A very recent, well done, video interview by Jeff Meek:
https://www.swtimes.com/news/20191204/ruth-paine-remembers-jfk-assassination
Paine: "I think it was a spur of the moment thing for him. That he could do this. I don’t think he was shooting at Kennedy. He was shooting at the Presidency."
That was Bugliosi's theory too: i.e., that Oswald was shooting at what JFK represented - that is, the head of the political and economic systems that he repeatedly said he hated - and not specifically at JFK.
It is odd that we have very little about what Oswald thought about JFK. De Mohrenschildt said that Oswald expressed admiration for JFK, especially his civil rights proposals. Marina said that she believed that Oswald liked JFK too. But she later testified that she wasn't sure and that she made that judgment because he would read favorable stories about JFK to her. I'll just add parenthetically: if Marina (and or DeMohrenschildt) was coached or coerced into giving damning information about Oswald then why didn't "they" tell her/him to say he hated JFK?
Again, however, we have Oswald's repeated denunciations of America, of its political and economic structure. So what would he "like" the leader of the systems he detested? Plus: Cuba. Oswald admired Castro, he wanted to defect there. Sure, after the problems with the Cubans in Mexico City obtaining a visa he seemed to sour on Cuba. But why turn on Castro?
In any case, I think Oswald was aware of the cover war on Cuba, perhaps even about the assassination plots against Castro. And that played a role - large or small - in his decision. He may have been driven in part by a desire for fame or for attacking the Presidency and not the President but I don't think we can take JFK the man out of his motivations.
Paine: "I think it was a spur of the moment thing for him. That he could do this. I don’t think he was shooting at Kennedy. He was shooting at the Presidency."
That was Bugliosi's theory too: i.e., that Oswald was shooting at what JFK represented - that is, the head of the political and economic systems that he repeatedly said he hated - and not specifically at JFK.
It is odd that we have very little about what Oswald thought about JFK. De Mohrenschildt said that Oswald expressed admiration for JFK, especially his civil rights proposals. Marina said that she believed that Oswald liked JFK too. But she later testified that she wasn't sure and that she made that judgment because he would read favorable stories about JFK to her. I'll just add parenthetically: if Marina (and or DeMohrenschildt) was coached or coerced into giving damning information about Oswald then why didn't "they" tell her/him to say he hated JFK?
Again, however, we have Oswald's repeated denunciations of America, of its political and economic structure. So what would he "like" the leader of the systems he detested? Plus: Cuba. Oswald admired Castro, he wanted to defect there. Sure, after the problems with the Cubans in Mexico City obtaining a visa he seemed to sour on Cuba. But why turn on Castro?
In any case, I think Oswald was aware of the cover war on Cuba, perhaps even about the assassination plots against Castro. And that played a role - large or small - in his decision. He may have been driven in part by a desire for fame or for attacking the Presidency and not the President but I don't think we can take JFK the man out of his motivations.
JFK was the ultimate 'somebody'
Oswald was the ultimate 'nobody'
'Spur of the moment'
>>> Cool
Good observations, thanks. I think also that Marina was showing signs of being more independent of LHO and that that was a factor in his actions. Ruth Paine said that Marina had told Lee that they wouldn't come pick him up when he arrived in Dallas from Mexico City. And that Lee had subsequently hitchhiked to her house Irving. Ruth also said that Marina had told Lee not to come out to her house the weekend following the long holiday weekend because Marina felt that Lee was overstaying his welcome there. And, I don't think Ruth mentioned it in this interview, but Marina had refused to agree to move back in with Lee when Lee had asked on the evening of 1121/63.Marina told the HSCA that their plans were to move into a new apartment in another "week or two". And that she didn't agree to move in that weekend but that they would get back together later. So I think the explanation that the reason he left almost all of his money and his wedding ring was because they were splitting up is incorrect.
Marina told the HSCA that their plans were to move into a new apartment in another "week or two". And that she didn't agree to move in that weekend but that they would get back together later. So I think the explanation that the reason he left almost all of his money and his wedding ring was because they were splitting up is incorrect.
From her testimony:
Marina: "We were separated not for the reasons of having a divorce or something like that, it twas because of the financial difficulties and there was only one way we could manage to save some money, if we lived apart. He wanted to come back; we were planning to get together as soon as possible, so he did mention the apartment [the day before the assassination]."
And this:
Q.: Do you remember this particular discussion the day before the assassination about him renting an apartment in Dallas?
Marina: I think so.
Q.: Do you recall if he said when in particular he would rent this apartment?
M: The location, no.
Q. Not the location but when he would rent it?
M: In the very near future, maybe a week or two.
So from this account she said she had not agreed to move back with him that weekend but that she would later, in another week or two.
Y'know, for a CIA agent Oswald sure didn't have much money. I guess having no car, no house, no phone and not much of anything else was his cover. Because in conspiracy world everything indicates a conspiracy.
So from this account she said she had not agreed to move back with him that weekend but that she would later, in another week or two.
JFK was the ultimate 'somebody'
Oswald was the ultimate 'nobody'
'Spur of the moment'
>>> Cool
Well, there you have it then. LHO the innocent must have been out looking for apartment-for-rent signs when he encountered Tippit. And he left almost all his money with Marina because he didn't want to be tempted to put any money down on an apartment until he had a chance to discuss it with Marina. He was just that kind of guy... right? ;)Hah, don't be surprised if that isn't suggested by one of the Oswald defenders. More than one.
Marina told the HSCA that their plans were to move into a new apartment in another "week or two". And that she didn't agree to move in that weekend but that they would get back together later. So I think the explanation that the reason he left almost all of his money and his wedding ring was because they were splitting up is incorrect.
From her testimony:
Marina: "We were separated not for the reasons of having a divorce or something like that, it twas because of the financial difficulties and there was only one way we could manage to save some money, if we lived apart. He wanted to come back; we were planning to get together as soon as possible, so he did mention the apartment [the day before the assassination]."
And this:
Q.: Do you remember this particular discussion the day before the assassination about him renting an apartment in Dallas?
Marina: I think so.
Q.: Do you recall if he said when in particular he would rent this apartment?
M: The location, no.
Q. Not the location but when he would rent it?
M: In the very near future, maybe a week or two.
So from this account she said she had not agreed to move back with him that weekend but that she would later, in another week or two.
Y'know, for a CIA agent Oswald sure didn't have much money. I guess having no car, no house, no phone and not much of anything else was his cover. Because in conspiracy world everything indicates a conspiracy.
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 that patsy than he was a LNer with the luck of the Irish.
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.
Yeah, all the “suspicious behavior” like playing the guitar for her kids when putting them to bed on the eve of the “big event.” And taking her daughter to the dentist on the morning of the “big event.” It’s “so obvious” that she takes the responsibility of her “handling” of LHO very seriously...
Hah, don't be surprised if that isn't suggested by one of the Oswald defenders. More than one.
And he had his revolver and extra bullets because the apartment he was looking into was in a dangerous part of town.
Look, Oswald shot JFK. Maybe he was manipulated, maybe he was used, maybe he had some help (or thought he was going to get some). But the evidence is powerful for me that he shot JFK. And any alternate explanation of what happened that day simply don't make sense. Put that together and one has to start with Oswald shooting JFK: then argue/suggest a conspiracy from there. Otherwise one is just falling for "the wish is the father of the idea." That is: You want to believe in a conspiracy.
Yeah, all the “suspicious behavior” like playing the guitar for her kids when putting them to bed on the eve of the “big event.”
Is that in this interview? I haven’t watched it yet. I don’t recall her ever mentioning that before.
Yes it is. It takes place at her old house that has been renovated to look like it did in 1963 and turned into a museum of sorts. Definitely worth a look.
The Paine House museum is definitely worth a visit if you’re ever in the Dallas area.
I made a couple of videos when I was there a few years ago.
A Quaker pacifist housewife with three (or was it two?) small children is a CIA handler for operatives operating out of Ft. Worth, Texas.
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.
Yeah, all the “suspicious behavior” like playing the guitar for her kids when putting them to bed on the eve of the “big event.” And taking her daughter to the dentist on the morning of the “big event.” It’s “so obvious” that she takes the responsibility of her “handling” of LHO very seriously...
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:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
CE-133A & CE-133B,C,D,E,F,G,... were shot with different lenses (cameras). Did that slip Marina's mind?
CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.
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.
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?
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.
LOL. Superior negative?
Last of the shots? Held the camera steadier? Don't embarrass yourself.
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?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1021x1500.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) 133-C (from print; negative cropped; has greatest amount of background) | (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-1065x1084.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) 133-B (from negative, uncropped; has slightly-less background than 133-C) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133a-2425x2400.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) 133-A (print, with negative frame edge markings; has least amount of background) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Richard and Bill,
If, as I suspect, all-around loser and self-proclaimed Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald, disgusted as he was with life in America as well as in the USSR, assassinated President Kennedy on November 1963 in order to "accelerate The Dialectic" (and bring down both systems), I wonder if he could have envisioned that a mobbed-up, multi-billionaire, former KGB officer would be a de facto dictator of Russia today, and that his (Putin's) number one "useful idiot," Donald Trump, would be the nominal president of The United States?
Ironically, what Oswald did gave rise to oodles and gobs of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, some of it Kremlin-promulgated, that paved the way for the likes of far-left (Oliver Stone, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio) and far-right conspiracy-spewing ideologues (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones), and, as a result of their "works," the advent of Donald J. Trump as our president.
-- MWT ;)
I don't believe Oswald gave much thought to the consequences of his actions. He was just an angry guy who was going to shake the tree and see what happened. He only had a few days to plan and this opportunity was purely one of chance. That's about all he could do given his limited means. And he succeeded in changing society in a fundamental way. Imagine an American president being able to drive through a city in an open car on a preannounced route. That was routine before Nov. 22, 1963. Now it is unimaginable. Oswald was the guy who showed the way to every angry nut who was willing to die for some grievance and wanted to make their mark. A perfect storm with the media coverage which gives ideas to other such nuts. And on and on until today.About 10 days before the assassination Oswald goes to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the FBI agent, James Hosty, about his (Hosty's) questioning of Marina. That's not an act of someone who is planning to murder the president. That's drawing attention to yourself, raising a red flag.
Richard and Bill,You have dozens of post here positing this bizarre (to me) theory that the KGB/DGI and Khrushchev or Castro directed Oswald to kill JFK. And then you (correctly) complain about rampant conspiracy thinking going around?
If, as I suspect, all-around loser and self-proclaimed Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald, disgusted as he was with life in America as well as in the USSR, assassinated President Kennedy on November 1963 in order to "accelerate The Dialectic" (and bring down both systems), I wonder if he could have envisioned that a mobbed-up, multi-billionaire, former KGB officer would be a de facto dictator of Russia today, and that his (Putin's) number one "useful idiot," Donald Trump, would be the nominal president of The United States?
Ironically, what Oswald did gave rise to oodles and gobs of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, some of it Kremlin-promulgated, that paved the way for the likes of far-left (Oliver Stone, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio) and far-right conspiracy-spewing ideologues (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones), and, as a result of their "works," the advent of Donald J. Trump as our president.
-- MWT ;)
About 10 days before the assassination Oswald goes to the FBI headquarters in Dallas to confront the FBI agent, James Hosty, about his (Hosty's) questioning of Marina. That's not an act of someone who is planning to murder the president. That's drawing attention to yourself, raising a red flag.
Granted the FBI, Hosty specifically, dropped the ball. But Oswald wouldn't know how the FBI would act. In fact when he was in Mexico City he complained that the "notorious FBI" was after him.
Then he gets his rifle the day before the assassination. He doesn't get it earlier to practice with it, to check on its accuracy and reliability. He has four bullets. He needs ariferide from a co-worker. He has to hope that he can be alone at the time JFK passes by. He has to hope on....well it's not a small list.
He got tragically lucky. He had almost no resources, no planning, no escape. It was essentially suicide.
Yes, he wouldn't have even known JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass his building until Monday or Tuesday before the assassination. He also made a request to hold up his tax form when he was hired at the TSBD so he could add another dependent when his child was born. Saving himself a few bucks. Not something a guy who knew he would be killing the president in a few weeks would have concerned himself with. There is no escaping from assassinating the president. Oswald knew that which is why he left most of his money and wedding ring at home that morning. This is where CTers ask why Oswald would have made a run for it if he knew his situation was hopeless. As though criminals simply sit down and give themselves up even if there is no hope of escape. Oswald just played his hand out like any number of criminals have done throughout history. He had nothing to lose by giving it a try. With a little luck (i.e. not encountering Tippit) he might have got out of Dallas and even to Mexico before the authorities caught up to him. Like James Earl Ray did.
Yeah, Oswald seemed an unlikely candidate to voluntarily give himself up
You have dozens of post here positing this bizarre (to me) theory that the KGB/DGI and Khrushchev or Castro directed Oswald to kill JFK. And then you (correctly) complain about rampant conspiracy thinking going around?
Frankly, your views on the assassination are really not much different than those of Oliver Stone and DiEugenio and Simpich. They just believe that the CIA was behind it all and you think the KGB or DGI was.
Then, to top it off, you've suggested that people here who disagree with you may be Putin's assets? Really?
As Richard pointed out above, Oswald probably didn't give much thought to his act. He retrieves his rifle the day before the assassination, he has zero practice with it, doesn't check it for accuracy and reliability. He has four bullets. He has to get a ride from a co-worker. He has to hope that he'll be alone at the time JFK passes by.
This is not the act of a well-trained assassin who prepares for the act on orders of Khrushchev. This is a desperate, angry man who got tragically lucky.
The real perpetrator of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing hid out in the wilderness, surviving on acorns, bugs, etc. for five years after he had been identified and became a fugitive.
I don't think Oswald would have had the fortitude to last long eating acorns and bugs. He doesn't strike me as that type. From what we do know about him and his actions, he appears to have understood that his chances of pulling this off and getting away were slim to none. He wasn't delusional on that point. As evidenced by leaving most of his money and wedding ring with Marina. So arrest or death was part of his calculation in deciding to commit the act. That doesn't mean he was going to sit down and give up. He played out his hand. At first just trying to move away from a known location after obtaining his pistol. What he would have done had he not encountered Tippit has to be speculation but we know his objective over the previous months was to gain entry to Cuba. And that, however unrealistic, was his best and perhaps only hope after assassinating the president. Castro gave asylum to hijackers and murders from the US including a guy who killed a police officer. So as fantastic as it might sound it was Oswald's only real hope and consistent with his objectives prior to the assassination. He knew the drill about going to Mexico from his recent trip. Maybe in his demented mind if he could get to Mexico City and the Cuban embassy, he might be given asylum by Castro as some type of revolutionary hero. A fantasy Oswald was cultivating for himself with the BY photos and attempt on Walker.
You have dozens of post here positing this bizarre (to me) theory that the KGB/DGI and Khrushchev or Castro directed Oswald to kill JFK. And then you (correctly) complain about rampant conspiracy thinking going around?
Frankly, your views on the assassination are really not much different than those of Oliver Stone and DiEugenio and Simpich. They just believe that the CIA was behind it all and you think the KGB or DGI was.
Then, to top it off, you've suggested that people here who disagree with you may be Putin's assets? Really?
As Richard pointed out above, Oswald probably didn't give much thought to his act. He retrieves his rifle the day before the assassination, he has zero practice with it, doesn't check it for accuracy and reliability. He has four bullets. He has to get a ride from a co-worker. He has to hope that he'll be alone at the time JFK passes by.
This is not the act of a well-trained assassin who prepares for the act on orders of Khrushchev. This is a desperate, angry man who got tragically lucky.
Galbraith,
Given the fact that we are now saddled with a pro-"KGB" / anti-CIA president (soon to be dictator-for-life?), whom would you say, in hindsight, benefited more from the assassination of JFK (by an avowed Marxist, no less)?
1) The evil, evil, evil CIA, whose anti-KGB counterintelligence capabilities were destroyed by the combined efforts of Yuri "KGB Had Nothing To Do With Oswald In The USSR" Nosenko, Aleksei "I Duped Hoover For Fifteen Years" Kulak, Dimitri "I Tag-Teamed With Kulak" Polyakov, Boris "KGB Determined The Evil, Evil, Evil MIICC Did It" Orehkov, et al., and useful American idiots (or worse) Kovich, McCoy, Hart, Solie, Colby, et al., ... or ...
2) The humanitarian organization (and Putin's former employer) best known and remembered as the "KGB" (oh-so-innocuously split into the "SVR" and the "FSB" because, "Hey, you gullible Americans, The Cold War Is Over!") ?
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
PS. Don't run away now, like you usually do.
PPS There are oodles and gobs of wishful-thinking Americans who are unwitting (by definition) "useful idiots" of KGB-boy Vladimir Putin.
As I recall, 63 million of then voted for Trump in 2016.
So don't take it so personally, Steve M.
It can happen to any ignorant and/or gullible person.
You have dozens of post here positing this bizarre (to me) theory that the KGB/DGI and Khrushchev or Castro directed Oswald to kill JFK. And then you (correctly) complain about rampant conspiracy thinking going around?
Frankly, your views on the assassination are really not much different than those of Oliver Stone and DiEugenio and Simpich. They just believe that the CIA was behind it all and you think the KGB or DGI was.
Then, to top it off, you've suggested that people here who disagree with you may be Putin's assets? Really?
As Richard pointed out above, Oswald probably didn't give much thought to his act. He retrieves his rifle the day before the assassination, he has zero practice with it, doesn't check it for accuracy and reliability. He has four bullets. He has to get a ride from a co-worker. He has to hope that he'll be alone at the time JFK passes by.
This is not the act of a well-trained assassin who prepares for the act on orders of Khrushchev. This is a desperate, angry man who got tragically lucky.
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.
It's quite an obsession you have there, Thomas. Low-resolution images; and again with the adolescent sex references..
:D You are such a troll. I'm just here challenging all your LNer bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns because you know jack squat about how to process evidence, which is obvious. You have always been a shill for the conspirators, and I'm sure they thank you bigly for your patronage. But you can ease up now that 99% of them are dead, with the exception of Barr and a few other secondary players. IOWs, give it up, you've lost the war. Try not to think about the decades wasted shilling for nonsense. Maybe you should take a deep breath, reset, and start over. ;D
Try to focus. It's impossible to follow your ramblings here. So you won't be submitting your "evidence" of Paine's involvement in the assassination to the authorities or making a citizen's arrest? I can only infer from that you don't believe your own nonsense but are just in the midst of some type of delusion.He not only thinks the "conspirators" are still around (Paine and?) but that they also thank you "bigly for your patronage".
He not only thinks the "conspirators" are still around (Paine and?) but that they also thank you "bigly for your patronage".
To top this lunacy off, he thinks they - who are still alive, remember - care what people write on this forum. I guess they hold meetings and then they tell you, "Hey, Richard, this guy Trojan is on our case. Go stop him now!"
So, I guess Ruth will be sending you an extra gift card this year for Christmas as thanks for all your work defending her evil work.
He not only thinks the "conspirators" are still around (Paine and?) but that they also thank you "bigly for your patronage".
To top this lunacy off, he thinks they - who are still alive, remember - care what people write on this forum. I guess they hold meetings and then they tell you, "Hey, Richard, this guy Trojan is on our case. Go stop him now!"
So, I guess Ruth will be sending you an extra gift card this year for Christmas as thanks for all your work defending her evil work.
Psst..the lunacy here is sticking with the fringe LN hypothesis when the consensus by the HSCA and most of the general public think this was likely a conspiracy. And if this was a conspiracy then LHO was not a lone nut. If LHO was not a lone nut then he was a patsy. If he was a patsy then he had handlers. If he had handlers then Paine was one of them.
And yes, the conspirators have thanked you LNer suckers bigly for your patronage over the many decades. Not exclusively on this forum but for all the good shilling you've done in print and media to keep the LNer ghost alive. Congrats!
Psst..the lunacy here is sticking with the fringe LN hypothesis when the consensus by the HSCA and most of the general public think this was likely a conspiracy. And if this was a conspiracy then LHO was not a lone nut. If LHO was not a lone nut then he was a patsy. If he was a patsy then he had handlers. If he had handlers then Paine was one of them.How do you reason from "Oswald was not a lone nut then he must have been a patsy"? Isn't it possible he was part of a small conspiracy? He wasn't a patsy but was a willing participant? And how do you reason from "If he was a patsy then he must have had handlers?" Why would he need handlers? I cannot begin to understand this "If A then B" thinking on your part.
And yes, the conspirators have thanked you LNer suckers bigly for your patronage over the many decades. Not exclusively on this forum but for all the good shilling you've done in print and media to keep the LNer ghost alive. Congrats!
Do you know where I can collect a stipend for being a LN "shill"? I urgently need a new computer for my 3D work.I guess I need to fess up: I've been cashing your checks all of these years, Jerry.
Most of the general public don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about the JFK assassination. Most of the general public don't know the details other than those gleaned from conspiracy-monger pulp fiction. Conspiracy-theorizing has always been the real national sport in America.
Most of the general public don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about the JFK assassination. Most of the general public don't know the details other than those gleaned from conspiracy-monger pulp fiction. Conspiracy-theorizing has always been the real national sport in America.Yes. And for the younger generation - under 40 or so - most of what they know comes from watching the Stone movie in history class. Swell, just swell.
Psst..the lunacy here is sticking with the fringe LN hypothesis when the consensus by the HSCA and most of the general public think this was likely a conspiracy. And if this was a conspiracy then LHO was not a lone nut. If LHO was not a lone nut then he was a patsy. If he was a patsy then he had handlers. If he had handlers then Paine was one of them.
And yes, the conspirators have thanked you LNer suckers bigly for your patronage over the many decades. Not exclusively on this forum but for all the good shilling you've done in print and media to keep the LNer ghost alive. Congrats!
Belief in a thing, even by a lot of people, doesn't make it true. Most people don't know the first detail about the JFK assassination. Their opinion is worthless. There are facts and evidence, however. And if you honestly think you are in possession of facts and evidence that are conclusive of Ruth Paine's or anyone else's involvement in a conspiracy to kill the President you would have presented your case to the authorities. Instead you spend all your time here lecturing us about our motives. An implicit acknowledgement that you have no such evidence of a conspiracy and would be shunned by the authorities. A JFK conspiracy is a fantasy. It is dealt with by CTers in a hypothetical sense in which a Quaker, housewife can be a sinister master spy involved in an assassination selectively nitpicking her words and making sinister implications. The real Ruth Paine is of no interest to you because it is preposterous that she was involved in any conspiracy. Just a kind person doing a good deed.They have Quaker pacifist housewives and waitresses and steamfitters and shoe salesmen and ticket takers and cab drivers and bus drivers and warehouse workers and dozens and dozens of ordinary people conspiring with major elements of the government - the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the Secret Service, the Justice Department - to murder the president. And frame an innocent man. And then cover all of that up for the rest of their lives.
They have Quaker pacifist housewives and waitresses and steamfitters and shoe salesmen and ticket takers and cab drivers and bus drivers and warehouse workers and dozens and dozens of ordinary people conspiring with major elements of the government - the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the Secret Service, the Justice Department - to murder the president. And frame an innocent man. And then cover all of that up for the rest of their lives.
Then, if that's not enough, they have us "LN shills" working with or on behalf of the conspirators.
It never ends.
It’s a mindset that defies articulable facts, reason, and logic.That they then demand we refute. To their satisfaction.
Yes. And for the younger generation - under 40 or so - most of what they know comes from watching the Stone movie in history class. Swell, just swell.
These supposed JFK "conspirators" are almost all dead. We have Paine and who else? Any major figure, anyone in "command" has long been dead. To think this nefarious "they" care about what is said here is just...well, I have no words. To think "they" reward "LN shills" is, again, I have no words. Not all conspiracy believers suffer from a form of "conspiracism"; but not all of them don't either.
Conspiracism is defined as: "Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology."
So we see Trump and his supporters promoting them; and Trump's hardcore opponents promoting them as well. Trump is a conman and narcissist who warrants removal from office; but he's not a Manchurian candidate controlled by Putin. But I don't think this is unique to the US. Maybe more prevalent now; but there's always been conspiracy beliefs - the Jews killed Jesus, the Masons control the world, type of thinking.
That they then demand we refute. To their satisfaction.
How can one prove that Ruth Paine wasn't a CIA agent controlling/handling Oswald? It's not impossible to prove a negative - I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln; but in this matter it is impossible. Even if we had documents from the CIA stating that Ruth Paine would not be a person of use and that they rejected any thoughts of using her, the conspiracists would simply say they were faked. So what can we do?
All we can do, essentially, is ask that if she was part of the framing of Oswald then why didn't she do "A" or "B"? As in, why didn't she say he expressed hatred towards JFK? Why didn't she say she saw his rifle in the garage? And that she saw him leave with it that morning? Those are the types of deeply incriminating evidence against Oswald that the conspirators would want her to do.
But she did none of that. Why not?
Marina said that she believed that Oswald liked JFK too. But she later testified that she wasn't sure and that she made that judgment because he would read favorable stories about JFK to her.
But she later testified that she wasn't sureWhere was that specifically?
Mr. PREYER. Did Lee ever talk about United States politics after you were married, that is, did he talk about officials of the United States, such as the President or the Secretary of State or, did he talk about policies of the U.S. Government?
Mrs. PORTER. If he did, he wasn't talking to me about it, because I wasn't really interested in his political view or anybody's political view.
Mr. PREYER. Specifically did he ever talk about President Kennedy?
Mrs. PORTER. Whatever he said about President Kennedy, it was only good, always.
Mr. PREYER. At this time when he first returned in Texas, did he talk about politics or did he mention President Kennedy again at any time?
Mrs. PORTER. Off and on, but it was always complimentary, something good.
Mr. PREYER. Did he talk in general about any other politicians or public figures in the United States at this time?
Mrs. PORTER. Not that I recall; no.
Mr. McDONALD. Can you recall in your presence whether George DeMohrenschildt and Lee ever spoke about President Kennedy?Does that settle it for everybody?
Mrs. PORTER. If I say right now that, yes, I do, they probably talked about, and then you ask me about the details which I cannot remember, but, yes, the name John Kennedy was mentioned in their conversation.
Mr. McDONALD. Can you recall in what context? In other words, were they speaking favorably of Kennedy?
Mrs. PORTER. I think so. Well, I recall that George DeMohrenschildt told me once that when he was younger, I mean he knew Jackie Kennedy before she was married to John Kennedy when she was a young lady and spoke very nicely about her.
Mr. McDONALD. And how about Lee's views at the time? Do you recall whether they were ever engaged in argument?
Mrs. PORTER. I do not recall ever hearing Lee talking badly about John Kennedy or Kennedy family.
Paine: "I think it was a spur of the moment thing for him. That he could do this. I don’t think he was shooting at Kennedy. He was shooting at the Presidency."
That was Bugliosi's theory too: i.e., that Oswald was shooting at what JFK represented - that is, the head of the political and economic systems that he repeatedly said he hated - and not specifically at JFK.
It is odd that we have very little about what Oswald thought about JFK. De Mohrenschildt said that Oswald expressed admiration for JFK, especially his civil rights proposals. Marina said that she believed that Oswald liked JFK too. But she later testified that she wasn't sure and that she made that judgment because he would read favorable stories about JFK to her. I'll just add parenthetically: if Marina (and or DeMohrenschildt) was coached or coerced into giving damning information about Oswald then why didn't "they" tell her/him to say he hated JFK?
Again, however, we have Oswald's repeated denunciations of America, of its political and economic structure. So why would he "like" the leader of the systems he detested? Plus: Cuba. Oswald admired Castro, he wanted to defect there. Sure, after the problems with the Cubans in Mexico City obtaining a visa he seemed to sour on Cuba. But why turn on Castro?
In any case, I think Oswald was aware of JFK's covert war on Cuba, perhaps even about the assassination plots against Castro (question: did he meet anyone in Mexico City who "inflamed" his dislike of JFK?). And that played a role - large or small - in his decision. He may have been driven in part by a desire for fame or for attacking the Presidency and not the President but I don't think we can take JFK the man out of his motivations.
It was an opportunity that fell into his lap. And his plan of the surprise ambush was a good one.
The copying of Oswalds's letter, preceded by her "snooping" , remains..curious?
Ruth Paine admitted that she was a informant for the FBI when she appeared before the WC. The FACT that she spied on Lee Oswald ( and Marina who she had living in her house where she could easily spy on her) and reported to the FBI is an admission that she was an FBI informant.
I wonder if Ruth knows that she was an FBI stoolie? .... Probably not....She has some wires crossed and after all these years the lie has become the truth in her head.
Belief in a thing, even by a lot of people, doesn't make it true. Most people don't know the first detail about the JFK assassination. Their opinion is worthless. It is dealt with by CTers in a hypothetical sense in which a Quaker, housewife can be a sinister master spy involved in an assassination selectively nitpicking her words and making sinister implications. The real Ruth Paine is of no interest to you because it is preposterous that she was involved in any conspiracy. Just a kind person doing a good deed.Most people don't know the first detail about the JFK assassination.
Intriguing idea.
Could you help out with a citation for this " informant " admission?
Thanks.
Intriguing idea.
Could you help out with a citation for this " informant " admission?
Thanks.
Walt is playing fast and loose with the term “informant”. Hosty asked her some questions about Oswald and she answered them.
Thanks.
As to Ruth, her testimony - through the years- raises more questions than it gives real answers.
Doesn't mean I think she's a...spy or an informer or any such thing. Just not very truthful.
Ruth Paine admitted that she spied on Lee Oswald and reported her observations to the FBI. When she clandestinely read the letter that Lee wrote to the Russian embassy she became angry because Lee had referred to the FBI as "notorious ".... Ruth Paine thought that the FBI was a perfect, all American, red, white, and blue organization.... And Hoover's mother was also a Quaker. ( Don't know if J. Edna Hoover was Quaker) Ruth may have assumed that Hoover was a Quaker.Did Paine tell the FBI about the letter? Its contents? Answer: No. She showed it to her husband Michael who also dismissed it as nothing. Some informants.
Lee knew that he could deflect suspicion by including outrageous, or provocative statements, in written correspondence, thus he referred to the FBI as "notorious" while knowing that the letter would be opened by the FBI before it reached the Russian Embassy .... Lee deliberately used the term "notorious" to grab the attention of the FBI agent who read the letter. The Russians would see the "notorious FBI " as a defamatory, or derogatory term and pay no attention to it.
Lee had used this strategy many times in writing to his "mother" from Russia .... He stated that his loyalty was to Russia and he would take up arms against Americans if required. That kind of stuff was for the eyes of the Russian censors.
Did Paine tell the FBI about the letter? It's contents? Answer: No. She showed it to her husband Michael who also dismissed it as nothing. Some informants.
According to the KGB officers/Embassy staffers at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald showed them his revolver and told them he need it to protect himself from the "notorious" FBI. Exact same characterization.
As to Ruth Paine: Paine is and was a political leftist - she went to Central America in the 1980s and volunteered work for the Nicaraguan government helping the poor. I've read/seen no evidence whatsoever that she believed the FBI represented "Mom's apple pie and the Fourth of July."
As to Ruth Paine: Paine is and was a political leftist - she went to Central America in the 1980s and volunteered work for the Nicaraguan government helping the poor. I've read/seen no evidence whatsoever that she believed the FBI represented "Mom's apple pie and the Fourth of July."
Most people don't know the first detail about the JFK assassination.
Says who...the big know it all?
Their opinion is worthless.
How much is yours worth?
a Quaker, housewife can be a sinister master spy involved in an assassination
What a pile of crap. I do not ---nor do I agree that Ruth Paine was involved with any plot to assassinate JFK.
However her connection with the Oswalds [whatever that attachment might have been] left her vulnerable and vulnerable people are infused then with fear and intimidation. Mrs Paine's contradictory statements have been posted several times and long time members know this and some choose to ignore it.
Fear is the greatest motivator.
Ruth Paine is a leftist.This is from John Simkin's site: "Ruth Paine has worked for a Nicaraguan relief group in St. Petersburg, Florida. She is also a peace activist. In 1982 she claimed: "This year, for the first time, I am withholding that portion of my income tax (40 percent), which I estimate goes toward military uses and war preparations" In 2004 she was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times: "I believe in taxation. I believe in government.. But I also believe in our right to religious freedom. And I believe in the fact that we value dissent as a patriotic thing."
Please explain.
Citations, if possible.
Thanks.
Not to get too deep into the Weeds of political theory but Ruth Paine sounds like a Trotskyite.Yeah, like you warned, we can get into the swamps of political theorizing and really pretend like we know more than we do <g>.
The Trotskyite Left in modern times has come to be defined as the anti-Communist Left (At least Communism as practiced by the Soviets).
They are on the Left for the most part but suspicious of the Radical Left or the Authoritarian/Stalinist Left.
Some Trotskyites voluntarily informed the FBI about radical Left movements in the 1960s.
The co-Founder of Amnesty International, Luis Kutner, is probably the most high profile example of that sort of thing. He informed the FBI about radical Left groups and other things. He was also a Mob lawyer and knew Jack Ruby.
http://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/luis-kutner-the-declassified-life-of-a-human-rights-icon
Also, didn’t Marina Oswald testify a few years after the assassination that she was told by the Secret Service that Ruth was close to the CIA?
Yeah, like you warned, we can get into the swamps of political theorizing and really pretend like we know more than we do <g>.
Trotsky, of course, was a Marxist. But he broke with Stalin - and Stanlinist Soviet Union - after Lenin's death and for that Stalin had him killed. Many of his followers were, similarly, anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet. But Trotsky was still a Marxist and an atheist and a believer in violent revolution. It seems to me that Ruth's worldview - as a Quaker pacifist - was steeped in religion, in the Christian social gospel cause of applying Christ's teachings to modern social problems like poverty and racism, et cetera. So while she may sympathize with the Trotsky view on economic justice and the exploitation of man, I don't think she'd embrace his call for the need for a violent overthrow of capitalist systems. Trotsky wanted to hang bankers from lamp posts; I think Ruth wanted to convert them to Christianity.
Having said that, maybe I'm full of it by labeling her politically as a liberal/leftist. Perhaps it was entirely religiously-based. But her pro-Sandinista work (as I see it) certainly indicates a political component of her behavior. I do think she and to a lesser extent Michael believed that our differences with the Soviets could be worked out through conversation and reasoning. Perhaps that not liberal/left "goo goo" thinking but just a faith in human beings.
Ruth Paine gives this account about her visits to Nicaragua and when she was accused of working for the CIA because of her involvement in the assassination (from the book "Mrs. Paine's Garage"):
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/c1cd/wbeybd24fuov2lvzg.jpg)
.....Continued...
I shared the following details with Jim DiEugenio on November 15, 2015. It appears since then DiEugenio preferred to keep you from awareness of these facts.
Could it be because these facts are less prejudicial to Ruth Paine's rep?Quotehttp://www.jfkpage.com/Paine/Occurrence_in_Nicaragua.pdf
Occurrence in Nicaragua - February/March 1991
The purpose of this paper is to document events which occurred in Managua, Nicaragua during February and March of 1991 involving Ruth Paine, U.S. coordinator of Pro-Nica, a project of the Southeastern Yearly Meeting of Friends (SEYM) based in St. Petersburg, Florida.
…...
During the next two or three weeks, Ruth, Jon and another person were at most gatherings of the U.S. solidarity community including regular meetings at the Benjamin Linder House, evening worship sessions held at the Moravian Church around the fast on the Iraq War, and a meeting of U.S. health workers held at the Linder House.
(Link to Jon's obit: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/10/25/jonathan-roise-former-editor-in-chief-passes-away-at-67/
….
In 1990, Roise moved to Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, to work as the director of the Quaker Center. He co-founded Sí a la Vida, an organization that aimed to provide street children with mentorship and structured lifestyles to transition them to autonomous adulthood. The organization went on to open two centers in Nicaragua...)
The third person, a young red headed man named Sean Miller, took many pictures, using a special lens, and taped presentations, including one by Benjamin Linders’ parents who visited the Casa during this period. Ruth said Sean was a student at Antioch College (located in Ohio) who was staying at El Centro de los Amigos and taking pictures for the Nicaragua Network. Sean told some people he lived in Washington, D.C.QuoteRuth Paine was later found in Nicaragua helping the CIA's ... www.jfkpage.com/Paine/Occurrence_in_Nicaragua.pdf (http://Occurrence in Nicaragua - February/March 1991
The purpose of this paper is to document events which occurred in Managua, Nicaragua during February and March of 1991 involving Ruth Paine, U.S. coordinator of Pro-Nica, a project of the Southeastern Yearly Meeting of Friends (SEYM) based in St. Petersburg, Florida.) of his head, and the other struck him in the back, exited through his throat and .... The third person, a young red headed man named. Sean Miller, took many pictures, using a special lens, and taped presentations ... student at Antioch College (located in Ohio) who was staying at. El Centro de .... through for us.” Sue Wheaton.
Shawn Miller https://www.linkedin.com/pub/shawn-miller/9/9b/56b Instructional Systems Designer/ Courseware Lead/ Program Manager at Defense Acquisition University Washington D.C. Metro Area ............ Antioch College B.A., Communications and International Studies 1988 – 1993 Activities and Societies: Graduated with distinction and Commencement Speaker for graduation class Antioch Record (Official College Newspaper) Editor-in-Chief Served as Assistant Community Manager Community Darkroom Manager Freelance photographer for Associated PressQuotehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-miller-m-ed-56b09b9
Shawn Miller
Program Manager of Development & Production For e-Learning, Mobile & Simulations at Defense Acquisition University
Fort Belvoir, Virginia....
https://jfkfacts.org/allen-dulles-first-ceo-of-the-secret-government/#comment-841119
TOM S. DECEMBER 20, 2015 AT 7:10 PM
Part II of II
https://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-miller-56b09b9
Shawn Miller
………
Antioch College
B.A., Communications and International Studies
1988 – 1993
Activities and Societies: Graduated with distinction and Commencement Speaker for graduation class Antioch Record (Official College Newspaper) Editor-in-Chief Served as Assistant Community Manager Community Darkroom Manager Freelance photographer for Associated Press
Shawn Miller’s Face Book page is suprisingly public and photos confirm the hair color, as described by Wheaton/Jones.:
https://www.facebook.com/shawn.miller.54738
I see nothing suspicious about Jon Roise, either….. do you?
Jonathan Roise, former editor in chief, passes away at 67 …
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/10/25/jonathan-roise-former-editor-in-chief-passes-away-at-67/
The Stanford Daily
Oct 25, 2012 – He was 67. Roise, who enrolled at Stanford in 1963, led The Daily during the Vietnam War, a time of anti-war and anti-draft protests, teach-ins, …
Doesn’t anyone check the facts of the presentations they embrace? Dr. McAdams somehow knows everything is as it seems, and russtarby replies
with information he has not fully considered or verified but tends to fit a narrative.
This is Jfkfacts.org, can we have a unique culture, here, or try to cultivate one?
So you don't think Paine was involved but then you go to imply that she was involved due apparently to "fear." You make this allegation base on no evidence whatsoever. And fear of what? It's 2020. When is Paine going to come forward and tell us that she was coerced into making certain statements. If someone was influencing her testimony, why didn't they do the obvious if they were trying to frame Oswald like: get Paine to say that Oswald stored a rifle in her garage, that he hated JFK, that he acted strangely on the night before the assassination, and that she saw him carry a long bag on that morning? That would have been very helpful. Instead she doesn't do any of those things. But she is suspect for some unspecified reason.
you go on to imply that she was involved...You make this allegation base on no evidenceNo I didn't. Return to post #70 and see for one's self.
Continued from my last post...