WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

[Michael Clark]

14 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oh!  Now I think I get what your saying Sandy!  (Communist) Oswald, through Mexico, seeking passage through Cuba Back to the USSR might provoke an attack on either or both of them?  Wow, I'm amazed no one has thought of this before.  I've never read anything of it in newspapers or magazines or seen anything on TV.

Yes Ron, it's part two of the sheep dipping that started with the FPCC leafleting in NOLA.

[Michael Clark]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Many thanks for your thoughtful and polite approach, Michael.  I'll try to respond to everything you say but ping me if I fall short.

In brief, I absolutely agree all FPCC actions were used to make Oswald into a [rather unlikely and unbelievable] pro-Castro Marxist.

This American Marxist legend has many useful benefits in the Cold War milieu, but the assassination role for Oswald is only one of them.  The more obvious role is counter intelligence or direct penetration. To the non-CT-drenched eye, the assassination role does not require Oswald's patsy status as crystalized until October-ish and everything before then evidentially only safely concludes that Oswald was building his communist bona fides; purpose as yet unknown.

In absence of documented evidence, Oswald's purpose does not default to assassination patsy.

thanks again,

Jason

 

No need to make a point of responding. I just wanted to put the Mccord/FPCC and LHO/DAP/AV meeting clearly in front of you since I believe it is germaine to the question at hand..... Early September.

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

Your position here and mine are very close.  Here's my feedback:

1. The Walker Team had the ally of Dallas FBI agent James Hosty who could take Oswald off the FBI radar whenever he wanted.  They could not move Oswald at will, but they came very close.  Guy Banister and David Ferrie were the main manipulators, as Jim Garrison amply showed.

2. I agree with you 100% that Oswald was just one of many possible patsies, and was NOT indispensable to the plot.

3. I agree with you 100% that the actual number of plotters was only a handful of people -- mostly Dallas locals, and some New Orleans locals, and a few rogues from the Bay of Pigs era. 

4. J. Edgar Hoover had access and control of all Oswald files -- but the JFK plotters didn't want a LNer result.  Hoover insisted on it.  Hoover won.

5. I agree with you 100% that Oswald was a "wanna-be-spook."  That's what made him the perfect Patsy.

6. I agree about the "rogue" CIA agents -- since two confessed -- but the Mafia could never do what the local Minutemen in Dallas could do.  The rogues were in cahoots with Dallas paramilitary Right wingers, IMHO. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Not that my opinion means anything, but I'm fine with this as a reasonable scenario from you and Mathias.

I'm not fine with CTers getting all huffy puffy in defending only one scnario, especially where the timeline and purpose of each day in Oswald's 1962-63 life are concerned.  My ultimate purpose here, (isn't everyone's?) is to in some small way expose the smoking gun that removes all doubt to the general public.   In my view, this can only be accomplished by looking at the last month or so before Dallas.   Everything before late Septemberish has weaker and weaker connection to the assassination and relies on evermore supposition and circumstantial evidence.

 

Jason 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

it's been years since I read Lopez although I am a little more favorably inclined towards Hardway as the more rational force in the duo.  I'll take a look at the report and get back to you.

I don't have an evolving CT as much as I have a demand that the received wisdom of The Establishment (CT Establishment) be brought down a few pegs and hear that they are not anywhere close to believable by unconspiracy-drenched souls whose lives don't revolve around the Kennedy assassination.   Let me put it strategically: the CTs are just spinning their wheels until they meet a very high court-room level of evidence in the court of public opinion.  Where they cannot produce the evidence, they should IMO stop beating a dead horse and either dig up the evidence OR move to a part of the conspiracy where evidence is more likely to exist - i.e., among still-living participants.

I'm afraid I don't undertand your last sentence...'the connection with New Orleans...." As I said I don't have an evolving CT to any level of certainty, but I will just try to answer you by saying that everything in New Orleans is undoubtedly Castro oriented only, there is only weak-to-non-existent connection to LHO in New Orleans and his role as the patsy; he could have just as well been in general Marxist legend building for as yet unknown anti-castro/anti-USSR pursuits unrelated to JFK.

thanks again,

Jason

Jason, I hate to say this, out of deference to people who worked very hard for a very long time to get an indictable case, but, those days are over. 

All kinds of things are on the table now that would not be admissible in court. The pieces have to fit and make a comprehensive believable picture, that is all. Hearsay, associations and, yes, coincidences will put that picture together. This is just my opinion, to be sure. A pay stub made out to LHO or the killers is not going to turn-up.

Furthermore, LHO didn't act alone, and there was a cover-up, and CT's, inasfar as they are like me, are not really worried about convincing committed nutters.

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Jason, I just wanted to take a second opportunity to bring two things to your attention, amidst this very active thread. They are key points in your inquiry as specified in the title of this thread.

- The David Atlee Phillips/Oswald/Veciana meeting

and

-The posittion of James McCord in the ranks of the CIA and his area of concern with regards to the FPCC in the relevant period.

Cheers,

Michael

Thanks, Michael, for a kind point here.

I don't have the highest confidence that  "The David Atlee Phillips/Oswald/Veciana meeting" presents a dispositive clue here.   I question whether it occurred, when it occurred, who was there, what they discussed, and so forth.   I'd like to re-read what I can and get back to you in more detail.

James McCord is not a conspirator in my view, is he in yours?   I think his role and actions conform to my general devil's advocate point I've made a lot on this thread - which is that Oswald is as far as we know until the fall of 63 merely a rather unimpressive minor tool in the anti-Castro hysteria, who no doubt sees himself playing Baccarat in Monte Carlo soon, with Pussy Galore busy tending to his private jet.   Bluntly: Oswald's an unuseful idiot until Septemberish-Octoberish when he is crystallized into lynchpin of the patsy scheme.  Really, however, I mean to challenge conventional CT wisdom more than advance my own prowess at discovering the better scenario.

thanks again,

Jason

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oh!  Now I think I get what your saying Sandy!  (Communist) Oswald, through Mexico, seeking passage through Cuba Back to the USSR might provoke an attack on either or both of them?  Wow, I'm amazed no one has thought of this before.  I've never read anything of it in newspapers or magazines or seen anything on TV.

 

Well no... that was the CIA's cover story.  What I was talking about were the inflammatory stories like Oswald being paid $6500 by someone in the Cuban embassy to kill Kennedy. And Oswald's meeting with Kostikov in the Russian embassy -- a person who the CIA painted as a KGB assassin -- and Oswald's followup letter to the Russian embassy in Washington mentioning that meeting. It's obvious that these were attempts to make it appear that Russia and Cuba were behind the assassination.

 

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well, sure.... if you ignore the evidence that Oswald was paid $6500 to assassinate Kennedy. And the Kostin/Kostikov evidence.

Not that I believe any of that evidence is real. But the fact that it was planted indicates to me that the MC tale was indeed connected to the assassination.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the $6500 rouse concocted after the assassination?   Do we have documented evidence (FBI/CIA teletypes) that the alleged $6500 payment was reported prior to 22 November?

thanks, Jason

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald crystalized for somebody before New Orleans.  He was being sheep dipped there and in Mexico City.  Who held his files on his time while in Russia?  Such files would have existed but would have been destroyed when the latter operation was complete.  In regard to this I still have hope regarding the release of the remaining files, and, the upcoming release of this:

 https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Secret-Spymaster-James-Angleton/dp/1250080614/

Hello Ron, nice to meet you and thanks for the polite point.

Sure Oswald was somebody before New Orleans - that horse is beaten so much that it is many years dead.  One humble purpose I have is to see if we can move beyond everything pre-1963 in order to hopefully illuminate a smoking gun; which in my view is mostly likely to appear in October-November 1963 evidence and not much earlier than the fall.

thanks,

Jason

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

The CIA and FBI had nothing to do with the impersonation. That was a military intelligence caper.

The CIA lost nothing by calling off Oswald's Mexico City trip. However the impersonation had to be addressed since the patsy's lone nut case was compromised.How could Oswald be a lone nut if he's impersonated in Mexico City?

I'm not necessarily disputing what you say here.

My point might be better stated in strategic terms.  For the general public un-obsessed with conspiracy; multiple Oswalds do not a patsy make.

Maybe your points are a very important link in the chain, but it's as far as I can see a very tough sell to say the events in Mexico = Oswald is the patsy.

thanks,

jason

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The purpose of Oswald's alleged MC trip was to draw a connection between Oswald the assassin, and Cuba and Russia. And the purpose for doing that was either 1) to use it as a prelude for war with Cuba or Russia; or 2) to frighten LBJ into covering up the conspiracy in order to avoid such a war, since it might lead to WW3.

I'm perplexed as to how this cannot be obvious. At least for those who are knowledgeable about the case.

My take on the MC trip is that it (just like the DAP/LHO/Veciana meeting) was employed in order to give the hired guns, anti-Castro Cubans, confidence that the agreed-upon plan was being implemented. That plan was that a Pro-Castro Cuban conspiracy, including LHO, would be blamed for the hit, and Cuba would be invaded.

Why did the invasion not happen? Because the Anti-Castro Cubans got double-crossed. The radical right and industrialist were not interested in a free Cuba, with a Mafia presence, and the US Navy decided that Guantanamo's future could best be secured by an adversarial relationship.

My double-cross theory supplants the WWIII theory. It also explains why the same crew showed up at Watergate. They wanted follow-through on the invasion. They didn't get what they wanted.

Michael,

When you say the MC trip was to "give the hired guns, anti-Castro Cubans, confidence that the agreed-upon plan was being implemented," do you mean give them confidence before the assassination, or after the assassination?

I ask because if it was to give confidence before, then there would be nothing for the Cubans to see at that time (other than perhaps Oswald leaving town). And if it was to give confidence after, then what they would see is actual war. In which case I would argue that the primary purpose of the MC trip was a prelude to war.... with perhaps a secondary purpose being to give anti-Castro Cubans confidence.

 

[Jason Ward]

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The purpose of Oswald's alleged MC trip was to draw a connection between Oswald the assassin, and Cuba and Russia. And the purpose for doing that was either 1) to use it as a prelude for war with Cuba or Russia; or 2) to frighten LBJ into covering up the conspiracy in order to avoid such a war, since it might lead to WW3.

I'm perplexed as to how this cannot be obvious. At least for those who are knowledgeable about the case.

 

The purpose of Oswald's alleged MC trip was to intensify Oswald's legend as that most rarest of birds: a radical pro-Castro Marxist.  And the purpose for doing that was either 1) to use him as prelude for war with Cuba or Russia in some Bay of Pigs 2, Castro Assassination Plot, false flag operation; or 2) to frighten LBJ into believing we are under seige by an army of Oswalds doing God knows what all across North America.

______^^^______ The documentary and testimonial evidence supports either of the two conclusions you and I have given here for the trip's purpose, among many other conclusions.   Just because Oswald is the patsy does not mean everything is in service of his patsyhood.   (btw, I don't necessarily advocate the alternative explanation for the Mexico trip I typed above, my point is to say that your conclusions are no more supported by the evidence that exists than many other explanations for the bizarre Mexico fiasco.

thanks,

jason

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

My take on the MC trip is that it (just like the DAP/LHO/Veciana meeting) was employed in order to give the hired guns, anti-Castro Cubans, confidence that the agreed-upon plan was being implemented. That plan was that a Pro-Castro Cuban conspiracy, including LHO, would be blamed for the hit, and Cuba would be invaded.

Why did the invasion not happen? Because the Anti-Castro Cubans got double-crossed. The radical right and industrialist were not interested in a free Cuba, with a Mafia presence, and the US Navy decided that Guantanamo's future could best be secured by an adversarial relationship.

My double-cross theory supplants the WWIII theory. It also explains why the same crew showed up at Watergate. They wanted follow-through on the invasion. They didn't get what they wanted.

Michael, without forcefully advocating my thoughts are better than yours or anyone else's, may I say that I think one of your points is probably monumental in importance, but your conclusion from the big point is not something with which I can agree?

Yes indeed the radical right and industrialists were not interested in a free Cuba and the whole Alpha 66 carnival; they wanted Kennedy gone for several reasons.  This point is under-recognized in CT land.  I suggest this means they don't need to spend much effort brown nosing the decidedly ragtag and clumsy Cubans.  The Batistianos have not a lot of options here so they are onboard with whatever they're told to do, because otherwise their hopes are failed.   As you say, their hopes failed anyway and they were double-crossed to some extent.   But a badly organized Mexico episode was not necessary to keep the Cubans in line nor build their trust; they have to stay in line and trust in their paymasters or give up all hopes of a return to the glorious crony-capitalist, mafia-infested pre-Castro Cuba.

thanks,
Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

It is not necessary for there to be documentary or testimonial evidence that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Again, you are avoiding the circumstantial evidence.

How do you think the CIA plotters got Oswald a job in a location where he could have shot Kennedy? Without influencing Ruth?

 

Sandy, do you want a decisive smoking gun to emerge that convinces 100% of the world as to the conspiracy and who was behind it?  Well, lets find it!

Or do you want to reside in the like-manded land of conspiracy junkies forever with no contribution to history? 

If you want the non-assassination obsessed 7 billion people on earth who have no opinion on the matter to join you in your conclusions, you're going to have to do better than the weak circumstantial evidence against the likes of Paine.

The CIA plotters did NOT get Oswald the job, nor was the TSBD job essential to the assassination, nor is Ruth in any way pivotal to proving the CIA (or whoever) were the prime movers in this story.   Ruth a conspirator or Ruth a saintly Quaker means nothing to the 7 billion who think CTs are drifting towards the lunatic fringe.

Can we concentrate on what we can prove AND sell to everyone else?   Can we find new evidence instead of demanding everyone else lower their standards and adopt circumstantial evidence as indisputable proof?

thanks,

Jason

[Jason Ward]

43 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Jason, I hate to say this, out of deference to people who worked very hard for a very long time to get an indictable case, but, those days are over. 

All kinds of things are on the table now that would not be admissible in court. The pieces have to fit and make a comprehensive believable picture, that is all. Hearsay, associations and, yes, coincidences will put that picture together. This is just my opinion, to be sure. A pay stub made out to LHO or the killers is not going to turn-up.

Furthermore, LHO didn't act alone, and there was a cover-up, and CT's, inasfar as they are like me, are not really worried about convincing committed nutters.

I respect your point.

But I disagree, while admitting my disagreement is faith-based and not fact based.

The smoking gun IS out there.

We just have to find it and quit bickering over the likes of Ruth Paine's typewriter.

thanks,

Jason

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the $6500 rouse concocted after the assassination?   Do we have documented evidence (FBI/CIA teletypes) that the alleged $6500 payment was reported prior to 22 November?

thanks, Jason

The witness to the $6500 payment, Gilberto Alverado, said it happened in late September. (When Oswald was alleged to be in MC.) This accusation surfaced on November 26. I'm sure you won't accept it as having been concocted prior to the date it surfaced.

Jason, I'm afraid that you have an unreasonable expectation with regards to evidence. I suspect that criminal convictions would drop dramatically in numbers if the courts were to adopt your standards. And I am confident in saying that the JFK assassination -- which I believe has been solved to a significant extent -- will never be solved under your standards.