WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

[Jason Ward]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You do if you claim she wasn't. And you did claim that.

I mean, it's like if your neighbor claimed it rained last night. He didn't see it rain but he saw a little puddle of water when he went out to get the newspaper. In response you tell him it didn't rain. Don't you think you should prove your claim?

If there is no evidence for your claim, then you shouldn't claim it.

 

Sandy, I posted the evidence above.

The reasoning you're using is why the CTs are admired by only other CTs - to your mind the conspiracy exists because you and like minded conspiracists say it exists.  Telling everyone it's up to them to prove it doesn't exist is why you're arguing with me on a fringe internet forum instead of collecting the Pullitzer Prize or at least getting recognition from non-conspiratorial peer-reviewed journals.  I read essays from college freshman that understand this most basic point of advocacy - which is claims of criminality or perjury require evidence - while somehow CTs do not.

Your example is moot because in the proper analogy Ruth is my neighbor and Ruth is saying she didn't get the job at the TSBD.  Ruth's neighbor Mrs Randle is saying she (Mrs Randle) brought up the TSBD.   I am believing what they are saying.  IT IS YOU who must prove that your neighbor is lying; in your analogy I do not have to prove it rains if they say it rains.  You are the one disputing the neighbor's word, not me.

Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jason is beginning to remind me of a certain Colorado lawyer from a few months back.

I think your self worship is destructive to solving this matter and to this website.  May I kindly ask you not to participate in any discussions  I start and stick to discussing the evidence instead of me personally?  You're a legend in your own mind and my threat to your ego is obviously devastating.  Good riddance, admire yourself elsewhere.

LOL

Well I'm with Jim D. on this one. I probably wasted more time than anyone else here debating Colorado Lawyer guy. (Remember all his posts on my "Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!" thread?) What a big distraction that was.

Good luck Jason. Maybe you'll find a following here.

 

[Jason Ward]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

LOL

Well I'm with Jim D. on this one. I probably wasted more time than anyone else here debating Colorado Lawyer guy. (Remember all his posts on my "Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!" thread?) What a big distraction that was.

Good luck Jason. Maybe you'll find a following here.

 

A following is what the likes of Jim seek, not me.  It's the fact that I might somehow disturb Jim's following that causes his unprofessional rage against me personally.  At least you stick to a discussion of the assassination, so I thank you for the mostly courtesous conversation.  

Good luck Sandy.  Maybe you'll find a following here.

[Chris Newton]

2 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

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 think I understand now why I've been confused. You didn't drop in to contribute to the "discussion" but rather to try to shut it down, am I correct?

Quote

"the CTs are just spinning their wheels until they meet a very high court-room level of evidence in the court of public opinion."

When someone labels someone else, in this case, "the CTs" , ( I know what you mean but I prefer "coincidence theorist"), it's usually meant in a derogatory way. It's kind of ironic. You mention a "very high court-room level of evidence",  yet there's not even enough of that to convict anyone for either crime.

Quote

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 don't know what this means exactly but I am interested in your "strategic" plans. After you convince us to close up shop and we stop discussing Ruth Paine, are you going to take the show on the road and go around to all the other forums?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

On 8/4/2017 at 10:41 AM, Michael Clark said:

Roughly translated from this ducument using my iPad voice text function.

Yeltsin/Clinton cashe ducument regarding LHO Russian Consulate letter.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0028a.htm

 

Do we have the source of our wire-tap?

Do we have the reason why a forged letter would be generated?

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

At 16 hours 00 minutes, the U.S. Telegraph agency reported that police in Dallas, TX, had arrested a U.S. National Lee H. Oswald, 24 years old, Chairman of the local branch of the FPCC, on suspicion that he had assassinated Kennedy.

It is also reported that Oswald was in the USSR some time ago and is married to a Russian woman.

It was ascertained by checking at the consulate section of the embassy that Oswald really did spend several years in Minsk,  where he married Soviet citizens Marina P. (born 1941). In June 1962, they returned to the US. In March 1963 Marina applied to return with her daughter to the USSR for permanent residency. The KU of the Ministry of Foreign Affair of the USSR (October 7, 1963) reported that her application was rejected.

The counselor section of the embassy has the correspondence between Marina and Oswald regarding her return to Russia.The last letter from Lee Oswald was dated November 9 (the text was transmitted on the line of nearby neighbors).

 

Bringing this to Sandy's attention

 

Oh yes, I remember this post too. I went through several pages of the linked document, and then had to bookmark it because I ran out of time. By then I'd forgotten about your two questions. LOL

>  Do we have the reason why a forged letter would be generated?

It's pretty clear to me that the letter was forged to 1) make it look like Oswald was buddies with the Russians, and 2) to emphasize Oswald's meeting with KGB assassin Kostikov. Both designed to create a link between Russia and the killer of JFK.

Apparently it was somebody else who posted the (related) link to the local newspaper article. Here it is. It's nice to see that the Soviet Ambassador who saw the letter agrees with my assessment as to the purpose of the letter. In the article he is quoted as saying:

"This letter was clearly a provocation: It gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own," Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, Moscow's man in Washington for 24 years, wrote in an internal memo stamped "Highest Priority."

Of course, Jason will reject the ambassador's assessment as it is based on "circumstantial evidence with reason."

That paragraph is followed by:

Dobrynin thought the letter was a fake because it had a different tone from previous letters the Soviets had received from Oswald, who lived in the communist nation between 1959 and 1962. Also, it had been typed, not handwritten like his earlier ones, Dobrynin noted.

 

[Jason Ward]

2 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

I think I understand now why I've been confused. You didn't drop in to contribute to the "discussion" but rather to try to shut it down, am I correct?

When someone labels someone else, in this case, "the CTs" , ( I know what you mean but I prefer "coincidence theorist"), it's usually meant in a derogatory way. It's kind of ironic. You mention a "very high court-room level of evidence",  yet there's not even enough of that to convict anyone for either crime.

I don't know what this means exactly but I am interested in your "strategic" plans. After you convince us to close up shop and we stop discussing Ruth Paine, are you going to take the show on the road and go around to all the other forums?

The hostility and rank insecurities here are a disgrace.  Are you and Jim interested in answers or worshipful obedience to your opinions?   Unless someone new here genuflects in submissive awe to the opinions of the insecure among us, the worst react with not a discussion of the conspiracy, but rather an attack on the person and their motives.

Of course I don't want to shut down discussion, but unless there's new evidence on a specific point like Paine, spending 3 years saying the same thing over and over again is just a pointless battle of egos.   You have new evidence about Paine?

The strategic thinking I am suggesting is an invitation to drop the defensiveness, stop the pretense that years of conspiracy thinking confers infallibility, and most of all begin to think about how, given limited resources, we will convince the public of what we currently believe to be true.  The main effort among a few here is insulting others, which of course is the refuge of the insecure.

So, if you want to talk about the topic of when LHO transforms from low level quasi-intelligence peasant into assassination patsy, great let's get to it.  But if you want to explore my motives and criticize me personally, it's probably best we don't interact further, don't you agree?   What new evidence of Ruth do you have which hasn't been discussed ...or for that matter what angle in the conspiracy do you feel deserves more scrutiny?

 Jason 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

The reasoning you're using is why the CTs are admired by only other CTs - to your mind the conspiracy exists because you and like minded conspiracists say it exists.  Telling everyone it's up to them to prove it doesn't exist is why you're arguing with me on a fringe internet forum instead of collecting the Pullitzer Prize or at least getting recognition from non-conspiratorial peer-reviewed journals.  I read essays from college freshman that understand this most basic point of advocacy - which is claims of criminality or perjury require evidence - while somehow CTs do not.

Jim D. was right! This is precisely how Arizona Lawyer guy sounded when he discovered that his opponents were smarter than he'd thought.

 

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Your example is moot because in the proper analogy Ruth is my neighbor and Ruth is saying she didn't get the job at the TSBD.  Ruth's neighbor Mrs Randle is saying she (Mrs Randle) brought up the TSBD.   I am believing what they are saying.  IT IS YOU who must prove that your neighbor is lying; in your analogy I do not have to prove it rains if they say it rains.  You are the one disputing the neighbor's word, not me.

Jason,

You got confused reading my analogy because I used the word "neighbor." The neighbor in my analogy has nothing to do with Ruth's neighbor. I said the guy is your neighbor only so you and he could disagree on whether it rained last night. (If you lived in different neighborhoods, you wouldn't be having that disagreement. Because it's entirely possible for it to rain in one neighborhood but not the other.)

 

Your neighbor claimed it rained last night. He didn't see it rain but he saw a little puddle of water when he went out to get the newspaper. In response you tell him it didn't rain. Don't you think you should prove your claim?

If there is no evidence for your claim, then you shouldn't claim it.

 

[Jason Ward]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim D. was right! This is precisely how Arizona Lawyer guy sounded when he discovered that his opponents were smarter than he'd thought.

 

Jason,

You got confused reading my analogy because I used the word "neighbor." The neighbor in my analogy has nothing to do with Ruth's neighbor. I said the guy is your neighbor only so you and he could disagree on whether it rained last night. (If you lived in different neighborhoods, you wouldn't be having that disagreement. Because it's entirely possible for it to rain in one neighborhood but not the other.)

 

Your neighbor claimed it rained last night. He didn't see it rain but he saw a little puddle of water when he went out to get the newspaper. In response you tell him it didn't rain. Don't you think you should prove your claim?

If there is no evidence for your claim, then you shouldn't claim it.

 

 I've posted my evidence several times but you continue to ignore the assassination case and drift off into discussions about me personally . I've presented the twice given testimony of Randall (and I hope I don't have to invoke the testimony of Ruth herself for you to admit it exists . )

 Where is the documentary or testimonial evidence of your claim that Ruth is guilty of perjury and/or a part of the conspiracy ?    All I've seen is conjecture.

[Jason Ward]

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course, Jason will reject the ambassador's assessment as it is based on "circumstantial evidence with reason."

 

No.

Citing a source like the ambassador is exactly the level of evidence it will take to move this out of CT land and into a coherent narrative that doesn't sound like the tinfoil hat brigade.

Citing yourself and your own alleged powers of deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is at best circumstantial.   Paine and Randall are telling the truth until you show with documented evidence they are lying.   You're citing the ambassador in this example and I perfectly agree that this has high evidentiary value, whether I agree with what he's saying or not is irrelevant to his value in evidence.

 

Jason

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

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.

Jason,

In this thread I keep stating that circumstantial evidence can be used to draw conclusions. You rejected that. Twice I posted a link to a Wikipedia article that states that circumstantial evidence is used in courts. And you still rejected what I'd said.

Now here you are saying the we CTers should be meeting "a very high court-room level of evidence." So are you saying that we CTers should be using a "higher level" of evidence than what is used in every court room in America? Because circumstantial evidence is used in all of them.

In this Justia article on circumstantial vs. direct evidence, the following is written:
 

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined

Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may conclude the truth of the fact in question. For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.

BTW, it's just a coincidence that the example in this article is about rain. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

24 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

You got confused reading my analogy because I used the word "neighbor." The neighbor in my analogy has nothing to do with Ruth's neighbor. I said the guy is your neighbor only so you and he could disagree on whether it rained last night. (If you lived in different neighborhoods, you wouldn't be having that disagreement. Because it's entirely possible for it to rain in one neighborhood but not the other.)

 

Your neighbor claimed it rained last night. He didn't see it rain but he saw a little puddle of water when he went out to get the newspaper. In response you tell him it didn't rain. Don't you think you should prove your claim?

If there is no evidence for your claim, then you shouldn't claim it.

 

 I've posted my evidence several times but you continue to ignore the assassination case and drift off into discussions about me personally . I've presented the twice given testimony of Randall (and I hope I don't have to invoke the testimony of Ruth herself for you to admit it exists . )

 Where is the documentary or testimonial evidence of your claim that Ruth is guilty of perjury and/or a part of the conspiracy ?    All I've seen is conjecture.

 

Jason,

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Jason Ward]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

In this thread I keep stating that circumstantial evidence can be used to draw conclusions. You rejected that. Twice I posted a link to a Wikipedia article that states that circumstantial evidence is used in courts. And you still rejected what I'd said.

Now here you are saying the we CTers should be meeting "a very high court-room level of evidence." So are you saying that we CTers should be using a "higher level" of evidence than what is used in every court room in America? Because circumstantial evidence is used in all of them.

In this Justia article on circumstantial vs. direct evidence, the following is written:
 

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined

Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may conclude the truth of the fact in question. For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.

BTW, it's just a coincidence that the example in this article is about rain. 

 

Fine, Sandy, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I am a Wikipedia editor, btw, and as it is publicly edited by the likes of me, it is not authoritative.  Try the Federal Rules of Evidence if you want to set a standard for yourself that will convince everyone. Justia is ok, not great.  It seems that what it takes to convince others is not part of your purpose, while on the other hand I suggest not much you say is valuable 54 years later unless it's new and convincing to the general public.  I invite us both to get back on the thread topic - whatever Ruth's motivations, they are insignificant to the big answer.  You could convince me that Ruth is the biggest CIA agent of all time and not one worthwhile goal is accomplished, the general public already believes there was probably a conspiracy.

 

 

Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course, Jason will reject the ambassador's assessment as it is based on "circumstantial evidence with reason."

No.

Citing a source like the ambassador is exactly the level of evidence it will take to move this out of CT land and into a coherent narrative that doesn't sound like the tinfoil hat brigade.

Citing yourself and your own alleged powers of deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is at best circumstantial.   Paine and Randall are telling the truth until you show with documented evidence they are lying.   You're citing the ambassador in this example and I perfectly agree that this has high evidentiary value, whether I agree with what he's saying or not is irrelevant to his value in evidence.

Jason,

Think about it.

The 1963 Soviet Ambassador to Washington D.C. read the letter Oswald (allegedly) typed and sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington.

I did the very same thing.

We both made the very same conclusion as to the authenticity and purpose of the letter.

So, so far there is no difference between my and the Ambassador's experience.

Now, you reject my assessment because it uses circumstantial evidence. Yet you accept the ambassador's  assessment -- even though it uses the very same circumstantial evidence -- because I cited him.

Just because I cited him?

Okay, well what if the ambassador read one of my posts on this topic and he cited me? Would you then accept my assessment?

Remember, both assessment were made using the very same circumstantial evidence.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

In this thread I keep stating that circumstantial evidence can be used to draw conclusions. You rejected that. Twice I posted a link to a Wikipedia article that states that circumstantial evidence is used in courts. And you still rejected what I'd said.

Now here you are saying the we CTers should be meeting "a very high court-room level of evidence." So are you saying that we CTers should be using a "higher level" of evidence than what is used in every court room in America? Because circumstantial evidence is used in all of them.

In this Justia article on circumstantial vs. direct evidence, the following is written:
 

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined

Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may conclude the truth of the fact in question. For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.

 

Fine, Sandy, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I am a Wikipedia editor, btw, and as it is publicly edited by the likes of me, it is not authoritative.

You mean you honestly believe that circumstantial evidence is never, or rarely, or only to a small extent used in court cases?

I'm a Wikipedia editor too and I know it's written and edited by the public. I quoted it because it's convenient and it's usually right. If you wanted to check its accuracy regarding what it ways about circumstantial evidence, all you'd have to do is look around a little.

I just did that and found pretty much the same information on the official New York State court system website, www.nycourts.gov. In this article:

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

The article cites the following source for that paragraph:

See People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 31-32 (1974); People v
Cleague, 22 N.Y.2d 363, 367 (1968).

(Surprisingly, this article also has an analogy regarding whether it rained or not!)

So are you finally going to agree with me regarding the use of circumstantial evidence in court rooms?

I have a Hypothesis: The reason Jason is getting a chilly reception has very little to do with CTers having big egos, trying to keep followers with worshipful obedience, blah, blah, blah... and more to do with Jason putting CTers and their scholarship down. (And in my case, not conceding where concession is due. But I'll get over it.)

 

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

Think about it.

The 1963 Soviet Ambassador to Washington D.C. read the letter Oswald (allegedly) typed and sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington.

I did the very same thing.

We both made the very same conclusion as to the authenticity and purpose of the letter.

So, so far there is no difference between my and the Ambassador's experience.

Now, you reject my assessment because it uses circumstantial evidence. Yet you accept the ambassador's  assessment -- even though it uses the very same circumstantial evidence -- because I cited him.

Just because I cited him?

Okay, well what if the ambassador read one of my posts on this topic and he cited me? Would you then accept my assessment?

Remember, both assessment were made using the very same circumstantial evidence.

 

 Yes, Sandy you have come very close to precisely my point. 

 The ambassador is an example of a witness who might be called in any trial related to the assassination .  He can testify to certain facts in dispute -and- he's a credible expert on the matter in question so it's very likely he can also advance his opinions with high gravitas.

You, however, are not a witness.   Your only source of information about the assassination is what others have told you; hopefully you look mainly to primary sources like witnesses, but also you look at a lot of theorists, authors, etc.   The most persuasive argument comes only from the mouth of a witness, not from those who are repackaging and inserting their own analysis as a totally unrelated third-party observer - like yourself.

You get Richard Helms out of the grave to testify that Ruth Payne is CIA and you've got a witness who is dispositive in both a court of law and the court of public opinion.   OTOH, when your circumstantial evidence has to be compiled by non-witness conspiracy theorists like yourself , you've got what perhaps goes into a conspiracy book - it really does nothing new to bring the assassination into persuasive clarity in the mind of the general public. The ambassador is qualified to testify and share his opinion, you are not ( in terms of most persuasive.)

We have no disagreement that circumstantial evidence is valuable both within and without the court of law.  When I say that a very high courtroom approved standard standard of evidence is now required all these years later, I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence is ruled out. I'm saying that in a court of law you would never be able to get in your testimony as to your circumstantial evidence in the Payne question because no witness is going to testify to it.   Only the likes of you can present the packaged circumstantial evidence case, and you're not a witness.   A valid witness has no interest in whether there's a conspiracy or not and is in fact a first hand observer of the events in question . 

 We're 50+ years on and in my view the progress between today and the likes of Mark Lane and Joachim Joesteen in '64 is not very impressive.  They had most of the solution right a few months after the assassination . Today we've got a galaxy of evidence at our disposal, yet we've offered no compelling solution nor highlighted any compelling evidence to end he case once and for all.   Lots of suggestive details are in place, but there is no big answer.   Obviously you would choose to pursue evidence that requires conspiracy theories to explain. I will choose to pursue evidence that is self-explanatory and would hold up in a court of law . Perhaps neither approach is right or wrong.

 

kind regards,

Jason

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward