The Assassination and Mrs. Paine

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks Steve, very helpful. I have MPG but it's been a while since I read it.

Sure. Most of these details are on/around page 139 onward.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thanks Steve. I have Mallon's book on Kindle now too and plan to use it more in my work.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

This article describes the unusual beliefs of one of Max Good's "featured" experts:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-strange.html

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This article describes the unusual beliefs of one of Max Good's "featured" experts:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-strange.html

Strange understates it. He makes Garrison seem reasonable.

So his evidence, in part, that Michael Paine - not Ruth but Michael - was involved is this:

"His [Michael's] father was George Lyman Paine, a leading Trotskyian of the West Coast. Michael Paine works for Bell Helicopter. That’s secret clearance! You don’t get that without a quid pro quo! He’s an agent! You know that immediately."

Well, try and untangle that gibberish. Let's see Paine's father was a Trotskyite and that means he, Michael was what exactly? How does that connect him to the assassination? And you don't get a security clearance without a "quid pro quo"? From who? What's the quo? What do you get? Lots of people who work on government programs get security clearances. It's required. That doesn't make them agents; and agent for who, the CIA, the Pentagon?

This is not strange, it's insane. Typical Garrisonite conspiracy thinking. But I think even Garrison had his limits.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Strange understates it. He makes Garrison seem reasonable.

So his evidence, in part, that Michael Paine - not Ruth but Michael - was involved is this:

"His [Michael's] father was George Lyman Paine, a leading Trotskyian of the West Coast. Michael Paine works for Bell Helicopter. That’s secret clearance! You don’t get that without a quid pro quo! He’s an agent! You know that immediately."

Well, try and untangle that gibberish. Let's see Paine's father was a Trotskyite and that means he, Michael was what exactly? How does that connect him to the assassination? And you don't get a security clearance without a "quid pro quo"? From who? What's the quo? What do you get? Lots of people who work on government programs get security clearances. It's required. That doesn't make them agents; and agent for who, the CIA, the Pentagon?

This is not strange, it's insane. Typical Garrisonite conspiracy thinking. But I think even Garrison had his limits.

Wasn't it JFK who said "we're in nut country now?" That's the way I felt when I read Salandria's piece. He is often held up as this amazing guy who wrote all these great articles, but I don't see it. I'm sure he was a smart and good man but that's where it ends for me.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Wasn't it JFK who said "we're in nut country now?" That's the way I felt when I read Salandria's piece. He is often held up as this amazing guy who wrote all these great articles, but I don't see it. I'm sure he was a smart and good man but that's where it ends for me.

I've also heard/read about Salandria as being one of the "wise men" of the conspiracy movement, an accomplished lawyer and serious person and not some guy in his underwear in his basement staring at photos of the assassination and seeing Howard Hunt or Lansdale or George Bush lurking in the background. Then we read these claims from him? His reasoning. It's bizarre. It's an indicator of how they've gone off the rails if he and his thinking is considered the gold standard.

To them and to Salandria, it's not about the assassination, the actual shooting; it's about the subversion of democracy, about how JFK threatened the "real rulers" of America and it was for that that he was struck down. Stone captured this thinking perfectly with his movie (of course, it's his thinking too). So they search and search for evidence that supports this view. Some CIA operation, some Cold War intrigue, some figure....anything that they jam into their explanation.

Anything here meaning roles (and not minor ones either) for Michael and Ruth Paine in the assassination. They must - they just must - fit into this somehow. But to do so we have these claims about Trotsky and security clearances and quid pro quos and Ruth's note taking and her sister and a calendar and this or that meaningless "factoid". To us it's nothing; but to a conspiracy mind it has to be evidence of something more. There are no innocent explanations. There are never innocent explanations. There can't be innocent explanations. Otherwise this house of conspiracy cards falls apart.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Good analysis Steve.