guy, probably David Morales, IMPERSONATED LHO in Mexico City, to ensure that the CIA had on record that LHO had spoken to KGB assassin Valery Kostikov.

10.  Although that was true, and the CIA was tracking Kostikov, actually LHO had no idea who Kostikov really was. 

11.  In any case, Kostikov and Nechiporenko thought LHO was "psychotic" (Nechiporenko, p. 105)  Later, LHO would refer to him as "Kostin," because, frankly, LHO couldn't remember his real name -- not knowing who he really was.

Getting back to the theme of Jason's thread -- the Mexico City trip is really the culmination of LHO's New Orleans summer -- which crystallized the Patsification of Lee Harvey Oswald.   Jim Garrison's brilliant work on the New Orleans episode has never been surpassed, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo