WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

[Jason Ward]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

There is nothing special about a conspiracy theory that makes it different than any other theory that a detective or prosecutor might come up with. Therefore the phrase "conspiracy theory" would have no bearing on whether its evidence would be admissible in court.

Conspiracies are commonplace.

 

 No , conspiracies are inherently rare and are a well-known fascination to the paranoid mind . To use your examples, in a court of law the investigator or prosecutor is unable to call himself to the witness stand and explain his circumstantial evidence or conspiracy theory . Only a witness to the controversy at hand can reveal any circumstantial evidence or conspiracy theory , but if the matter is technically difficult, sometimes also a court approved expert can state their opinion . You have provided neither a witness to the controversy nor a widely respected subject matter expert who advocates that Paine is a CIA agent.  (btw, a widely respected subject matter expert can in no case be a conspiracy theorist, because conspiracy theorists have a built in bias towards seeing conspiracy, sometimes where none exists).   Both your circumstantial evidence and your conspiracy theories must be apparent enough that a non- conspiracy theorist both perceives them and believes them. 

 As a reminder my opinion is that we need to be aiming for pretty close to the kind of evidence that would see a conviction in a court of law, that's why I advocate judicial type standards.  Anything less is going to bring no new believers in the general public at this late date.

 Okay so are you ready to return to the topic now? Do you think around the time of Mexico City Oswald is the designated Pepsi (edit--patsy, although designated Pepsi is also a neglected topic) or do you find that Oswalds patsy status is created earlier? 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

18 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

If we set aside Jim Garrison's uncovering of Guy Banister at the heart of Oswald's FPCC campaign in New Orleans, we cannot connect all the dots, IMHO.

But I'll meet you half-way with a challenge.  Let's say (arguendo) that Guy Banister was OK with JFK -- would you agree that:

1.  Guy Banister wanted to kill Fidel Castro?

2.  That the FPCC in New Orleans was 100% Fake?

3.  That the FPCC in New Orleans was Guy Banister's brain-child?

4.  That Guy Banister manipulated Oswald to pretend to be the Officer of this Fake FPCC by newspaper, police report, radio and TV?

If so, then to what end?  What did Lee Harvey Oswald do in New Orleans in the interest of the Anti-Castro forces by pretending to be an FPCC Officer?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 Paul, thanks again for your kind indulgence to my newbie ways and your polite conversation with me.   I just want to get a point of clarity about your position . Is it your feeling that the New Orleans cell had always the assassination in mind ? And in fact that the whole raison d'être for organizing the New Orleans group was the assassination? 

 I ask because it is my impression that the New Orleans group started as a typical anti-Castro effort but at some point along the way became sucked into the assassination conspiracy , perhaps even to the point where the assassination was their sole unifying purpose . As always I'm not trying to float a complete CT of my own, I'm just trying to get input on certain details I find ambiguous . 

 

Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

There is nothing special about a conspiracy theory that makes it different than any other theory that a detective or prosecutor might come up with. Therefore the phrase "conspiracy theory" would have no bearing on whether its evidence would be admissible in court.

Conspiracies are commonplace.

 

 No , conspiracies are inherently rare....

Jason,

A conspiracy is a crime planned by two or more people. Do you really believe that is rare?

 

[Jason Ward]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

A conspiracy is a crime planned by two or more people. Do you really believe that is rare?

 

 I know it's rare.

 Most crimes are single perpetrator events . These are assaults, drunk driving, drug possession, sex crimes, thefts.   A criminal enterprise of two or more people is comparatively rare.  A criminal enterprise as large as that commonly employed in conspiracy theories is exceptionally rare , perhaps on the order of two or three times in a century .   Again, since we are a half-century past the crime, I don't think you appreciate that a higher and higher standard of evidence is necessary to impact the general public . My belief is that this should be very near to the kind of evidence that would win a conviction in court .

Obviously you and many others disagree with my high standard , we can recognize that ultimately each of us has their own personal standard of proof . If your point is just to have a parlor game and figure out between you and the CT community the whole explanation for the assassination , fine, it's important that we understand where everyone is coming from. I want bulletproof .  Or as close to bulletproof as we can get so that the mighty powers of people like Posner and the CIA cannot again brush off conspiracy as the idea of lunatics . I think you want good enough for yet another conspiracy book . Again, it's no problem if we're all operating on a different standard of evidence.   It just means I'm gonna reject three fourths of everything said around here and you're going to accept three-fourths of everything said around here.  Perhaps another way to say it is you want to achieve the solution whereas I'm only interested in achieving a solution if we can sell it to the 7 billion people on earth who really don't give a damn . 

 Now, about that Oswald guy … You place his patsy designation at  what date ?   When was the Dallas plan finalized and/or when was Osswald as fall guy crystallized?  

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

Jason, One problem I see with this thread, is, inasmuch as it has anything to do with you, that you are asking "when" LHO donned the Patzy cap. Yet your actual line of inquiry is "can we place the said cap donning in or around October?" (Approximate quote)

That's really not a problem in itself; approach this, or anything, as you wish.

The problem arises when you conflate your question with your conclusion, and ask others to prove it for you.

You are tacitly saying that it happened around October, offer no argument for that, and ask for us to prove that. That might be fine in a professor-undergraduate relationship but that is not what we have here. We are a bunch of busy conspiracy theorists working on this puzzle individually. You are asking us to focus on your small area of the puzzle and solve it for you. That's not going to happen.

Thats my observation, do you see any validity in it?

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

A conspiracy is a crime planned by two or more people. Do you really believe that is rare?

 

 I know it's rare.

So you think almost all illegal drug rings involves just one criminal? Only one person producing the drug? Only one person smuggling? Only one distributing? Only one dealing?

What about gang crimes? Assault? Firearm charges? Drug sales? Robbery? Burglary? Auto theft? Just one gang member per crime?

White collar crimes? Antitrust violations? Trade secret theft? Environmental law violations?

A couple of guys stealing from their neighbor? I'll bet there are a lot of "a couple guys stealing from their neighbor."

And a whole lot of other crimes.

 

You don't have to be the paranoid type to believe that conspiracies exist.

 

[Jason Ward]

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Jason, One problem I see with this thread, is, inasmuch as it has anything to do with you, that you are asking "when" LHO donned the Patzy cap. Yet your actual line of inquiry is "can we place the said cap donning in or around October?" (Approximate quote)

That's really not a problem in itself; approach this, or anything, as you wish.

The problem arises when you conflate your question with your conclusion, and ask others to prove it for you.

You are tacitly saying that it happened around October, offer no argument for that, and ask for us to prove that. That might be fine in a professor-undergraduate relationship but that is not what we have here. We are a bunch of busy conspiracy theorists working on this puzzle individually. You are asking us to focus on your small area of the puzzle and solve it for you. That's not going to happen.

Thats my observation, do you see any validity in it?

Michael, thanks for your observation.

If you're too busy working on the puzzle on  your own, please don't let me interrupt.   Likewise, if people like Jim can't tolerate someone who questions their authority, I hope they will just not respond.  I do sense that a few big egos feel I should be grateful they type a few words on their screen, but really I'd prefer if this type would just ignore me if they can't treat me as an equal.  It seems obvious to me that many CTs have no concept of how they're perceived and/or they are absent from the fact that they themselves destroy their credibility by among other things, behavior and attitudes like is sometimes seen in the worst of this forum. 

Just to clarify: I'm interested in hearing when others believe Oswald is designated the patsy.   I'd hope they would offer a bit of support for their conclusion, even if it's just along the lines of "because we know Odio mentioned assassination at the end of September."   I personally believe it's bordering on pointless to pursue anything about Oswald too much before he's designated the patsy.   We're already know he's a groomed fake Marxist.  I believe the critical part is the conspiracy with patsy in place - and any remaining unearthed evidence will likely come from the last couple of months* or, after such time as he was designated a patsy.  Again, those who are too busy shouldn't waste their time talking with someone as insignificant and insolent as me.

I really appreciate your input and hope you'll participate, thanks again.

Jason

* I also believe that evidence of advanced knowledge is both under-researched and potentially critical; as it happens most of this that I've seen is in the last month or two.  However, if someone has advanced assassination knowledge even before Oswald is the patsy, whether this is early 63 or 62 - I think that's worth pursuing although I'm probably focusing on the final 2 months for now.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

 I want bulletproof . I think you want good enough for yet another conspiracy book . 

 

You ain't gonna get bullet proof evidence. You might as well close your browser window.

I want the same level of evidence as could be won in court. Some court cases are 100% circumstantial and are won.

[Jason Ward]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So you think almost all illegal drug rings involves just one criminal? Only one person producing the drug? Only one person smuggling? Only one distributing? Only one dealing?

What about gang crimes? Assault? Firearm charges? Drug sales? Robbery? Burglary? Auto theft? Just one gang member per crime?

White collar crimes? Antitrust violations? Trade secret theft? Environmental law violations?

A couple of guys stealing from their neighbor? I'll bet there are a lot of "a couple guys stealing from their neighbor."

And a whole lot of other crimes.

 

You don't have to be the paranoid type to believe that conspiracies exist.

 

Sandy, it's been fun but obviously pointless talking with you and you probably feel the same way.  I'd like to return to the topic at hand.  Do you have an opinion on when Oswald was the designated patsy?  Or perhaps you want to say you think this point is less important because xxxxx?    Let's move on to the JFK assassination, shall we?  Thanks.

Jason

[Michael Clark]

27 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Michael, thanks for your observation.

If you're too busy working on the puzzle on  your own, please don't let me interrupt.   Likewise, if people like Jim can't tolerate someone who questions their authority, I hope they will just not respond.  I do sense that a few big egos feel I should be grateful they type a few words on their screen, but really I'd prefer if this type would just ignore me if they can't treat me as an equal.  It seems obvious to me that many CTs have no concept of how their perceived and/or they are absent from the fact that they themselves destroy their credibility by among other things, behavior and attitudes like is sometimes seen in the worst of this forum. 

Just to clarify: I'm interested in hearing when others believe Oswald is designated the patsy.   I'd hope they would offer a bit of support for their conclusion, even if it's just along the lines of "because we Odio mentioned assassination at the end of September."   I personally believe it's bordering on pointless to pursue anything about Oswald too much before he's designated the patsy.   We're already know he's a groomed fake Marxist.  I believe is the critical part is the conspiracy and any remaining unearthed evidence can only come from the last couple months or after such time as he was designated a pansy.  Again, those who are too busy shouldn't waste their time talking with me.

I really appreciate your input and hope you'll respond, thanks again.

Jason

An Alex Hidel was an identity being set-up in early 1963.

The Manicher Rifle was purchased in the spring.

Walker was shot at in April.

Taking those three things in isolation I would say that the cast was being cast. It was to early to be solidly mounding the patsy.

-----------

I don't believe LHO ordered or possessed the rifle.

As per David Josephs, there were 100 guns with the same serial number shipped to the US, they are all anaccounted for except "Oswalds".

I suspect that provisions for the existence of Alex Hidell patsies were being gathered in various locations.

LHO was being sheep dipped in the Summer.

-----------------

My feeling is that we can be sure of, with my evidence and observations, LHO's selection as patsy with the confidence building effort in September-late August, in Dallas, at the DAP/LHO/AV meeting. But I know I have repeated myself with that assertion. I just wanted to backfill the story for you a bit.

 

-----------

As an aside, your first paragraph of the post I just replied to was a gratuitous jab at members and the community. If you are too thin skinned that you will respond to every post with a collection of responses to cumulative, forum-wide, past sleights, your style will quickly get old.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited August 16, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

I believe Oswald was designated Patsy some time before his alleged trip to Mexico City. The reason I believe that is because I believe the trip was designed to make it look like Oswald had friends in Russia and Cuba plotting with him to kill Kennedy.

There is a possibility that the trip was meant only to make Oswald look more left wing. (And that the Cuban/Russian connections were added later.)  But I don't think that's the case because it looks like efforts were taken to remove Oswald from the FBI and CIA radar screens during the trip.

The New Orleans activities might have also been used for patsification.

I'd like to know what John Newman's opinion is. He's very knowledgeable and I trust his judgement. But as with most topics, I'd like to make my own judgement when and if I'm ever knowledgeable enough to do so.

 

[Jason Ward]

27 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

An Alex Hidel was an identity being set-up in early 1963.

The Manicher Rifle was purchased in the spring.

Walker was shot at in April.

Taking those three things in isolation I would say that the cast was being cast. It was to early to be solidly designating the patsy.

-----------

I don't believe LHO ordered or possessed the rifle.

As per David Josephs, there were 100 guns with the same serial number shipped to the US, they are all anaccounted for except "Oswalds".

I suspect that provisions for the existence of Alex Hidell patsies were being gathered in various locations.

LHO was being sheep dipped in the Summer.

-----------------

My feeling is that we can be sure of, with my evidence and observations, LHO's selection as patsy with the confidence building effort in September-late August, in Dallas, at the DAP/LHO/AV meeting. But I know I have repeated myself with that assertion. I just,wanted to backfill the story for you a bit.

 

-----------

As an aside, your first paragraph was a gratuitous jab at members and the community. If you are too thin skinned that you will respond to every post with a collection of responses to cumulative, forum-wide, past sleights, your style will quickly get old.

Cheers,

Michael

Many thanks, Michael, this is very valuable to me.

As an aside, the gratuitous jabs from precisely 2 members of the community to me cannot go unanswered - as I've seen these badly behaved insecure children pull this crap for years.  If I get old in my style, as always, please don't bother yourself with whatever baseless remarks I say.

Thanks again, your pointers above are well received.  But I have a few questions: do you presume the Hiddell identity is only assassination related at the time it is initiated?., it has many uses, does it not?  You are convinced the rifle is purchased in April?  I'm convinced the money order and Klein's bank records in the WC exhibits are bogus.  For one thing, the Klein's bank records are dated in February for an alleged end of March/April purchase.  I agree with you LHO never had this rifle,* but I think they had to do some retroactive paperwork to tie it into the narrative.  As always, thanks for the substantive reply.

Jason

 

* Although I'd very much entertain a narrative (I've heard a couple) along the lines of: LHO is in some manner or another at least temporarily in possession of the rifle, perhaps by being asked to bring it to work one day, store it in the garage for a couple days, hold it at so-and-so's house to see how he likes it, or some similar ruse.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe Oswald was designated Patsy some time before his alleged trip to Mexico City. The reason I believe that is because I believe the trip was designed to make it look like Oswald had friends in Russia and Cuba plotting with him to kill Kennedy.

There is a possibility that the trip was meant only to make Oswald look more left wing. (And that the Cuban/Russian connections were added later.)  But I don't think that's the case because it looks like efforts were taken to remove Oswald from the FBI and CIA radar screens during the trip.

The New Orleans activities might have also been used for patsification.

I'd like to know what John Newman's opinion is. He's very knowledgeable and I trust his judgement. But as with most topics, I'd like to make my own judgement when and if I'm ever knowledgeable enough to do so.

 

Very much appreciated, thanks.   I think your points here are reasonable although as we've touched on already, I think if the Mexico trip was in support of the assassination, it would have been planned and executed as well as the gunmen's plan of action on 22 November.  Mexico was a disaster if Hoover's already saying on day 1 that there's something fishy about it, i.e. 2+ Oswalds.

thanks again,
Jason

[Michael Clark]

Just now, Jason Ward said:

Many thanks, Michael, this is very valuable to me.

As an aside, the gratuitous jabs from precisely 2 members of the community cannot go unanswered - as I've seen these badly behaved insecure children pull this crap for years.  If I get old in my style, as always, please don't bother yourself with whatever baseless remarks I say.

Thanks again, your pointers above are well received.  But I have a few questions: do you presume the Hiddell identity is only assasinated related at the time it is initiated?., it has many uses, does it not?  You are convinced the rifle is purchased in April?  I'm convinced the money order and Klein's bank records in the WC exhibits are bogus.  For one thing, the Klein's bank records are dated in February for an alleged end of March/April purchase.  I agree with you LHO never had this rifle, but I think they had to do some retroactive paperwork to tie it into the narrative.  As always, thanks for the substantive reply.

Jason

As for the gratuitous jabs, it had nothing to do with our exchange and was out of place. I would suggest more careful placement of your responses, or I'll think you are coming after me.

I said the rifle was purchase in the spring, not April. I was not being specific. Late Winter would have been more accurate, but we are splitting hairs.

Regarding the generation of the Hidell identity, it could be purposed for anything. I would have to look more closely at its history, but generally, it was part of a collection of tools being gathered. I believe the JFKA was being drafted at this point.

 

[Jason Ward]

12 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

As for the gratuitous jabs, it had nothing to do with our exchange and was out of place. I would suggest more careful placement of your responses, or I'll think you are coming after me.

I said the rifle was purchase in the spring, not April. I was not being specific. Late Winter would have been more accurate, but we are splitting hairs.

Regarding the generation of the Hidell identity, it could be purposed for anything. I would have to look more closely at its history, but generally, it was part of a collection of tools being gathered. I believe the JFKA was being drafted at this point.

 

I'm not coming after you.  I'll try to tone it down.  #1 three year old claims he's gone anyway.

One thing I brought up before is that I'm not in real high confidence about much of any of the official or even non-official rifle related timelines.   Paul had a lot to say about that which I'm still reviewing.  For one thing, Marina is clearly an early meth head or so scared of deportation that her testimony on matters of potential dispute can only be taken with a grain of salt, agree or disagree?   What I mean to say is that if Marina says the rifle showed up in the winter or spring or on such and such day, well then, that serves to my mind as one reference point but probably earns no higher than 50% confidence.  Likewise, anything she says about guns in blankets, pictures she takes, and General Walker are, again in my opinion only, noteworthy but not the end of the story on the matter.  

many thanks,

Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward