Ruth Paine remembers the Assassination

[Jack Trojan]

Poor woman. The only thing she's "guilty" of is being a mushy headed leftist.

She also blatantly lied about how many back yard photos she took. Someone needs to ask her if any G-men came around snapping photos of Lee posing with the murder weapons and holding up commie lit. (BAAA!)

When Roscoe White developed the photos of Oswald taken with the Imperial Reflex camera, he noticed that none of the headlines could be made out on the commie lit. So he sent his boys back to take the money shot, CE-133A probably with Lee's Minox spy camera. The lenses on each camera have very different spherical aberration, which is evident in the following graphic:



CE-133A & CE-133B,C,D,E,F,G,... were shot with different lenses (cameras). Did that slip Marina's mind?

[John Iacoletti]

CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

How could you possibly know that for a fact?

[Jack Trojan]

Bad shot. Slightly blurred all over. No one in his right mind believes the Roscoe White story.

Are you commenting as a qualified photo analyst? Didn't think so.

Roscoe White was an expert in the darkroom. He joined the DPD Oct 7, 1963, where he was employed in the photo section of the Crime Lab. It was the HSCA that claimed a previously undocumented back yard photo of Oswald was found with Roscoe's widow. She told them Roscoe said it would be very valuable some day. So why wasn't this photo (CE-133c) not admitted into evidence with the rest of them? And what happened to all the negatives? The HSCA only recovered 1 negative of the BYPs, CE-749. And why did the DPD do a re-enactment of CE-133c and then make a cutout of it?



There is no good reason to be doing re-enactments and creating darkroom cutouts of photos that were never admitted into evidence. Explain that one if you are in your right mind.

You think that would make a superior negative? CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

LOL. Superior negative? Last of the shots? Held the camera steadier? Don't embarrass yourself.

LOL! How do you expect anything to match if you don't have parts of Oswald's body that are the same distance to the camera in the two photos compared? In fact, there may not even be parts of his body the same distance to the camera in any two of the photos. The backgrounds aren't necessarily the same distance to the camera in the shots.

Since Oswald was standing within a step or 2 of the same spot in both photos, and his image size on the prints was the same on both negatives, the camera was the same distance from Oswald in both shots. Besides, do you even know how that would distort Oswald's image w.r.t. distances from the camera between CE-133a & c, or do you want me to tell you?

Camera tilt is doing a number on the perspective which in turn distorts proportions of common elements in each picture. Using a tripod or fixed camera position is the most-reliable way to get consistent shots.

You can easily measure the camera tilt from the prints, which puts Oswald's head a few degrees higher in the frame for CE-133c. This slight tilt would be negligent if you were comparing 2 photos shot with the same lens. Instead, the superior quality of the lens that took the "in focus" money shot (CE-133a) was evident compared to all the rest. As a matter of fact the spherical aberration for CE-133b,c,d,etc. all match up to each other perfectly even though there were some tilt differences between them. Check and mate.

Same lens. Differing camera angles and subject positions/posture, and even slightly-differing camera positions.

As if you would know. LOL.

ps. I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion with you about this stuff if you'd take that chip off your shoulder and stop attacking everything I post merely because you are a LNer and you consider me the enemy.

[Jerry Freeman]

  CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

I must have asked umpty-seven times...If that was a legitimate roll of film--What ever happened to the rest of it?

[Bill Chapman]

Bad shot. Slightly blurred all over. No one in his right mind believes the Roscoe White story.

You think that would make a superior negative? CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

LOL! How do you expect anything to match if you don't have parts of Oswald's body that are the same distance to the camera in the two photos compared? In fact, there may not even be parts of his body the same distance to the camera in any two of the photos. The backgrounds aren't necessarily the same distance to the camera in the shots.

Camera tilt is doing a number on the perspective which in turn distorts proportions of common elements in each picture. Using a tripod or fixed camera position is the most-reliable way to get consistent shots.

Same lens. Differing camera angles and subject positions/posture, and even slightly-differing camera positions.

I remember something about somebody (George deM?) showing Marina the proper way to hold the camera at some point. And somebody said the guy that did the cutout had nothing to do at some point and was just screwing around.

And this should inform serious onlookers:

[Richard Smith]

One thing for certain is that Paine was one of Oswald's handlers. So anything she did/said must be looked at with that in mind. As far as Oswald's poverty level was concerned, that's what the "False Defector" program was all about. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent selected to be the pasty in the Big Event for Plan B just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for Plan A. Since Oswald was officially off the grid the CIA could disavow him.

You guys must think the CIA were a bunch of amateurs that couldn't pull off a coup. But that was their biz and they were pretty good at it up until the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco, which got Dulles fired and JFK declared war on them. We all know who prevailed.

Oswald was extracted from the fake defector program to be the patsy, otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald gets a job at the TSBD 3 weeks before Nov 22rd and the motorcade route gets re-routed down Elm, plus a thousand other "coincidences" that made the Big Event viable. It is much easier to accept the truth that this was a coup d'etat and Oswald was the patsy than he was a LNer with the luck of the Irish.

Instead of wasting your time on an Internet forum why don't you present your proof of Paine's involvement in the assassination to the authorities or make a Gomer Pyle-like citizen's arrest when she makes one of these appearance?  Surely you believe your own nonsense and aren't just spinning come compulsion driven conspiracy nonsense to pass the time.  Get back to us with the results.

[Richard Smith]

It was an opportunity that fell into his lap. And his plan of the surprise ambush was a good one.

Yes, many CTers suggest there must be some tidy, rational motive for a guy to take his rifle to work and assassinate the President.  As though that is the act of a normal person which must be explained with absolute certainty that we can all agree upon.  Oswald was clearly an angry malcontent.  That is the leitmotif of his entire life.  He hated authority and blamed society for his unhappiness.  He wanted to make his mark like many angry people with an act of violence.  He likely had no particular personal grievance against JFK.  As the President, JFK was a representative of American society who became a target of opportunity for a disgruntled nut who had already decided he was willing to sacrifice his own life to commit an act of violence. Oswald must have felt like he had won a golden ticket when he learned that JFK would be passing the TSBD in an open car.  Everything fell in place for him after that.  A happy guy to go out in a blaze of glory.  The fact that we are still discussing him 50 plus years later is a sign that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  Ironically it is the CTers that are trying to rob him of his one successful act in life.