Letters from Russia

[Charles Collins]

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I suggest you get your Ooops, I'm a naughty Boy together before continuing.

The request came from you, Einstein:

Let's get some of these conspiracy advocates who make these accusations about all sorts of people do so under oath.

Here's a problem for you: I'm not Ruth Paine. I can't require that any of the conspiracists who defame her testify and go under oath with their claims. I've got no standing. It's her call.

I suggested that she should do so; but I can't make her.

Again, she's gone under oath. Multiple times. Including under Garrison's grand jury, a situation where he could ask her about her role in the Lincoln assassination or the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or anything that came into his paranoid head. He found nothing. She's not afraid to go under oath. There's nothing there in the conspiracy claims against her but fantasies and falsehoods. And here you are.

[Martin Weidmann]

The same perpetrators had "decades" to destroy evidence? But you've figured it out? It's a cold case? I thought you folks solved it?

The news media - at that time and since then - investigated the assassination. The Washington Post, the NY Times, CBS. The same organizations that uncovered Watergate and the CIA and FBI abuses.

But they covered up the murder of JFK? Or the evidence was destroyed?

The perfect conspiracy. The evidence of one is that there's no evidence.

But you've figured it out? It's a cold case? I thought you folks solved it?

Have you figured it out? Or do you simply believe everything you are told?

[John Iacoletti]

When Max Good asked Ruth about the CIA, she got all shifty-eyed and defensive.

[John Iacoletti]

This is where they say June was/is CIA too.

One side says: Lee Oswald, based on evidence by multiple investigations over decades, killed JFK and Tippit.

The other side says: Oswald was innocent. He was framed. Ruth Paine and Michael Paine conspired to kill JFK. And Markham and Brennan and Calloway and Roberts and on and on....a cast of dozens if not more all lied/conspired in the framing of Oswald. Based on no investigation whatsoever.

Which side wants to seize the high ground here?

High horse is more like it.

Hypocrite. You’re perfectly happy to smear Oswald with the thinnest of justification. I would think that Ruth knows it’s not slander if it’s true.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This is remarkable, even by the standards of the internet. The same people who come here day after day and post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald, who always come to his defense like followers of a cult with the most spurious of rationales AND then remain absolutely silent when Ruth Paine and others are smeared with the charge of being traitors, of being behind the assassination of JFK are calling others hypocrites?

We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all.

Who are the phonies and frauds here again?

You can see just about anything on the internet, even the most ludicrous of things. This is one of those cases.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is remarkable, even by the standards of the internet. The same people who come here day after day and post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald, who always come to his defense like followers of a cult with the most spurious of rationales AND then remain absolutely silent when Ruth Paine and others are smeared with the charge of being traitors, of being behind the assassination of JFK are calling others hypocrites?

We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all.

Who are the phonies and frauds here again?

You can see just about anything on the internet, even the most ludicrous of things. This is one of those cases.

post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald

Wow, somebody feels superior here..... What a pathetic joke, because a truly intelligent man would listen to other points of view  instead of instantly dismissing them as "irrational and anti-intellectual". You do understand that even the biggest fool considers himself to be the smartest person in the room, don't you?

We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people.

A pathetic appeal to authority. Otherwise known as "they told me so, and I believed it". You do understand you are talking about the same parties who lied to us about Watergate, Iran-contra, Nukes in Iraq etc etc?

Again and again and again we cite this evidence.

Yes, you do... Completely mindlessly and with never understanding, or being willing to understand, that that evidence is shallow, full of speculation and extremely weak.

Who are the phonies and frauds here again?

I would argue that it is those who blindly accept what they were told with no desire to scrutinize any of it.

And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Oh poor man. When evidence is dismissed it's simply because it isn't valid, authentic or doesn't support the conclusions the Warren Commission based upon it.

You're not a heretic. A fanatic, maybe. But most certainly you are a member of the cult defending your bible, called the Warren Report. No matter how irrational it's content, you will not have it questioned.