JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: W. Tracy Parnell on June 04, 2022, 05:03:03 AM
-
Take a look at the first installment of my new series which is a critical view of the Max Good film:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-earl.html
-
If the presentation is about the crappy way Ruth Paine was treated...then why does it go on and on about Earl Warren?
I've never heard of Max Good or his film but I just posted this---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2342.msg130781.html#msg130781
-
If the presentation is about the crappy way Ruth Paine was treated...then why does it go on and on about Earl Warren?
I've never heard of Max Good or his film but I just posted this---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2342.msg130781.html#msg130781
As I mentioned, the series is a critical view of the film. It discusses both the inaccuracies of the production and the suspect treatment of Ruth.
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-secret.html
-
How is it you are reviewing this when it hasn’t been released yet?
-
How is it you are reviewing this when it hasn’t been released yet?
Are you claiming a conspiracy?
-
How is it you are reviewing this when it hasn’t been released yet?
Are you claiming a conspiracy?
That answered that huh?
-
It’s a simple question.
-
Obviously, I obtained a copy (legally).
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-jfk-and.html
-
Obviously, I obtained a copy (legally).
So how did you manage to do that. So the rest of us can properly evaluate your reviews?
-
So how did you manage to do that. So the rest of us can properly evaluate your reviews?
I'm not playing your games. I have a legal copy of the film and am using it to make my posts regarding the film. But let's say I somehow acquired a bootleg copy (I didn't). That would have nothing to do with the quality (or lack of it) of my work. Judge the work on its merits and feel free to criticize if you like.
-
I'm not playing your games. I have a legal copy of the film and am using it to make my posts regarding the film. But let's say I somehow acquired a bootleg copy (I didn't). That would have nothing to do with the quality (or lack of it) of my work. Judge the work on its merits and feel free to criticize if you like.
Careful or they will start claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue that means there is doubt as to whether you have seen it. Even if you have. That's the kind of logic used by these contrarians.
-
Careful or they will start claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue that means there is doubt as to whether you have seen it. Even if you have. That's the kind of logic used by these contrarians.
Actually, there is so much information out there now (including a partial transcript) that I probably could do a review without having seen it. But I have. Thanks for chiming in-I know you have much experience with Iacoletti.
-
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-ruths.html
-
I'm not playing your games. I have a legal copy of the film and am using it to make my posts regarding the film. But let's say I somehow acquired a bootleg copy (I didn't). That would have nothing to do with the quality (or lack of it) of my work. Judge the work on its merits and feel free to criticize if you like.
Why all the secrecy? If you obtained it legally then the rest of us could too.
We can’t judge the merit of your work or even know if you are representing the film accurately if we can’t watch it.
-
Actually, there is so much information out there now (including a partial transcript) that I probably could do a review without having seen it. But I have. Thanks for chiming in-I know you have much experience with Iacoletti.
I have an enormous amount of experience ignoring him despite his constant pleas for my attention. I can highly recommend that approach.
-
I have an enormous amount of experience ignoring him despite his constant pleas for my attention. I can highly recommend that approach.
I don’t need your attention, “Richard”. I correct your constant misinformation for the benefit of others, not you. You’re hopeless.
-
I don’t need your attention, “Richard”. I correct your constant misinformation for the benefit of others, not you. You’re hopeless.
Why are you so adamant that people use their real names online
-
Why are you so adamant that people use their real names online
Are you telling everyone that Richard isn't Richard's real name :-\
-
When was I ever “adamant that people use their real names”?
A lot of that goes on here.
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-george.html
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-ruth.html
-
This is silly. Why would Walthers write "Also found was a set of metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers" if it was true that "I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day"?
-
This is silly. Why would Walthers write "Also found was a set of metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers" if it was true that "I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day"?
Because, as I explained he obviously conflated the Cuban information owned by Oswald with the files and came up with something that was not accurate. In order to believe his claim, you have to dismiss all the other evidence I mentioned and accept his isolated claim. Of course, many people are willing to do just that because of their beliefs.
-
You realize that you’re accusing Walthers of deliberately falsifying his November 22 investigation report, right?
-
You realize that you’re accusing Walthers of deliberately falsifying his November 22 investigation report, right?
No, I'm just saying he was mistaken.
-
If he reported that they contained names of Cuban sympathizers and later said that he didn’t know what they contained then one of those statements was a lie.
-
When was I ever “adamant that people use their real names”?
A lot of that goes on here.
When was I ever “adamant that people use their real names”?
_ It follows that your endless quotation marks enclosing Richard's name and words such as 'expert' etc pretty much signals your intent to cast doubt on practically everything under the sun, including those who manage to leave thorns in your side.
And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not? Many discussion forums like google groups etc allow fake names because of the dangers (ID theft, for instance) inherent in going online in the first place. Why begrudge an individual his right to enhanced security?
-
Funny how in all that verbiage, you didn’t manage to answer the question.
-
Funny how in all that verbiage, you didn’t manage to answer the question.
The question has been answered, along with a bonus.
-
Would Oswald have admitted his guilt?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-lho.html
-
Would Oswald have admitted his guilt?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-lho.html
Some CTers harp on why Oswald didn't confess to the crime right from the start if the entire purpose of the assassination was to garner attention for himself. They ask why he would deny his guilt etc. Conflating historical credit with legal responsibility for the crime. Oswald knew he had pulled the trigger and changed history but had no desire to help the police prosecute him for the crime. Of course, Oswald was also getting plenty of attention from the entire world as the suspected assassin with the press clamoring for his every comment. He also had no idea that he only had less than 48 hours to live. For all Oswald knew, he had years to play cat and mouse on the topic. And the only chip he had left to play were the details of the crime including his own motivation. A source of historical curiosity that the authorities would want to know. He could trade that for saving his skin from the electric chair. Then, like James Earl Ray, spend the remainder of his life exploiting the gullible conspiracy types for attention and favors while in prison. Forever suggesting he was playing the role of some master spy or being framed.
-
Oswald knew he had pulled the trigger and changed history but had no desire to help the police prosecute him for the crime.
"Richard's" mindreading skills underwhelm.
-
When was I ever “adamant that people use their real names”?
_ It follows that your endless quotation marks enclosing Richard's name and words such as 'expert' etc pretty much signals your intent to cast doubt on practically everything under the sun, including those who manage to leave thorns in your side.
And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not? Many discussion forums like google groups etc allow fake names because of the dangers (ID theft, for instance) inherent in going online in the first place. Why begrudge an individual his right to enhanced security?
And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not?
It shouldn't, but you should really ask "Richard" as he is constantly claiming I am using a fake name, that I am really Roger Collins who doesn't even post or is a member here and recently that I am Otto Beck. On top of all that he's also extremely preoccupied with me living in Europe. So, if anybody could tell you why it should matter or not, it would be "Richard". Ask him!
-
And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not?
It shouldn't, but you should really ask "Richard" as he is constantly claiming I am using a fake name, that I am really Roger Collins who doesn't even post or is a member here and recently that I am Otto Beck. On top of all that he's also extremely preoccupied with me living in Europe. So, if anybody could tell you why it should matter or not, it would be "Richard". Ask him!
So needy for my attention. I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity. There is no legitimate reason to know that. Only a creepy stalker would care. I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names. But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum? That is a straightforward and legitimate question. The answer allows other forum members to give weight to the opinions expressed on this forum to understand if one individual is making his arguments appear more credible by attributing them to multiple forum members. It's not a trick question and you don't have to reveal any private information about yourself in terms of your actual identity (which no one cares about). Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it. You can even authorize Duncan to confirm if anyone doubts you. I would take his word for it.
-
Of course, Oswald was also getting plenty of attention from the entire world as the suspected assassin with the press clamoring for his every comment.
Thank you Richard, I forgot to make that point. I updated the article to include it.
-
So needy for my attention. I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity. There is no legitimate reason to know that. Only a creepy stalker would care. I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names. But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum? That is a straightforward and legitimate question. The answer allows other forum members to give weight to the opinions expressed on this forum to understand if one individual is making his arguments appear more credible by attributing them to multiple forum members. It's not a trick question and you don't have to reveal any private information about yourself in terms of your actual identity (which no one cares about). Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it. You can even authorize Duncan to confirm if anyone doubts you. I would take his word for it.
There you go. Right on cue.
I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity.
I never said you did, but what is a "real" identity anyway?
I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names.
Possible use? Really? The only ones claiming that I use multiple identities is you and some others of your ilk. And why would you even ask, if, as you clearly falsely claim, you do not care about it.
But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum? That is a straightforward and legitimate question.
This is a "subject" only because you and a few others created it. Beyond that it doesn't exist. And since you claim not to care, why are you asking again?
Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it.
So, first you ask me to confirm yes or no and in the next sentence you ask for verification by Duncan. How pathetic. But the answer is; no, I do not post here under multiple names and if you want to ask Duncan to confirm that then go right ahead.
You've got your answer, so now I will never hear you about this BS again, right?
Btw... Isn't it remarkable just how quickly Chapman went quiet on the subject?
-
There you go. Right on cue.
I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity.
I never said you did.
I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names.
The only ones claiming that I use possible identities is you and some others of your ilk. And why would you even ask, if, as you falsely claim, you do not care about it.
But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum? That is a straightforward and legitimate question.
This is a "subject" only because you and a few others created it. Beyond that it doesn't exist. And since you claim not to care, why are you asking again?
Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it.
So, first you ask me to confirm yes or no and in the next sentence you ask for verification by Duncan. How pathetic. But the answer is; no, I do not post here under multiple names and if you want to ask Duncan to confirm that then go right ahead.
You've got your answer, so now I will never hear you about this BS again, right?
Btw... Isn't it remarkable just how quickly Chapman went quiet on the subject?
Excellent. I'll take your word for it. You did include one whopper here. In your previous post you indicated that the question about real identities should be directed to me because I am "constantly claiming" that you are "using a fake name." But you acknowledge here that I have never asked nor cared about your identity. Wow. In fact, it is you who constantly put my name in quotation marks. Hilarious.
-
Excellent. I'll take your word for it. You did include one whopper here. In your previous post you indicated that the question about real identities should be directed to me because I am "constantly claiming" that you are "using a fake name." But you acknowledge here that I have never asked nor cared about your identity. Wow. In fact, it is you who constantly put my name in quotation marks. Hilarious.
Not asking me for my real name is not the same as constantly, and falsely, claiming that I use a fake name.
-
Not asking me for my real name is not the same as constantly, and falsely, claiming that I use a fake name.
Again, I have no idea nor do I care whether you post under your real name or a fake name. That is your business. You may or may not be someone named Martin Weidmann. I don't care about that because I'm not a stalker. I don't constantly put "Martin" in quotations marks. You, however, directed the question about the use of real identities to me under the false pretext that I constantly accused you of posting under a fake name. A falsehood. I've questioned if you posted under multiple different names (not whether any of them are your real name). In fact, it is your creepy contrarian sidekick who constantly asks about my real identity. Hilarious that you can't understand that distinction.
-
Again, I have no idea nor do I care whether you post under your real name or a fake name. That is your business. You may or may not be someone named Martin Weidmann. I don't care about that because I'm not a stalker. I don't constantly put "Martin" in quotations marks. You, however, directed the question about the use of real identities to me under the false pretext that I constantly accused you of posting under a fake name. A falsehood. I've questioned if you posted under multiple different names (not whether any of them are your real name). In fact, it is your creepy contrarian sidekick who constantly asks about my real identity. Hilarious that you can't understand that distinction.
the false pretext that I constantly accused you of posting under a fake name. A falsehood. I've questioned if you posted under multiple different names
This is just plain stupid. You can not constantly question if somebody is using multiple names without believing first that at least one of those multiple names must be fake.
-
You can even authorize Duncan to confirm if anyone doubts you. I would take his word for it.
How would Duncan know?
-
In fact, it is your creepy contrarian sidekick who constantly asks about my real identity. Hilarious that you can't understand that distinction.
If you are talking about me (even though you claim to ignore what I write), I've never once asked you about your "real identity".
-
Take a look at the first installment of my new series which is a critical view of the Max Good film:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-earl.html
Thanks for taking the effort to create the blogs condemning the Ruth Paine accusers.
Marina was about to give birth and Ruth took her in, a humanitarian.
Ruth never said that Oswald hated Kennedy.
Ruth never confirmed a rifle in the garage.
Ruth didn't see Oswald leave with a large package.
Ruth never saw Oswald hit Marina.
Ruth Paine was an intelligent articulate woman and if she was trying to frame Oswald she could have absolutely crucified him but she only told the truth.
JohnM
-
Thanks for taking the effort to create the blogs condemning the Ruth Paine accusers.
Marina was about to give birth and Ruth took her in, a humanitarian.
Ruth never said that Oswald hated Kennedy.
Ruth never confirmed a rifle in the garage.
Ruth didn't see Oswald leave with a large package.
Ruth never saw Oswald hit Marina.
Ruth Paine was an intelligent articulate woman and if she was trying to frame Oswald she could have absolutely crucified him but she only told the truth.
JohnM
One of the ironies (not the right word but I'll go with it) is that Ruth is in some ways a good witness in support of Oswald's innocence. As in (as you wrote): she said she never saw that rifle in her garage over two months, she didn't see him carrying any large package to work that day, she said she never heard him express any anti-JFK views, she said she never saw any violence from him. Hell, she found that bizarre letter he wrote to the Soviet Embassy and kept it. She didn't give it to the FBI/Hosty. And she's monitoring Oswald for the FBI?
This is someone directed to frame Oswald? She didn't do a very good job.
-
John M and Steve,
All good points-thanks.
-
John M and Steve,
All good points-thanks.
Same with Marina. And Michael Paine. The DeMohrenschildts. Many others. If this was scripted out, if their testimony was prepared or orchestrated, they could have said he expressed anti-JFK views. He boasted about having a rifle.
There's a long list of obvious things the alleged master minds of this supposed conspiracy could have done to implicate Oswald directly. Have four people in the crowd at Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald in the window. On and on and on.
Conspiracy advocates seem to believe the conspirators had unlimited powers and abilities. But in these obvious instances of where they would use that power they didn't.
The answer for these failures is.......?
-
Same with Marina. And Michael Paine. The DeMohrenschildts. Many others. If this was scripted out, if their testimony was prepared or orchestrated, they could have said he expressed anti-JFK views. He boasted about having a rifle.
There's a long list of obvious things the alleged master minds of this supposed conspiracy could have done to implicate Oswald directly. Have four people in the crowd at Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald in the window. On and on and on.
Conspiracy advocates seem to believe the conspirators had unlimited powers and abilities. But in these obvious instances of where they would use that power they didn't.
The answer for these failures is.......?
Think of all the documents forged to link him to the rifle. Why didn't the conspirators just forge another Walker-like note that Oswald would have left with Marina confessing to the JFK assassination? Why not have a police officer shoot Oswald in the TSBD or TT instead of arresting him, allowing him to speak to the press, then finding someone willing to murder him and go to jail for the rest of his life while staying quiet? The application of logic and common sense, however, is not permitted in the contrarian world. Nothing is provable. Nothing needs to be explained or make sense. There are only "assumptions" and "opinions" and "chain of custody" and "LOL."
-
Coffee klatch theory:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-coffee.html
-
Think of all the documents forged to link him to the rifle.
No forgery necessary. All you need is for a handwriting “analyst” on the payroll to say that a few block-written letters look like Oswald’s handwriting.
-
Additionally, the Texas Employment Commission tried to contact Oswald on October 16th which was his first day at the TSBD. This job reportedly paid more than the one Oswald had just taken.
Ruth didn’t tell Lee about that call, did she?
-
Same with Marina. And Michael Paine. The DeMohrenschildts. Many others. If this was scripted out, if their testimony was prepared or orchestrated, they could have said he expressed anti-JFK views. He boasted about having a rifle.
There's a long list of obvious things the alleged master minds of this supposed conspiracy could have done to implicate Oswald directly. Have four people in the crowd at Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald in the window. On and on and on.
Conspiracy advocates seem to believe the conspirators had unlimited powers and abilities. But in these obvious instances of where they would use that power they didn't.
The answer for these failures is.......?
Less is very often more. The more elaborate the plan, the bigger the risk of a screw up. Keep it simple and tight.
Btw, you seem to believe that every person who was part of a conspiracy knew the entire plan and actively participated. That is a strawman.
For instance, do you think that everybody who worked for Bernie Madoff was 100% aware of what was going on and participated willingly in it?
-
No forgery necessary. All you need is for a handwriting “analyst” on the payroll to say that a few block-written letters look like Oswald’s handwriting.
There's that, or alternatively, manipulate Oswald into writing that order form for you and letting you use his P.O. Box address.
-
Are the Lone Assassin experts in Max Good's film treated fairly?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-ln.html
-
Think of all the documents forged to link him to the rifle. Why didn't the conspirators just forge another Walker-like note that Oswald would have left with Marina confessing to the JFK assassination? Why not have a police officer shoot Oswald in the TSBD or TT instead of arresting him, allowing him to speak to the press, then finding someone willing to murder him and go to jail for the rest of his life while staying quiet? The application of logic and common sense, however, is not permitted in the contrarian world. Nothing is provable. Nothing needs to be explained or make sense. There are only "assumptions" and "opinions" and "chain of custody" and "LOL."
As was noted before, they let Oswald do this:
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d8e476d13d997c1df4cc851586ddb07e?rik=SgCcgLfXDSgnvg&riu=http%3a%2f%2flookbackpublications.com%2fimages%2foswald.press.72.405.jpg&ehk=XgwNqIg0Fh8essdsF4%2b1RU2wrNIAHPTwlB7oEYag%2b7U%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Then they order Ruby to kill Oswald to prevent him from exposing the plot. And then they let Ruby do this:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ybuy4yR8bUQ/hqdefault.jpg)
Oswald met with his mother, his brother, his wife, the head of the Dallas Bar Association. He was able to make unmonitored phone calls. He met with the press. Ruby does jailhouse interviews. He talks to his brother and Rabbi and others. He meets with the press.
If you seriously think this was done by the government, they why the heck would they allow all of this to happen? In 30 seconds either man could expose this alleged entire conspiracy. At any time.
-
Why didn't the conspirators just forge another Walker-like note that Oswald would have left with Marina confessing to the JFK assassination?
Confessing to an action that had not yet even been perpetrated ? :D
Knew deep in his heart with no doubt at all that he would be a successful assassin? :D
...they order Ruby to kill Oswald to prevent him from exposing the plot.
Jack Ruby probably supplied the rifles that did the job.
Think he would admit to that?
Or did he really love Kennedy like he said?
-
As was noted before, they let Oswald do this:
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d8e476d13d997c1df4cc851586ddb07e?rik=SgCcgLfXDSgnvg&riu=http%3a%2f%2flookbackpublications.com%2fimages%2foswald.press.72.405.jpg&ehk=XgwNqIg0Fh8essdsF4%2b1RU2wrNIAHPTwlB7oEYag%2b7U%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Then they order Ruby to kill Oswald to prevent him from exposing the plot. And then they let Ruby do this:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ybuy4yR8bUQ/hqdefault.jpg)
Oswald met with his mother, his brother, his wife, the head of the Dallas Bar Association. He was able to make unmonitored phone calls. He met with the press. Ruby does jailhouse interviews. He talks to his brother and Rabbi and others. He meets with the press.
If you seriously think this was done by the government, they why the heck would they allow all of this to happen? In 30 seconds either man could expose this alleged entire conspiracy. At any time.
Neither Lee nor Ruby were ready to blow the lid......
Ruby said that he feared for the lives of his sister and brother, if he "spilled the beans "..... And, Lee was still playing the role of
an undercover agent and feared he would be exposed.... But....He clearly pleaded for help..."I do request for somebody to come to my legal assistance"
-
As was noted before, they let Oswald do this:
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d8e476d13d997c1df4cc851586ddb07e?rik=SgCcgLfXDSgnvg&riu=http%3a%2f%2flookbackpublications.com%2fimages%2foswald.press.72.405.jpg&ehk=XgwNqIg0Fh8essdsF4%2b1RU2wrNIAHPTwlB7oEYag%2b7U%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Then they order Ruby to kill Oswald to prevent him from exposing the plot. And then they let Ruby do this:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ybuy4yR8bUQ/hqdefault.jpg)
Oswald met with his mother, his brother, his wife, the head of the Dallas Bar Association. He was able to make unmonitored phone calls. He met with the press. Ruby does jailhouse interviews. He talks to his brother and Rabbi and others. He meets with the press.
If you seriously think this was done by the government, they why the heck would they allow all of this to happen? In 30 seconds either man could expose this alleged entire conspiracy. At any time.
The involvement of Jack Ruby would have been entirely unnecessary in any plot to frame Oswald and then silence him. There were at least three golden opportunities to kill Oswald while he was in flight when confronted by the police: 1) TSBD, 2) Tippit scene, and 3) Texas Theatre. Instead we are supposed to believe that they arrested Oswald, allowed him to speak to the world press and his family, recruited Jack Ruby to kill him on national TV, and then somehow had to ensure Ruby never exposed the plot. HA HA HA. No one can believe that. The plotters could also have pulled a Jeffrey Epstein and just claimed Oswald killed himself in jail. No one would have been the wiser and there would have been no need for Jack Ruby to spend his life in jail with the risk that would have entailed to the plotters. It's laughable that anyone believes such an implausible narrative.
-
Well I bought the film and watched it once and plan on watching it again. My first observations was Ruth Paine hasn't changed much over the years on what she has told various media. It's been consistent and that's amazing considering how old she is today. There's several areas where I felt like she was giving as much information could based up until November 22, 1963. I think she and her husband after November 22, 1963 where able to connect the rest of the dots about how they were potentially used. As for the interviewer one of the questions I would have asked Ruth did you provide any income in the 1963 calendar year to your household. Plan on watching it again so I'll withhold further comments.
-
The familiar "back and to the left" debate as presented in Max Good's film:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-back.html
-
"jet-effect" LOL
"neuromuscular reaction" LOL
-
Was JFK going to pull out of Vietnam?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-jfk-and_27.html
-
Was JFK going to pull out of Vietnam?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-jfk-and_27.html
JFK and Vietnam again? There are two separate questions, questions that bizarre conspiracy advocates like Jim DiEugenio don't see to be able to separate. The first is: "What did JFK plan to do on November 22, 1963?" The second and different question is: "What would JFK have done once it was shown that the South Vietnamese government was incapable of defending itself from the North's aggression without US help?"
The answer to me for the first is: He had no plans to simply leave at the time of his death. The plan was to draw down US troops as the South was able to take on more of the war. But simply not pull out.
Here's a critical quote from the top secret Pentagon Papers which contained the classified memos and communications between the Kennedy White House, State Department and the Pentagon, on the Administration's policies towards South Vietnam following the overthrow of Diem:
"In the course of these policy debates [i.e., how to deal with Diem], several participants pursued the logical but painful conclusion that if the war could not be won with Diem, and if his removal would lead to political chaos and also jeopardize the war effort, then the war was probably unwinnable. If that were the case, the argument went, then the U.S. should really be facing a more basic decision of either an orderly disengagement from an irretrievable situation, or a major escalation of the U.S. involvement, including the use of U.S. combat troops. These prophetic minority voices were, however, raising an unpleasant prospect that the [Kennedy] Administration was unprepared to face at that time. In hindsight, however, it is clear that this was one of the times in the history of our Vietnam involvement when we were making fundamental choices. The option to disengage honorably at that time now appears an attractively low-cost one. But for the Kennedy Administration the costs no doubt appeared much higher. In any event, it proved to be unwilling to accept the implications of predictions for a bleak future. The Administration hewed to the belief that if the US be but willing to exercise its power, it could ultimately have its way in world affairs.
Again: "The Administration [at the time of JFK's death] hewed to the belief that if the US be but willing to exercise its power, it could ultimately have its way in world affairs."
In their accounts of their time in the Administration, McNamara, Rusk and Bundy - along with RFK - all said that there was no plan - none - at the time of JFK's death to leave. None at all.
As to the second question: Nobody knows. I don't think even JFK, if asked at the time, could give an answer. He would have faced the same problem that LBJ did: surrender the South to the North with all of the consequences that entails, e.g., massive refugee crisis that spills over to the rest of the region, loss of US credibility in that part of the world, et cetera; or send in troops in hopes that American force was sufficient to win.
The Pentagon Papers link is here: https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-5.pdf
-
I will take an expert like John Newman and his research who through documentation proves Kennedy's plans.
JFK and Vietnam again? There are two separate questions, questions that bizarre conspiracy advocates like Jim DiEugenio don't see to be able to separate. The first is: "What did JFK plan to do on November 22, 1963?" The second and different question is: "What would JFK have done once it was shown that the South Vietnamese government was incapable of defending itself from the North's aggression without US help?"
The answer to me for the first is: He had no plans to simply leave at the time of his death. The plan was to draw down US troops as the South was able to take on more of the war. But simply not pull out.
Here's a critical quote from the top secret Pentagon Papers which contained the classified memos and communications between the Kennedy White House, State Department and the Pentagon, on the Administration's policies towards South Vietnam following the overthrow of Diem:
"In the course of these policy debates [i.e., how to deal with Diem], several participants pursued the logical but painful conclusion that if the war could not be won with Diem, and if his removal would lead to political chaos and also jeopardize the war effort, then the war was probably unwinnable. If that were the case, the argument went, then the U.S. should really be facing a more basic decision of either an orderly disengagement from an irretrievable situation, or a major escalation of the U.S. involvement, including the use of U.S. combat troops. These prophetic minority voices were, however, raising an unpleasant prospect that the [Kennedy] Administration was unprepared to face at that time. In hindsight, however, it is clear that this was one of the times in the history of our Vietnam involvement when we were making fundamental choices. The option to disengage honorably at that time now appears an attractively low-cost one. But for the Kennedy Administration the costs no doubt appeared much higher. In any event, it proved to be unwilling to accept the implications of predictions for a bleak future. The Administration hewed to the belief that if the US be but willing to exercise its power, it could ultimately have its way in world affairs.
Again: "The Administration [at the time of JFK's death] hewed to the belief that if the US be but willing to exercise its power, it could ultimately have its way in world affairs."
In their accounts of their time in the Administration, McNamara, Rusk and Bundy - along with RFK - all said that there was no plan - none - at the time of JFK's death to leave. None at all.
As to the second question: Nobody knows. I don't think even JFK, if asked at the time, could give an answer. He would have faced the same problem that LBJ did: surrender the South to the North with all of the consequences that entails, e.g., massive refugee crisis that spills over to the rest of the region, loss of US credibility in that part of the world, et cetera; or send in troops in hopes that American force is sufficient to win.
The Pentagon Papers link is here: https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-5.pdf
-
Did Ruth Paine spy for the CIA in Nicaragua?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-ruth_30.html
-
Robert McNamara, the secretary of defense for JFK, said there was no plan to just pull out of Vietnam at the time of the assassination.
Dean Rusk, the secretary of state for JFK, said there was no plan to just pull out of Vietnam at that time.
RFK said there was no plan to just pull out at the time of the assassination.
The Pentagon Papers, which includes the then top secret cables and communications between the JFK White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, shows there was no plan to simply leave.
The plan was, again, to draw the troops down as the South was able, through US assistance, to take on the war by itself. The first was contingent on the second.
This is not me saying there was no plan to just leave. This is the above sources saying it.
-
Did Ruth Paine spy for the CIA in Nicaragua?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-ruth_30.html
So, Ruth Paine, a self-professed Quaker pacifist (and no, Nixon was not a pacifist Quaker; he volunteered to fight in WWII in the Navy), housewife and mother of two children was in reality a modern day Madame Defarge who was:
A CIA agent collecting name of pro-Castro people (in Ft. Worth, Texas);
A CIA agent manipulating/controlling/directing Lee Oswald and setting him up for the murder of JFK;
An FBI informant reporting on Oswald's actions;
A CIA agent infiltrating the White Russian community and monitoring them;
A CIA agent sent to Nicaragua to monitor and report on pro-Sandinista/pacifist groups opposed to US policy in Central America.
What am I leaving out? Right, I forgot: she really wanted an affair with Marina. That was also her motive.
Here's an idea for a movie: "The Attack of Killer Lesbian CIA Agents who Murdered JFK." I can sell the script to Oliver Stone.
You just throw up your hands. This is insanity, pure insanity.
-
So, Ruth Paine, a self-professed Quaker pacifist (and no, Nixon was not a pacifist Quaker; he volunteered to fight in WWII in the Navy), housewife and mother of two children was in reality a modern day Madame Defarge who was:
A CIA agent collecting name of pro-Castro people (in Ft. Worth, Texas);
A CIA agent manipulating/controlling/directing Lee Oswald and setting him up for the murder of JFK;
An FBI informant reporting on Oswald's actions;
A CIA agent infiltrating the White Russian community and monitoring them;
A CIA agent sent to Nicaragua to monitor and report on pro-Sandinista/pacifist groups opposed to US policy in Central America.
Yeah, the CT people think she was very busy. And this was in addition to her day job as a school psychologist. ;D
Here's an idea for a movie: "The Attack of Killer Lesbian CIA Agents who Murdered JFK." I can sell the script to Oliver Stone.
You could have a whole new career Steve! :)
-
What year was she a school psychologist?
Yeah, the CT people think she was very busy. And this was in addition to her day job as a school psychologist. ;D
You could have a whole new career Steve! :)
-
What year was she a school psychologist?
I'm not sure of all of the years that she worked in that capacity but in the 1986 mock trial she identified herself as a "school psychologist." My understanding is that she became an administrator later on. Someone please jump in if that is not correct.
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizgj3GI0J2b82_1a1eXWI0q3NPbwgMTINEZ4Dm1_o83fDiU5pN7qblhJlFDR-Lh7W-6UuPCIDyrKkQDstTtFP2xn-0KyfBhFNN4vAQPG_DfEUoLrzwEN0wg7eRZ1YbnERj5bLV00C8_PbLoXOGk3qSC_Hk7zxQqW6GT45wl1wAXt11V1TjZ5bCY2_F/s733/Defending-Ruth-Paine-Logo.jpg) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html)
-
I'm not sure of all of the years that she worked in that capacity but in the 1986 mock trial she identified herself as a "school psychologist." My understanding is that she became an administrator later on. Someone please jump in if that is not correct.
I believe it was the 70's and the 80's. She was a school principal in Pennsylvania and then moved to Florida working in the schools.
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizgj3GI0J2b82_1a1eXWI0q3NPbwgMTINEZ4Dm1_o83fDiU5pN7qblhJlFDR-Lh7W-6UuPCIDyrKkQDstTtFP2xn-0KyfBhFNN4vAQPG_DfEUoLrzwEN0wg7eRZ1YbnERj5bLV00C8_PbLoXOGk3qSC_Hk7zxQqW6GT45wl1wAXt11V1TjZ5bCY2_F/s733/Defending-Ruth-Paine-Logo.jpg) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html)
Another great resource David, thank you.
-
I believe it was the 70's and the 80's. She was a school principal in Pennsylvania and then moved to Florida working in the schools.
Thanks for the information.
-
I'm not sure of all of the years that she worked in that capacity but in the 1986 mock trial she identified herself as a "school psychologist." My understanding is that she became an administrator later on. Someone please jump in if that is not correct.
From "Mrs. Paine's Garage" by Thomas Mallon:
"After completing her master's degree [in psychology in 1980], Ruth spent the early and mid-1980s in the Florida Panhandle working as a psychologist in the Franklin County public schools. Mrs. Hyde [Ruth's mother] had passed away in '78 and both children had by now left home. Ruth returned to St. Petersburg in 1987 and took a job with the Hillsborough County school system [until 1995 when she retired]."
Mallon writes that it was during this period that Paine became active in opposing the Reagan Administration's policies in Central America Nicaragua. She regularly attended the "Quaker Meeting" in St. Petersburg which organized food and other shipments of goods to Nicaragua in opposition/response to the sanctions placed on the Sandinista regime. Mallon wrote that she said she never liked the "shrill" nature of the anti-Vietnam War movement but she did resist making tax payments for a period during the war.
She had moved from Irving to Philadelphia in 1971 where she took a job as a principal of a small Quaker elementary school. The family stayed there until 1975 when her daughter Lynn's allergies forced a move to the warmer climate in St. Petersburg, Florida where the family lived for a period on a houseboat.
-
Thanks Steve, very helpful. I have MPG but it's been a while since I read it.
-
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.
-
Thanks Steve. I have Mallon's book on Kindle now too and plan to use it more in my work.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Good analysis Steve.
-
Good analysis Steve.
As you know, this is often like re-fighting the Cold War and debating the legitimacy of the US's response to the Soviets. The conspiracy believers (certainly the Garrison believers like Stone et al.) think all of those post-war actions were unjustified, that they were done by essentially fascists who used the imagined threat from Moscow to hijack America and attain power. JFK threatened them and their power and they killed him in response.
Then everything is reverse engineered from this vieow to prove their conspiracy.
Things large and small are used to support it: Michael had a security clearance that shows he was an agent, Ruth went to Nicaragua to monitor pro-Sandinistas, David Phillips was seen with Oswald who he controlled, JFK was going to leave Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro, dismantle the CIA....these are the big things and the small ones that are all evidence of the conspiracy.
-
Are some critics of Ruth Paine prejudiced?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-are.html
-
Are some critics of Ruth Paine prejudiced?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-are.html
Where did David Talbot come up with the evidence for this claim?:
"I interviewed both Michael and Ruth Paine for my book The Devil's Chessboard. As I wrote, they were both well-known to former CIA spymaster Allen Dulles, who made a practice of using "white mice" like them."
Where is the evidence that the Paines were "well-known" to Dulles? A Quaker housewife in Ft. Worth, Texas was "well known" to Dulles? "White mice" means what here? I'm not familiar with that term.
I know I'm repeating myself but this is the problem with the JFK assassination conspiracists, the political types who see the Cold War as a lie. Talbot is a text book leftwinger, an anti- anti-communist like Oliver Stone who sees a sinister "secret state" running American foreign policy (and some domestic) during the Cold War. In this version the threat from the Soviets was an illusion, a fable foisted on the American people and used by these fascist like people for power. They really do think the Cold War was caused by us and not Moscow. Morley, Oliver Stone, Garrison and his followers.....
-
Their "evidence" is that Michael Paine's mother knew Mary Bancroft who was a mistress of Dulles. But the actual evidence that Ruth or Michael knew Dulles is zero. White mice? I don't know-maybe Talbot thinks they were experiments that Dulles was running? Again-no evidence.
-
Their "evidence" is that Michael Paine's mother knew Mary Bancroft who was a mistress of Dulles. But the actual evidence that Ruth or Michael knew Dulles is zero. White mice? I don't know-maybe Talbot thinks they were experiments that Dulles was running? Again-no evidence.
Where is Tom Scully now that we need him? He is a master at playing this CTer Kevin Bacon game. Someone went to school with a person who married the sister of someone who once lived next door to someone who once attended a funeral of the uncle of Dulles. Therefore they are complicit in a plot to kill JFK etc.
-
Their "evidence" is that Michael Paine's mother knew Mary Bancroft who was a mistress of Dulles. But the actual evidence that Ruth or Michael knew Dulles is zero. White mice? I don't know-maybe Talbot thinks they were experiments that Dulles was running? Again-no evidence.
Thanks. Garrison's "propinquity" without any connection or proximity between/among the individuals. In other words, nothing.
Didn't Paine's mother know Bancroft in college before she (Bancroft) became Dulles's mistress? Did she know Bancroft at the time of this affair? As if that matters. And how the heck would Michael Paine know that a friend of his mother's knew Dulles? Again, as if that matters. In any case, as you point out, there's no evidence that Dulles knew Michael or Ruth Paine much less they were "well-known" to him.
This is a classic example of how some (too many noted ones) conspiracists need to expand their conspiracy when new evidence is found. Does it fit? It doesn't matter, it's just more kindling for the conspiracy bonfire, a fire they just need to keep burning decade after decade. It's not about resolving what happened (although they think they have); it's now a game to keep things going. On and on....
Just to add: Talbot also says RFK was murdered by the assassins of JFK to prevent him from revealing the conspiracy. But of course.
-
Thanks. Garrison's "propinquity" without any connection or proximity between/among the individuals. In other words, nothing.
Didn't Paine's mother know Bancroft in college before she (Bancroft) became Dulles's mistress? Did she know Bancroft at the time of this affair? As if that matters. And how the heck would Michael Paine know a friend of his mother knew Dulles? Again, as if that matters. In any case, as you point out, there's no evidence that Dulles knew Michael or Ruth Paine much less they were "well-known" to him.
This is a classic example of how some (too many noted ones) conspiracists need to expand their conspiracy when new evidence is found. Does it fit? It doesn't matter, it's just more kindling for the conspiracy bonfire, a fire they just need to keep burning decade after decade. It's not about resolving what happened (although they think they have); it's now a game to keep things going. On and on....
Just to add: Talbot also says RFK was murdered by the assassins of JFK to prevent him from revealing the conspiracy. But of course.
It's not about resolving what happened (although they think they have); it's now a game to keep things going.
_'CT Bonfire of the Vanities' in other words. Nailed it.
-
Their "evidence" is that Michael Paine's mother knew Mary Bancroft who was a mistress of Dulles. But the actual evidence that Ruth or Michael knew Dulles is zero. White mice? I don't know-maybe Talbot thinks they were experiments that Dulles was running? Again-no evidence.
White mice?
(https://i.vgy.me/Oa5m3Q.jpg)
;)
-
It seems Talbot's "white mice" reference/metaphor was about this (fasten your seat belt, it's going to be rough). This is from his book on Dulles, "The Devil's Chessboard", pg. 135.
"But even the sophisticated Mary [Bancroft] found herself unnerved by one of her conversations with Dulles. She had observed that despite his cunning reputation, Allen always seemed so 'open and trusting' even with people about whom he clearly harbored suspicions or whom he 'actually had the goods on.' As he listened to Mary, Dulles grinned. 'I like to watch the little mice sniffing at the cheese just before they venture into their little trap', he told her. 'I like to see their expressions when it snaps shut, breaking their little necks.'
Elsewhere in the book he refers again to what he calls "little mice" - people that were covert operatives, agents and assets (many unwitting) - that he says Dulles used and discarded (the "little traps") during WWII and the Cold War.
Since Talbot believes Dulles was the mastermind behind the assassination, he argues that the Paines were some of these "mice" that he used/trapped to help kill JFK and frame Oswald.
-
It seems Talbot's "white mice" reference/metaphor was about this. This is from his book on Dulles, "The Devil's Chessboard", pg. 135.
Thanks. I never have gotten around to reading the whole book. I can see what I have been missing after the excerpt you posted. ::)
-
Thanks. I never have gotten around to reading the whole book. I can see what I have been missing after the excerpt you posted. ::)
It's definitely a classic..
Yep, I spent about 30 minutes or so looking that up. Would have been better time spent rearranging the socks in my dresser. Stone's movie, Garrison's "Heritage of Stone", the DiEugenio fantasies....it's crazy out there.
-
Did Ruth Paine incriminate LHO?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-part.html
-
Did Ruth Paine incriminate LHO?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-part.html
If Ruth Paine were part of some effort to frame Oswald, she would undoubtedly have said things like Oswald hated JFK, kept a rifle in her garage, seemed nervous or agitated on the night before the assassination, and carried a long bag as he left the house that morning. None of which she did. The CTer hatred of Paine is perplexing since she really didn't provide much evidence that linked Oswald to the crime.
-
If Ruth Paine were part of some effort to frame Oswald, she would undoubtedly have said things like Oswald hated JFK, kept a rifle in her garage, seemed nervous or agitated on the night before the assassination, and carried a long bag as he left the house that morning. None of which she did. The CTer hatred of Paine is perplexing since she really didn't provide much evidence that linked Oswald to the crime.
Good point. I'll get into that in part two I expect.
-
Good point. I'll get into that in part two I expect.
I guess I should order/watch the movie (I've wasted enough money on these conspiracy books and works; when I was younger it was spent on women now it's this: somebody's getting taken advantage of) but does Max Good or anyone raise these questions? Consider them? Or try to answer them? Apparently no.
It seems obvious to us that if they were CIA assets/agents ordered to frame Oswald that connecting him directly to the rifle and providing a motive would be two things they would be ordered to do. Get that rifle in Oswald's hands. Get his hands on that rifle. But as Richard said they did neither of these things. Nothing about seeing a rifle, nothing about expressing hatred towards JFK.
How can you say they were part of this horrible act (it's treason for crissake) and not address these two critical questions?
-
but does Max Good or anyone raise these questions? Consider them? Or try to answer them? It seems not.
No, Good plays the usual conspiracy game of mentioning the allegation (or inconsistency or whatever) and then moving on. Only occasionally does he let the LN talking heads respond and then it is usually only briefly.
-
The conspiracy believers, those that argue the Paines were directly involved, have Ruth Paine doing things to frame Oswald that she couldn't do - like finding and getting Oswald a job at the TSBD, at that specific building on Elm Street, with access to that specific floor and window on November 22, 1963 - and not doing things to frame Oswald that she could do - like say that she saw the rifle in the garage or that he expressed anti-JFK views or that he left work that day carrying a 38 inch package.
-
If Ruth Paine were part of some effort to frame Oswald, she would undoubtedly have said things like Oswald hated JFK, kept a rifle in her garage, seemed nervous or agitated on the night before the assassination, and carried a long bag as he left the house that morning.
If she had, you would undoubtably consider that legitimate evidence against Oswald and not a frame job. That's what's known as trying to have it both ways.
-
If she had, you would undoubtably consider that legitimate evidence against Oswald and not a frame job. That's what's known as trying to have it both ways.
The above is a perfect example of responding to a post without actually addressing the point raised in the post.
-
The above is a perfect example of responding to a post without actually addressing the point raised in the post.
As I wrote above, it is obvious to us that if Ruth and Michael Paine were indeed CIA assets/agents directed to frame Oswald that they could have said many things that would have destroyed him, that would have implicated him in the assassination. Things they did not say at all.
They could have tied him directly to that rifle. They could have provided a direct motive. They could have described a person that was erratic and had shown signs of violence that would have persuaded people that he was capable emotionally and psychologically of killing two people and essentially committing suicide in doing so.
But they did and said none of those things. Not a thing.
The answer to these failure to do so is? What can the explanation be? Hand waving and distractions is not a try. It's a dodge.
-
The above is a perfect example of responding to a post without actually addressing the point raised in the post.
Just like you did, time after time, in our mini-debate....
-
Did Ruth incriminate LHO? Part two.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-part_28.html
-
The conspiracy believers, those that argue the Paines were directly involved, have Ruth Paine doing things to frame Oswald that she couldn't do - like finding and getting Oswald a job at the TSBD, at that specific building on Elm Street, with access to that specific floor and window on November 22, 1963 - and not doing things to frame Oswald that she could do - like say that she saw the rifle in the garage or that he expressed anti-JFK views or that he left work that day carrying a 38 inch package.
In the conspiracy chain of events, Ruth also has to convince Oswald's wife to move in with her, the Fraziers to live down the street, Buell to get a job at the TSBD, Oswald to apply for a job, Truly to hire him, Oswald to stay on the job until 11.22...etc.
-
In the conspiracy chain of events, Ruth also has to convince Oswald's wife to move in with her, the Fraziers to live down the street, Buell to get a job at the TSBD, Oswald to apply for a job, Truly to hire him, Oswald to stay on the job until 11.22...etc.
You forget that she also had to ensure that the sun came up, that the power grid didn't fail and the airport remained open.
-
The conspiracy believers, those that argue the Paines were directly involved..
That one sure started off as a catch all. The key word being.. directly.
I suggest that Ruth Paine willingly made herself quite useful.
From Paine's testimony---
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes. Did she tell you of any detail of what the argument was about--what the situation was?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, she said that she felt he should not be using an alias. It wasn't contained in anything that was said, but I got the feeling that she was upset with his doing this or thinking that he should or could do it.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did she tell you whether or not Oswald had told her why he was using the alias?
Mrs. PAINE - She did not tell me anything about why.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any ideas as to why he might be doing it?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, I did suppose the possibility--it is possible that he was worried about it being found out at the School Book Depository that he had a Russian wife. He did ask me to ask Mrs. Randle to ask Frazier not to ask questions, not to discuss the fact that he had a Russian wife with the coworkers at the School Book Depository. I think he felt that, if this was known, it would also become known that he went to Russia and the circumstances of that, and he felt, and this was a sheer guess on my part, and I judge that he felt this would make his job tenure unsure.
Mr. LIEBELER - In other words, you do say, however, that Oswald did ask you to ask Mrs. Randle to ask Wesley Frazier not to talk about Oswald's Russian wife at the School Book Depository; is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right; so that my impression is supported to that extent.
[What does that mean?]
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ask Mrs. Randle to ask Mr. Frazier to do that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know whether or not she did?
Mrs. PAINE - She said she had already discussed it and she judged that they would not be talking about it.
[Why would Randle have "already" discussed Oswald's wife?]
Mr. LIEBELER - You. You don't know whether Mrs. Randle ever specifically mentioned it to Frazier after you talked to her?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I don't know that.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember when Oswald asked you to do that?
Mrs. PAINE - It was very shortly after he got the job--it was in the first week, I would say.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did Marina tell you that she was angry with Oswald for using this alias?
Mrs. PAINE - It was clear that she was angry--on the face of it.
That whole concept is stupid. It was never concretely established that Oswald was deliberately living under an alias. The somewhat clouded housekeeper may have written down what she thought he said when she asked his name. Further..why would a lowly order filler at a book warehouse be scrutinized for having a foreign wife?
If he wanted to use an alias..why didn't he use Alek Hidell?
And even if he wanted to use an alias could it not be that Oswald wanted to live incognito from the prying eyes of the FBI or any other entity that might be tracking him? So why would Marina be upset with that?
From the Parnell article----
The evidence shows that while in Mexico, Oswald did indeed travel by bus and phone the Soviet embassy about a visa. He may or may not have bought the bracelet in Mexico and probably didn't attend the Jai-Alai game since he likely didn't have proper attire. But at the very least, some of this evidence is suggestive of a trip south of the border...But while Oswald's presence or absence in Mexico City is crucial to most conspiracy theories it is irrelevant when contemplating his guilt in the murders of JFK and Tippit.
Actually..the items [were they really ever entered as evidence?] in question APPEARS to show that he went to Mexico [ignoring that two people saw him in Dallas at that same time]
"But while Oswald's presence or absence in Mexico City is crucial to most conspiracy theories it is irrelevant when contemplating his guilt in the murders of JFK and Tippit."
If Oswald was not in Mexico it certainly demonstrates that someone made it appear that he was and that sinister workings were afoot suggesting a conspiracy in the works.
-
If Oswald was not in Mexico it certainly demonstrates that someone made it appear that he was and that sinister workings were afoot suggesting a conspiracy in the works.
But there is powerful evidence that he was (Bugliosi has 14 points). And most of it does not come from Ruth.
-
But there is powerful evidence that he was (Bugliosi has 14 points). And most of it does not come from Ruth.
Mexico was explored at length here----
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1599.msg41639.html#msg41639
-
A critique of Edward Curtin's review:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-behind.html
-
A critique of Edward Curtin's review:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-behind.html
"Curtin believes that "all" of the mainstream media—CBS, ABC, The Washington Post, etc.—"speak for the Central Intelligence Agency."
I've had this exchange with conspiracists numerous times over the years with them squawking in unison "Operation Mockingbird, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Mockingbird..." and claiming that "the CIA" and their assets - people like Priscilla Johnson and Max Holland - and the mainstream media have covered up what really happened. Yes, multiple generations of reporters and editors and others for these news organizations, for the Post, the NY Times, for the networks, for some inexplicable reason have covered up for the CIA's murder of JFK. The bizarre Jim DiEugenio claims Walter Cronkite is/was among these journalistic conspirators. Yes, Cronkite.
This is, of course, the same set of news organizations that exposed the CIA's abuses, the "Family Jewels." And the FBI's abuses. Watergate, the lies of Vietnam and assorted other abuses all revealed by this same media that "speaks" for the CIA. If they "speak for the CIA" then why did the CIA allow them to reveal these abuses? Does the CIA control them or not?
As to this point: "[Good's] search for JFK knowledge gives him the perfect excuse for a sequel (or a series of them) just as it has provided Morley with a reason to pen five books related to the subject. Because conspiracies, which are really just historical mysteries, sell."
I was thinking of Morley when I came across this passage by Thomas Mallon in "Mrs. Paine's Garage."
"Most posters [on internet sites] do not want the case 'solved.' Their goal is to sustain the imagined mystery's eternal life....They light, not a prairie fire [that clears everything away] but a sort of burning circus hoop through which the same gaudy villains and dupes are coaxed to jump again and again."
"Sustain the imagined mystery's eternal life..." That is the perfect description of what Morley is doing. And others.
-
Excellent post Steve.
-
Why would the news media cover up all of these years - we're not talking about their coverage of the WC; we're talking about generations of reporters and editors over multiple decades - for the CIA's murder of JFK? For what purpose? Walter Cronkite gained what by doing so? The NY Times "spoke" for the CIA for what reason?
The same media that exposed the abuses of the agency - the "Family Jewel's" revelations - has covered up for their treasonous murder of JFK? Again, for what benefit? If they speak for the CIA then why did they talk about those crimes, crimes that the conspiracists point to when they say the CIA did this crime?
It's another example in a long list of the contradictions in the conspiracy argument. This whole conspiracy idea that "the government" killed JFK is illogical and at odds with itself.
-
Why would the news media cover up all of these years - we're not talking about their coverage of the WC; we're talking about generations of reporters and editors over multiple decades - for the CIA's murder of JFK? For what purpose? Walter Cronkite gained what by doing so? The NY Times "spoke" for the CIA for what reason?
The same media that exposed the abuses of the agency - the "Family Jewel's" revelations - has covered up for their treasonous murder of JFK? Again, for what benefit? If they speak for the CIA then why did they talk about those crimes, crimes that the conspiracists point to when they say the CIA did this crime?
It's another example in a long list of the contradictions in the conspiracy argument. This whole conspiracy idea that "the government" killed JFK is illogical and at odds with itself.
JFK is a leftist icon. The leftist media would be overjoyed to have uncovered some evidence of a right-wing conspiracy to kill him. The CTers need a cover up to explain why they can't ever prove a conspiracy. Someone is always precluding them from doing so. Either the government or someone else. The UFO believers have the same problem. The cover up is the only way to explain why they have no actual evidence to support their conclusion.
-
JFK is a leftist icon. The leftist media would be overjoyed to have uncovered some evidence of a right-wing conspiracy to kill him. The CTers need a cover up to explain why they can't ever prove a conspiracy. Someone is always precluding them from doing so. Either the government or someone else. The UFO believers have the same problem. The cover up is the only way to explain why they have no actual evidence to support their conclusion.
The idea that liberal outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post would coverup for the murder of the sainted JFK is absurd. And coverup for Hoover? And for LBJ? Liberals loathe those two men. And the CIA? And multiple generations of reporters and editors? Who thinks like this?
I don't know which is more illogical: that they would cover up for the murder of JFK or that JFK had to be murdered. He was a remarkably charistmatic president but he was, politically, ordinary. He was moderate on domestic issues and a believer in the Cold War policies of his predecessors. Yes, he wanted to avoid a direct US/USSR conflict but he recognized that the Soviet Union and communism were existential threats to the West. Finding a way to prevent a nuclear war was one thing; but surrendering to them - which is what Oliver Stone and his likes believe - was another.
This is from his speech he was to give in Dallas that day (from his closing remarks):
"We in this country, in this generation, are – by destiny rather than choice – the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.""
That's not just amazing rhetoric; he believed in those ideas.