JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on July 06, 2022, 01:11:21 AM
-
For your enjoyment and entertainment, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings has available for download or custom CD: “The Oswald Case” which is Marguerite Oswald's attempt at capturing a side of her son the general public had never seen (and an attempt to capitalize on her relationship to LHO).
https://folkways.si.edu/the-oswald-case-mrs-marguerite-oswald-reads-lee-harvey-oswalds-letters-from-russia/american-history-oral-history-biography/album/smithsonian (https://folkways.si.edu/the-oswald-case-mrs-marguerite-oswald-reads-lee-harvey-oswalds-letters-from-russia/american-history-oral-history-biography/album/smithsonian)
If you just want to know what is written in the letters, I believe they are part of the WC exhibits. If you are also interested in Marguerite’s commentary (along with the letters) you can click on the button on the right hand side of the linked page that says “Download Liner Notes” for free. And if you are so inclined to want to hear Marguerite read the letters, you can download them for ten bucks, or order the CD for 17 bucks.
I firmly believe LHO was a manipulator extraordinaire. I believe that this is demonstrated by the tone of the letters compared to the way he reportedly treated his mother at other times. He apparently needed the cooperation of his mother to help get him and Marina out of Russia. He waited until he had decided that he didn’t want to stay in Russia any longer to even let his mother know that he was still alive. And he reportedly treated his mother badly both before and after the time frame involved in these letters. Some of which letters he even signed “Love and kisses, Lee! ::)
What a crock of crap! :-\
-
For your enjoyment and entertainment, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings has available for download or custom CD: “The Oswald Case” which is Marguerite Oswald's attempt at capturing a side of her son the general public had never seen (and an attempt to capitalize on her relationship to LHO).
https://folkways.si.edu/the-oswald-case-mrs-marguerite-oswald-reads-lee-harvey-oswalds-letters-from-russia/american-history-oral-history-biography/album/smithsonian (https://folkways.si.edu/the-oswald-case-mrs-marguerite-oswald-reads-lee-harvey-oswalds-letters-from-russia/american-history-oral-history-biography/album/smithsonian)
As Marina and Lee were preparing to return to the US, the INS informed him that he needed to provide the name of a person
If you just want to know what is written in the letters, I believe they are part of the WC exhibits. If you are also interested in Marguerite’s commentary (along with the letters) you can click on the button on the right hand side of the linked page that says “Download Liner Notes” for free. And if you are so inclined to want to hear Marguerite read the letters, you can download them for ten bucks, or order the CD for 17 bucks.
I firmly believe LHO was a manipulator extraordinaire. I believe that this is demonstrated by the tone of the letters compared to the way he reportedly treated his mother at other times. He apparently needed the cooperation of his mother to help get him and Marina out of Russia. He waited until he had decided that he didn’t want to stay in Russia any longer to even let his mother know that he was still alive. And he reportedly treated his mother badly both before and after the time frame involved in these letters. Some of which letters he even signed “Love and kisses, Lee! ::)
What a crock of crap! :-\
As you mentioned, during the lengthy process securing visas to return to the US, the US embassy (specifically the INS) informed Oswald he needed an affidavit or proof showing that Marina would not become a "public charge" if he died or was unable to provide for her. Since Oswald had no job secured in the US at that time he had to find a solution. It was then that his tone with Marguerite changed.
He wrote Marguerite (it's in one of those letters) asking for her help. The same Marguerite he wanted nothing to do with after he defected. After a series of further delays the problem was solved "when Marguerite Oswald's employer later filed an affidavit of support for Marina". The visas were then approved. This account is from "Marina and Lee".
Of course leaving Marina and the children on their own was exactly what he later planned to do. By trying to shoot Walker, by trying to defect to Cuba, and by shooting JFK. And he abandoned his family when he first defected; he turned his back on them. And wrote mocking letters from Minsk to his brother. What a bum.
Geezus, to think these people here defend this miserable guy. Yes, he had a terrible childhood - a lot of people do - but they don't become awful people like this guy did. Yet they come here day-after-day for years defending him. Because "the CIA!!" and "the deep state!!!" and "LBJ was evil!!" or whatever white whale they are obsessed with that they use the assassination to harpoon.
-
Moral outrage makes such a convincing argument.
You think he shot people so how dare anybody question that?
-
We literally have tens of thousands of posts made here over the years - tens - accusing all sorts of people - most recently Ruth Paine - of being involved in the assassination, in essentially committing treason. Based on the most absurd and flimsiest of evidence. Again and again and again. Tens of thousands of times.
And we get silence in response from the same crowd who immediately comes to Oswald's defense on every occasion. Poor Lee is being mistreated. But Ruth Paine? And these others? Not a peep in protest. Silence. Hell, they attack the people defending them against the charges.
Trump once boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and his supporters wouldn't abandon him.
Oswald could say he could top that. "I can shoot two people in the middle of the street and my defenders wouldn't abandon me." And he would be correct.
This is where, like some teenager, I write LOL.
-
Nobody is coming to Oswald's defense, Steve. For God sake, we're just looking for a little bit of truth. Oswald could have been named Lee Henry for all we care, but if he said he was a patsy - which GASP! - not even Roy Truly or Lovelady probably knew - then, yeah, you have to take that statement seriously. After all, the man is being accused of murdering two people. Lee was no dummy and it was slowly dawning on him what was happening, hence his statement.
-
Moral outrage was apparently something that LHO found interesting.
“I wonder what would happen if somebody was to stand up and say he was utterly opposed not only to the governments, but to the people, too the entire land and complete foundations of his socically.” Lee Harvey Oswald
And I think that Jack Ruby let him know exactly what it looks and feels like….
-
Here we go again. The typical Oswald is [fill in the blank] and therefore, did the dastardly deed of gunning down Kennedy and the cop.
The people who shamelessly post this xxxx are doing exactly what the lawyers did about the whole case from day one when they got their mandate to "..."Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced."
Funnily enough, Dick Nixon was impeached for a similar crime of "...ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be told: “Don't go any further into this case period!” and Trump did the exact same thing when twisted arms to try to get GA to find votes for him. But in the people who post here's minds, it's probably OK to do this as long as it dovetails with their own crazy personal beliefs. In other words, JFK could rise from his grave in Arlington and proclaim he was shot from front and behind and they STILL wouldn't believe. LOL what a joke.
-
'Lee Henry'
> aka 'Dirty Henry'.. works for me
> 'Lee Harold Oswald' some news guy said
aka 'Dirty Harold', and would be more appropriate, with the actual 'Dirty Harry'
being the mensch, leaving a 'Harold' as the pansy. As it happened, no one clued into
'Dirty Harvey' until I showed up to enlighten the feeble-minded Oswald arse-kissers.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
;D
-
We literally have tens of thousands of posts made here over the years - tens - accusing all sorts of people - most recently Ruth Paine - of being involved in the assassination, in essentially committing treason. Based on the most absurd and flimsiest of evidence. Again and again and again. Tens of thousands of times.
And that somehow entitles you to make your own accusations based on the most absurd and flimsiest of evidence?
-
Just curious, does anyone have any legitimate reason to doubt that LHO wrote these letters to his mother? I’m not asking about any possible doubt, just reasonable doubt. I believe that Marguerite furnished these to the WC. Then she made the recording of her reading them and adding her own commentary.
-
While being a part of a couple guys who were personally escorting Ruth Paine around Dallas for a 3 day weekend back in September of 2019 (while she was in town to attend the premiere of "Truth Is The Only Client" at the Texas Theater), I got to hold in my hands an envelope which, in 1961, contained one of the letters Oswald wrote home.
This is Oswald's own handwriting and most likely contained his DNA.
I know I'm boasting a little bit but I don't mean it to come across that way. I just figured some members here would find this kind of neat.
Envelope from one of the letters Oswald sent home from Minsk...
(https://i.imgur.com/fp3IlTgm.jpg)
With Ruth inside the house in Irving (9/21/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/k1IzwtEm.jpg)
Lunch with Ruth at the Cheesecake Factory before heading over to the premiere (9/22/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/j8AnA0Im.jpg)
-
For your enjoyment and entertainment, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings has available for download or custom CD: “The Oswald Case” which is Marguerite Oswald's attempt at capturing a side of her son the general public had never seen (and an attempt to capitalize on her relationship to LHO).
https://folkways.si.edu/the-oswald-case-mrs-marguerite-oswald-reads-lee-harvey-oswalds-letters-from-russia/american-history-oral-history-biography/album/smithsonian (https://folkways.si.edu/the-oswald-case-mrs-marguerite-oswald-reads-lee-harvey-oswalds-letters-from-russia/american-history-oral-history-biography/album/smithsonian)
If you just want to know what is written in the letters, I believe they are part of the WC exhibits. If you are also interested in Marguerite’s commentary (along with the letters) you can click on the button on the right hand side of the linked page that says “Download Liner Notes” for free. And if you are so inclined to want to hear Marguerite read the letters, you can download them for ten bucks, or order the CD for 17 bucks.
I firmly believe LHO was a manipulator extraordinaire. I believe that this is demonstrated by the tone of the letters compared to the way he reportedly treated his mother at other times. He apparently needed the cooperation of his mother to help get him and Marina out of Russia. He waited until he had decided that he didn’t want to stay in Russia any longer to even let his mother know that he was still alive. And he reportedly treated his mother badly both before and after the time frame involved in these letters. Some of which letters he even signed “Love and kisses, Lee! ::)
What a crock of crap! :-\
Thanks for posting this, Charles.
-
While being a part of a couple guys who were personally escorting Ruth Paine around Dallas for a 3 day weekend back in September of 2019 (while she was in town to attend the premiere of "Truth Is The Only Client" at the Texas Theater), I got to hold in my hands an envelope which, in 1963, contained one of the letters Oswald wrote home.
This is Oswald's own handwriting and most likely contained his DNA.
I know I'm boasting a little bit but I don't mean it to come across that way. I just figured some members here would find this kind of neat.
Envelope from one of the letters Oswald sent home from Minsk...
(https://i.imgur.com/fp3IlTgm.jpg)
With Ruth inside the house in Irving (9/21/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/k1IzwtEm.jpg)
Lunch with Ruth at the Cheesecake Factory before heading over to the premiere (9/22/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/j8AnA0Im.jpg)
That's really cool you were able to hold a piece of history in your hands and to be part of that experience.
-
That's really cool you were able to hold a piece of history in your hands and to be part of that experience.
Thanks Rick. Yes, it was a really good time. Joe Alesi (the guy who owned the envelope) had it enclosed in plastic and let me take it out and hold it in my hands. He had previously bought it at auction.
-
While being a part of a couple guys who were personally escorting Ruth Paine around Dallas for a 3 day weekend back in September of 2019 (while she was in town to attend the premiere of "Truth Is The Only Client" at the Texas Theater), I got to hold in my hands an envelope which, in 1963, contained one of the letters Oswald wrote home.
This is Oswald's own handwriting and most likely contained his DNA.
I know I'm boasting a little bit but I don't mean it to come across that way. I just figured some members here would find this kind of neat.
Envelope from one of the letters Oswald sent home from Minsk...
(https://i.imgur.com/fp3IlTgm.jpg)
With Ruth inside the house in Irving (9/21/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/k1IzwtEm.jpg)
Lunch with Ruth at the Cheesecake Factory before heading over to the premiere (9/22/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/j8AnA0Im.jpg)
Wow, that’s very interesting Bill! Was it addressed to his mother? What was your impression of Ruth?
-
Thanks for posting this, Charles.
:)
-
Wow, that’s very interesting Bill! Was it addressed to his mother? What was your impression of Ruth?
The envelope I held was for a letter addressed to his brother, Robert.
Ruth was very sweet. She is aware of the silly theories concerning her but she really doesn't seem to be concerned about them. Incidentally, when we were about to go inside the house in Irving (they closed it off just for us), Max Good was there waiting. This was back in 2019 and he was still in the process of making his documentary. By this time, he had already interviewed her in California. He asked her if he could go inside with us to film her inside (more footage for his doc) and she told him No.
-
The envelope I held was for a letter addressed to his brother, Robert.
Ruth was very sweet. She is aware of the silly theories concerning her but she really doesn't seem to be concerned about them. Incidentally, when we were about to go inside the house in Irving (they closed it off just for us), Max Good was there waiting. This was back in 2019 and he was still in the process of making his documentary. By this time, he had already interviewed her in California. He asked her if he could go inside with us to film her inside (more footage for his doc) and she told him No.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QM7LczDD/212-RUTH-UNSINKABLE.png)
billchapman
-
While being a part of a couple guys who were personally escorting Ruth Paine around Dallas for a 3 day weekend back in September of 2019 (while she was in town to attend the premiere of "Truth Is The Only Client" at the Texas Theater), I got to hold in my hands an envelope which, in 1963, contained one of the letters Oswald wrote home.
This is Oswald's own handwriting and most likely contained his DNA.
I know I'm boasting a little bit but I don't mean it to come across that way. I just figured some members here would find this kind of neat.
Envelope from one of the letters Oswald sent home from Minsk...
(https://i.imgur.com/fp3IlTgm.jpg)
With Ruth inside the house in Irving (9/21/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/k1IzwtEm.jpg)
Lunch with Ruth at the Cheesecake Factory before heading over to the premiere (9/22/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/j8AnA0Im.jpg)
That's amazing stuff. Be careful, though. According to CTers, Paine was a mastermind behind the assassination. She might put you under some type of Manchurian candidate mind control. LOL. I would really love some of these jokers to be put in a room with Paine and let her tear them a new one.
-
That's amazing stuff. Be careful, though. According to CTers, Paine was a mastermind behind the assassination. She might put you under some type of Manchurian candidate mind control. LOL. I would really love some of these jokers to be put in a room with Paine and let her tear them a new one.
I really wished she would have sued some of these people for defamation. She would go under oath and they would have discovery - that's what they want, correct? - but they too would have to go under oath and repeat their claims and also be subjected to discovery. Imagine these silly asses under oath? Knowing they could be charged with perjury? You think they'd repeat their claims made on the internet? Or in their books?
Let's see what happens.
She said that she thinks Oliver Stone changed her name (to "Janet") for the movie out of fear of a lawsuit. That she was still a private figure and didn't have to meet that incredibly high standard that a public figure has to in order to prove they were libeled. She said that she was never contacted by Stone or any of his people but that the actress who played her did call her with a few questions.
-
That's amazing stuff. Be careful, though. According to CTers, Paine was a mastermind behind the assassination. She might put you under some type of Manchurian candidate mind control. LOL. I would really love some of these jokers to be put in a room with Paine and let her tear them a new one.
Exactly. She's a strong person, very intelligent. She can definitely defend herself all on her own. If she's up to it and can make the trip, it's looking like we'll be with her in Dallas for the 60th. We'll see.
Fun tidbit... When we were going through the house in Irving with her, she told us a story about Lee fixing the back screen door one Saturday afternoon. Moments later, she wanted to go out and see the back yard. Wouldn't you know it? The damn screen door was stuck and it took me about a minute and half to fix it so it could be opened.
-
I really wished she would have sued some of these people for defamation. She would go under oath and they would have discovery - that's what they want, correct? - but they too would have to go under oath and repeat their claims and also be subjected to discovery. Imagine these silly asses under oath? Knowing they could be charged with perjury? You think they'd repeat their claims made on the internet? Or in their books?
Let's see what happens.
She said that she thinks Oliver Stone changed her name (to "Janet") for the movie out of fear of a lawsuit. That she was still a private figure and didn't have to meet that incredibly high standard that a public figure has to in order to prove they were libeled. She said that she was never contacted by Stone or any of his people but that the actress who played her did call her with a few questions.
Most of these clowns would wilt under the pressure of having to say to her face what they say about her online.
-
Exactly. She's a strong person, very intelligent. She can definitely defend herself all on her own. If she's up to it and can make the trip, it's looking like we'll be with her in Dallas for the 60th. We'll see.
Fun tidbit... When we were going through the house in Irving with her, she told us a story about Lee fixing the back screen door one Saturday afternoon. Moments later, she wanted to go out and see the back yard. Wouldn't you know it? The damn screen door was stuck and it took me about a minute and half to fix it so it could be opened.
Of all the folks in this case, I feel the worst for her. Trying to do a good deed and getting caught up in something like this must be unreal. The target of endless conspiracy kooks who think she was involved in the frame up of a presidential assassin. That must be surreal. Even Marina who had ample cause to be grateful to her for providing for her family immediately turned on her. I would love to see some of the nuts here have to engage the real person instead of whatever fictionalized character they have concocted as part of their conspiracy fantasy.
-
Of all the folks in this case, I feel the worst for her. Trying to do a good deed and getting caught up in something like this must be unreal. The target of endless conspiracy kooks who think she was involved in the frame up of a presidential assassin. That must be surreal. Even Marina who had ample cause to be grateful to her for providing for her family immediately turned on her. I would love to see some of the nuts here have to engage the real person instead of whatever fictionalized character they have concocted as part of their conspiracy fantasy.
I agree. Same with Tippit's two remaining children. It's all a game to the goofballs who accuse J.D. of being involved somehow and how he was supposed to silence Oswald. They don't stop to think that we're talking about real people. I've spent about a half hour with Brenda (J.D.'s daughter) and she pulled out her phone showing me old pics of her with her father. She was very nice and was eager to show me the pics. This is a real woman. That was her father. It's a shame that she's even aware that some dumb asses out there say such things about her Dad; a police officer who died in the line of duty.
-
Of all the folks in this case, I feel the worst for her. Trying to do a good deed and getting caught up in something like this must be unreal. The target of endless conspiracy kooks who think she was involved in the frame up of a presidential assassin. That must be surreal. Even Marina who had ample cause to be grateful to her for providing for her family immediately turned on her. I would love to see some of the nuts here have to engage the real person instead of whatever fictionalized character they have concocted as part of their conspiracy fantasy.
We can say this about a lot of people that are smeared and defamed; no not LBJ or Hoover or Dulles or historic figures. They could defend themselves and we are free, for better or worse, to accuse them of crimes. It comes with the power they wielded.
It's the ordinary people that they attack that irritates me. These people are not around to defend themselves, to defend their names. They were just caught up in all of those terrible events and were overwhelmed by them.
But no, let's attack them anyway. Day after day, for years this is what is done. There are a lot of decent, honest conspiracy believers who are sincere if not wrong (in my view). But not all of them are like that. The followers of Garrison - the Oliver Stones and his adherents (who I don't even want to name). These are awful, awful people. If it was proven that Ruth had nothing to do with the assassination do you think they would apologize? With sincerity? Heck no, they'd just move on to another person.
-
We can say this about a lot of people that are smeared and defamed; no not LBJ or Hoover or Dulles or historic figures. They could defend themselves and we are free, for better or worse, to accuse them of crimes. It comes with the power they wielded.
It's the ordinary people that they attack that irritates me. These people are not around to defend themselves, to defend their names. They were just caught up in all of those terrible events and were overwhelmed by them.
But no, let's attack them anyway. Day after day, for years this is what is done. There are a lot of decent, honest conspiracy believers who are sincere if not wrong (in my view). But not all of them are like that. The followers of Garrison - the Oliver Stones and his adherents (who I don't even want to name). These are awful, awful people. If it was proven that Ruth had nothing to do with the assassination do you think they would apologize? With sincerity? Heck no, they'd just move on to another person.
If it was proven that Ruth had nothing to do with the assassination do you think they would apologize? With sincerity? Heck no, they'd just move on to another person.
Agreed.
-
Oswald's daughters are also real women.
Yet there no end to what you and the Paine As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' will accuse their father of.
Hypocrite.
So angry. I'm sure Oswald's daughters have had a difficult life bearing his murderous legacy. That is unfortunate, but solely and completely the fault of LHO. I gather that they don't hold him in much esteem.
June Oswald:
I know that in my life, Lee wasn't a good man. He wasn't much of a husband, he wasn't much of a father. He beat my mother. There were times when we didn't have milk to drink. We lived in poor housing, or were taken in by others. So if I'm able to be detached or seem cold and unemotional about it, it's because I look at Lee in those terms.
-
So angry. I'm sure Oswald's daughters have had a difficult life bearing his murderous legacy. That is unfortunate, but solely and completely the fault of LHO. I gather that they don't hold him in much esteem.
June Oswald:
I know that in my life, Lee wasn't a good man. He wasn't much of a husband, he wasn't much of a father. He beat my mother. There were times when we didn't have milk to drink. We lived in poor housing, or were taken in by others. So if I'm able to be detached or seem cold and unemotional about it, it's because I look at Lee in those terms.
This is where they say June was/is CIA too.
One side says: Lee Oswald, based on evidence by multiple investigations over decades, killed JFK and Tippit.
The other side says: Oswald was innocent. He was framed. Ruth Paine and Michael Paine conspired to kill JFK. And Markham and Brennan and Calloway and Roberts and on and on....a cast of dozens if not more all lied/conspired in the framing of Oswald. Based on no investigation whatsoever.
Which side wants to seize the high ground here?
-
Another of your wet dreams, but she's running out of time.
The conspiracy hero Jim Garrison had Ruth Paine testify twice: in front of his grand jury and in the Shaw trial.
He found zip. Nothing. Not a whiff.
Let's get some of these conspiracy advocates who make these accusations about all sorts of people do so under oath.
-
The real victim in all of this was JFK (and his family). Sometimes I think that we tend to overlook that.
-
This is where they say June was/is CIA too.
One side says: Lee Oswald, based on evidence by multiple investigations over decades, killed JFK and Tippit.
The other side says: Oswald was innocent. He was framed. Ruth Paine and Michael Paine conspired to kill JFK. And Markham and Brennan and Calloway and Roberts and on and on....a cast of dozens if not more all lied/conspired in the framing of Oswald. Based on no investigation whatsoever.
Which side wants to seize the high ground here?
Yes, the CIA obviously got to June. Coercing her with unspecified threats of retaliation etc. Cue sinister music. The semi-interesting thing here is that Ruth Paine never actually said much to implicate Oswald in the assassination. She could have made many incriminatory statements if she were part of some plot to frame Oswald (e.g. he hated JFK, owned a rifle, carried a long bag that morning). The pathological hatred of a woman who merely did a good deed for LHO and his family is downright bizarre. Even by the low standards of CTers.
-
While being a part of a couple guys who were personally escorting Ruth Paine around Dallas for a 3 day weekend back in September of 2019 (while she was in town to attend the premiere of "Truth Is The Only Client" at the Texas Theater), I got to hold in my hands an envelope which, in 1963, contained one of the letters Oswald wrote home.
This is Oswald's own handwriting and most likely contained his DNA.
I know I'm boasting a little bit but I don't mean it to come across that way. I just figured some members here would find this kind of neat.
Envelope from one of the letters Oswald sent home from Minsk...
(https://i.imgur.com/fp3IlTgm.jpg)
With Ruth inside the house in Irving (9/21/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/k1IzwtEm.jpg)
Lunch with Ruth at the Cheesecake Factory before heading over to the premiere (9/22/19)...
(https://i.imgur.com/j8AnA0Im.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rF7XB9Ls/245-MAIL-61.png)
biiichapman
-
False dichotomy.
"investigations" -- ROFL
Ever considered a name change to M. Gullible?
So even Garrison covered up for Ruth Paine? He found nothing.
Multiple investigations conducted by Democrats and Republicans over several generations, news media investigations over decades, investigative reporters, historians.....
All of this is part of the continuing coverup. Right, someone is gullible here.
-
LOL
So what is she waiting for?
And what are you waiting for?
As I said, she's gone under oath. Questioned by your conspiracy hero Garrison. He found nothing. She's got nothing to prove. Neither did all of these investigations.
You folks are making the claims not her.
-
They also conduced presidents like Nixon, Trump and Biden.
The perpetrators had an equal amount of decades to destroy evidence.
Thanks to LBJ/WC we're stuck with a cold case.
The same perpetrators had "decades" to destroy evidence? But you've figured it out? It's a cold case? I thought you folks solved it?
The news media - at that time and since then - investigated the assassination. The Washington Post, the NY Times, CBS. The same organizations that uncovered Watergate and the CIA and FBI abuses.
But they covered up the murder of JFK? Or the evidence was destroyed?
The perfect conspiracy. The evidence of one is that there's no evidence.
-
(https://i.vgy.me/sY92XN.jpg)
-
I suggest you get your sh!t together before continuing.
The request came from you, Einstein:
Let's get some of these conspiracy advocates who make these accusations about all sorts of people do so under oath.
Here's a problem for you: I'm not Ruth Paine. I can't require that any of the conspiracists who defame her testify and go under oath with their claims. I've got no standing. It's her call.
I suggested that she should do so; but I can't make her.
Again, she's gone under oath. Multiple times. Including under Garrison's grand jury, a situation where he could ask her about her role in the Lincoln assassination or the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or anything that came into his paranoid head. He found nothing. She's not afraid to go under oath. There's nothing there in the conspiracy claims against her but fantasies and falsehoods. And here you are.
-
The same perpetrators had "decades" to destroy evidence? But you've figured it out? It's a cold case? I thought you folks solved it?
The news media - at that time and since then - investigated the assassination. The Washington Post, the NY Times, CBS. The same organizations that uncovered Watergate and the CIA and FBI abuses.
But they covered up the murder of JFK? Or the evidence was destroyed?
The perfect conspiracy. The evidence of one is that there's no evidence.
But you've figured it out? It's a cold case? I thought you folks solved it?
Have you figured it out? Or do you simply believe everything you are told?
-
When Max Good asked Ruth about the CIA, she got all shifty-eyed and defensive.
-
This is where they say June was/is CIA too.
One side says: Lee Oswald, based on evidence by multiple investigations over decades, killed JFK and Tippit.
The other side says: Oswald was innocent. He was framed. Ruth Paine and Michael Paine conspired to kill JFK. And Markham and Brennan and Calloway and Roberts and on and on....a cast of dozens if not more all lied/conspired in the framing of Oswald. Based on no investigation whatsoever.
Which side wants to seize the high ground here?
High horse is more like it.
Hypocrite. You’re perfectly happy to smear Oswald with the thinnest of justification. I would think that Ruth knows it’s not slander if it’s true.
-
This is remarkable, even by the standards of the internet. The same people who come here day after day and post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald, who always come to his defense like followers of a cult with the most spurious of rationales AND then remain absolutely silent when Ruth Paine and others are smeared with the charge of being traitors, of being behind the assassination of JFK are calling others hypocrites?
We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.
Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all.
Who are the phonies and frauds here again?
You can see just about anything on the internet, even the most ludicrous of things. This is one of those cases.
-
This is remarkable, even by the standards of the internet. The same people who come here day after day and post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald, who always come to his defense like followers of a cult with the most spurious of rationales AND then remain absolutely silent when Ruth Paine and others are smeared with the charge of being traitors, of being behind the assassination of JFK are calling others hypocrites?
We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.
Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all.
Who are the phonies and frauds here again?
You can see just about anything on the internet, even the most ludicrous of things. This is one of those cases.
post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald
Wow, somebody feels superior here..... What a pathetic joke, because a truly intelligent man would listen to other points of view instead of instantly dismissing them as "irrational and anti-intellectual". You do understand that even the biggest fool considers himself to be the smartest person in the room, don't you?
We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people.
A pathetic appeal to authority. Otherwise known as "they told me so, and I believed it". You do understand you are talking about the same parties who lied to us about Watergate, Iran-contra, Nukes in Iraq etc etc?
Again and again and again we cite this evidence.
Yes, you do... Completely mindlessly and with never understanding, or being willing to understand, that that evidence is shallow, full of speculation and extremely weak.
Who are the phonies and frauds here again?
I would argue that it is those who blindly accept what they were told with no desire to scrutinize any of it.
And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.
Oh poor man. When evidence is dismissed it's simply because it isn't valid, authentic or doesn't support the conclusions the Warren Commission based upon it.
You're not a heretic. A fanatic, maybe. But most certainly you are a member of the cult defending your bible, called the Warren Report. No matter how irrational it's content, you will not have it questioned.
-
We just had Tracy Parnell review this silly movie about Ruth Paine. In it, one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side, Vincent Salandria, accuses Michael Paine (and Ruth too) of being CIA agents involved in the assassination.
What was, in part, his evidence of Michael's involvement, of his intelligence work? He said this:
"His [Michael Paine'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."
So Michael Paine's father - his father - was a Trotskyite. That's evidence. And he had a security clearance while working on helicopters at Bell. That's also the evidence of his being a agent.
That is nonsense, it's a smear, and it's obvious that it's baseless.
But we got not one single word of protest from the Oswald apologists, the same people oh-so-upset about accusations against him.
Who again are the hypocritical frauds?
-
We just had Tracy Parnell review this silly movie about Ruth Paine. In it, one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side, Vincent Salandria, accuses Michael Paine (and Ruth too) of being CIA agents involved in the assassination.
What was, in part, his evidence of Michael's involvement, of his intelligence work? He said this:
"His [Michael Paine'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."
So Michael Paine's father - his father - was a Trotskyite. That's evidence. And he had a security clearance while working on helicopters at Bell. That's also the evidence of his being a agent.
That is nonsense, it's a smear, and it's obvious that it's baseless.
But we got not one single word of protest from the Oswald apologists, the same people oh-so-upset about accusations against him.
Who again are the hypocritical frauds?
Who again are the hypocritical frauds?
You're one of them. Whining about how some people make claims against the Paines, whilst at the same time making similar claims about a dead man who never had the opportunity to defend himself.
I don't agree with any claims being made about anybody without evidence to back it up. That goes for the Paines as well as for Oswald. In either case, bring me conclusive evidence to back up your claim and I will accept it.
I don't think there is enough evidence to support the claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents, but, having said that, I do find there is circumstantial evidence to support at least a suspicion of them playing some part in this tragedy, in much the same way as there is about George DeMohrenschildt. Some things just don't add up and will never be explained when there are people like you who dismiss everything out of hand instead of having an open discussion about the subject.
Your posts are filled with hypocrisy.
Btw Vincent Salandria is not one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side. At least not for me. There is in fact no conspiracy side in the way you seem to think there is. Salandria is just a guy with an opinion. Just like you and me. He doesn't speak for anybody else just as you don't speak for all LNs. Your generalizations are pathetic.
-
You are ranting, insulting other posters, and behaving completely inappropriately.
Wow. Talk about pots and kettles.
-
Once again, Steve Galbraith confuses righteous indignation with evidence.
By the way, I haven’t seen anybody here call Ruth Paine a traitor who was behind the assassination of JFK. Sounds like a strawman.
You don’t “cite volumes of evidence against Oswald”. You cite garbage rhetoric and call it evidence.
-
We just had Tracy Parnell review this silly movie about Ruth Paine. In it, one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side, Vincent Salandria, accuses Michael Paine (and Ruth too) of being CIA agents involved in the assassination.
Have you even seen the movie? I doubt it.
-
Who again are the hypocritical frauds?
You're one of them. Whining about how some people make claims against the Paines, whilst at the same time making similar claims about a dead man who never had the opportunity to defend himself.
I don't agree with any claims being made about anybody without evidence to back it up. That goes for the Paines as well as for Oswald. In either case, bring me conclusive evidence to back up your claim and I will accept it.
I don't think there is enough evidence to support the claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents, but, having said that, I do find there is circumstantial evidence to support at least a suspicion of them playing some part in this tragedy, in much the same way as there is about George DeMohrenschildt. Some things just don't add up and will never be explained when there are people like you who dismiss everything out of hand instead of having an open discussion about the subject.
Your posts are filled with hypocrisy.
Btw Vincent Salandria is not one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side. At least not for me. There is in fact no conspiracy side in the way you seem to think there is. Salandria is just a guy with an opinion. Just like you and me. He doesn't speak for anybody else just as you don't speak for all LNs. Your generalizations are pathetic.
"You're one of them. Whining about how some people make claims against the Paines, whilst at the same time making similar claims about a dead man who never had the opportunity to defend himself."
_Neither did Kennedy nor Tippit.
-
Most of these clowns would wilt under the pressure of having to say to her face what they say about her online.
She made mincemeat out of Jerry Spence via a mere chortle or two.
-
*Gerry
-
To repeat: "We [those of us who accuse Oswald of shooting JFK and Tippit] cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence [usually sworn testimony]. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.
Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all."
Those upset at the allegations against Oswald made here (he's a dead man!!) - based on documented evidence - and remain silent when Ruth Paine and dozens of others are smeared - smear means unsubstantiated - of essentially engaging in treason and murder have no grounds to complain about the supposed inconsistency of anyone.
And to note again: I cited those absurd comments by one of the leading conspiracy advocates, a man praised by the major figures among the conspiracists - Vincent Salandria - and not one Oswald defender criticized them.
-
To repeat: "We [those of us who accuse Oswald of shooting JFK and Tippit] cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence [usually sworn testimony]. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.
Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all."
Those upset at the allegations against Oswald made here (he's a dead man!!) - based on documented evidence - and remain silent when Ruth Paine and dozens of others are smeared - smear means unsubstantiated - of essentially engaging in treason and murder have no grounds to complain about the supposed inconsistency of anyone.
And to note again: I cited those absurd comments by one of the leading conspiracy advocates, a man praised by the major figures among the conspiracists - Vincent Salandria - and not one Oswald defender criticized them.
You are using common sense and logic on folks who are impervious to such concepts. And, again, Ruth Paine didn't provide much in the way of evidence against Oswald relating to his involvement in the assassination. She certainly would have said many incriminatory things if she was playing a role to frame him. Why these contrarians are no unhinged about her is all the bigger mystery.
-
Again and again and again we cite this evidence [usually sworn testimony]. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect.
No, it’s dismissed because the evidence you cite is either not evidence at all, or if it is evidence it is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way. Your solution to this dilemma is to just cite the same old crap claims again and again as if repetition somehow makes it better.
Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned.
Sorry, but this is a red herring fallacy. Nobody is obligated to comment on your pet righteous indignation. And last time I checked, Vincent Salandria is not making any charges on this forum to respond to.
-
*Gerry
Sounds exactly the same ;)
-
No, it’s dismissed because the evidence you cite is either not evidence at all, or if it is evidence it is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way. Your solution to this dilemma is to just cite the same old crap claims again and again as if repetition somehow makes it better.
Sorry, but this is a red herring fallacy. Nobody is obligated to comment on your pet righteous indignation. And last time I checked, Vincent Salandria is not making any charges on this forum to respond to.
'tainted'
Oswald tainted his drawers when the cops showed up @ the movies
-
'tainted'
Oswald tainted his drawers when the cops showed up @ the movies
Thanks once again for another vapid and irrelevant contribution.
-
Thanks once again for another vapid and irrelevant contribution.
Who's a Mr. Grumpy Pants
Must be the heat
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbskbGJF/246-GOT-MAIL-YOU-DON-T.png)
billchapman
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydNsq2H9/247-OSWALDS-MAIL.png)
billchapman