Ruth Paine Has Passed Away

[Tom Graves]

Kind of an interesting counterpoint was provided at the Ed Forum this morning. A thread about Ruth's death appeared directly above a now-5-page thread about the passing of Sandy Larsen. The majority of the comments about Ruth are in the vein of Michael's over-the-top lunacy. With Sandy, however, even Jimbo agrees we have lost a sagacious JFKA statesman of the first magnitude. Because I like to think I have a bit more class than Michael, I will merely point out that Sandy, may he RIP, was a Harvey & Lee enthusiast who insisted he had proved - proved I tell you - that the body exhumed in 1981 was not Oswald.

And that the evil, evil CIA sent a never-identified short, blond-haired, skinny, 30-something, very-thin-faced agent to Mexico City to impersonate KGB Colonel Nikolai Leonov (whom I identified about ten years ago as "The Blond Oswald In Mexico City") so that the CIA (or at least I) could later claim that Leonov was the short, blond-haired, skinny, 30-something, very-thin-faced "Oswald" who had visited the Cuban Consulate on 27 September 1963 (and maybe even on Saturday the 28th!) in a vain attempt to get a transit visa to Cuba, and thereby incriminate Fidel Castro and/or world-class humanitarian Nikita Khrushchev for the assassination.

In other words, Larsen believed that the CIA was so evil, evil, evil that it impersonated impersonators!

Such is the caliber of the so-called "JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum."

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Kind of an interesting counterpoint was provided at the Ed Forum this morning. A thread about Ruth's death appeared directly above a now-5-page thread about the passing of Sandy Larsen. The majority of the comments about Ruth are in the vein of Michael's over-the-top lunacy. With Sandy, however, even Jimbo agrees we have lost a sagacious JFKA statesman of the first magnitude. Because I like to think I have a bit more class than Michael, I will merely point out that Sandy, may he RIP, was a Harvey & Lee enthusiast who insisted he had proved - proved I tell you - that the body exhumed in 1981 was not Oswald.

Re Mr. Larsen: When it was pointed out that Ruth Paine learned about a possible job opening at the TSBD from Linnie Mae Randle who, in turn, had heard about it from her brother Buell Frazier (who had gotten a job there several months before), Mr. Larsen simply amended his theory to include Randle and Frazier in his CIA accomplices who had set up Oswald. In fact, he said the entire TSBD was a CIA front business.

Classic textbook conspiracy thinking: If your explanation doesn't make sense, isn't correct, simply add another layer of conspiracies to straighten it out. The ancient Greek tragedists used to use a "deus ex machina" - a god (or gods) entering a story - to untangle any plot problems; conspiracists have "the CIA."

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If Frazier doesn't get the job (through an employment agency) at the TSBD then Randle doesn't know about it. She can't tell Ruth Paine about any possible opening since she learned about it through Frazier (her brother).

If Randle forgets about the job then Ruth Paine doesn't know about it. Or if Frazier is fired, quits, finds a new job, et cetera.

If Roy Truly takes the call from Ruth Paine and says there are no job openings then Oswald doesn't get the job. If Oswald isn't interested, he doesn't get the job. If he has a poor interview he doesn't get the job. If he quits, gets fired (he had a history of this), then he has no job there.

All of these factors/possibilities (and more) are uncontrollable, are beyond the capabilities of humans to control. We all recognize it.

But in conspiracy world such matters are waved away. "The CIA", the "Deep State", the "them" and "they" are capable of anything. We continue to think we can reason with people who think like this. We can't.

Tracy Parnell goes over this in greater detail here: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Assassination%20and%20Mrs.%20Paine

[Tommy Shanks]

If Frazier doesn't get the job (through an employment agency) at the TSBD then Randle doesn't know about it. She can't tell Ruth Paine about any possible opening since she learned about it through Frazier (her brother).

If Randle forgets about the job then Ruth Paine doesn't know about it. Or if Frazier is fired, quits, finds a new job, et cetera.

If Roy Truly takes the call from Ruth Paine and says there are no job openings then Oswald doesn't get the job. If Oswald isn't interested, he doesn't get the job. If he has a poor interview he doesn't get the job. If he quits, gets fired (he had a history of this), then he has no job there.

All of these factors/possibilities (and more) are uncontrollable, are beyond the capabilities of humans to control. We all recognize it.

But in conspiracy world such matters are waved away. "The CIA", the "Deep State", the "them" and "they" are capable of anything. We continue to think we can reason with people who think like this. We can't.

Tracy Parnell goes over this in greater detail here: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Assassination%20and%20Mrs.%20Paine

Excellent post, Steven. The level of ignorance on that Education Forum thread is really astounding, including the new moderator insisting that Ruth "framed Oswald for murder." As for Sandy Larsen's nonsense theories and reign of terror as a moderator, the less said, the better.

[Richard Smith]

Have any of the CTers added Ruth Paine to their list of "mysterious deaths"?  It took a long while, but the death squad apparently got to her before she could talk.   She was next on the list after Clint Hill.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Have any of the CTers added Ruth Paine to their list of "mysterious deaths"?  It took a long while, but the death squad apparently got to her before she could talk.   She was next on the list after Clint Hill.

She goes to Central America in the 1980s to protest US policies in the region. She's very critical of the CIA and support for the Contras; she works with her church group to aid the campesinos in Nicaragua; she withholds some of her "war" taxes in protest to those policies.

This (and much more) shows she is not someone who would conspire with essentially fascists in a coup of JFK.

What's the conspiracy response? That is, those conspiracists who think she helped frame Oswald? Well, she was still undercover, she was pretending to hold anti-CIA views and besides she went there to spy for "Langley." She was still an active CIA asset. So in conspiracy world the evidence that she was a liberal/leftist and not someone who would join up with neo-fascists/militarists is evidence that she actually wasn't a liberal/leftist and would join up with them. Up is down and down is up.

To put it differently: We have a film of the assassination, an autopsy was performed, there are photos and x-rays, the Connallys said they were hit with blood and brain matter from the shot (how could a back of the head blowout cause that?) and STILL they insist the wound was in the rear of JFK's head not the top/side. We are supposed to ignore this physical evidence? Yes, because evidence that it was on the top/side of the head - and not another shooter - is evidence that it was in the back and that there was another shooter.

It's hopeless trying to reason with this mindset.

[Bill Binnie]

My impression of Ms. Paine is a very poor one- It is strange but not surprising to see how benignly she is treated in the general media- I would like to know if she was ever asked how She and Marina got the rifle back from New Orleans in her car but neither of them never noticed it? And Yes, she can pretend that she didnt say to the Police at her door step on the afternoon of 11.22.63 that she was expecting them but all of the responding officers know she said it .... Amazing that every critical piece of evidence of a lone nut assassin touched Ruths hands-

[Bill Binnie]

I was hoping there would be one brave lone nutter who would take a crack...