• Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Paul Trejo

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Trejo

  1. Jeff, Thanks for posting your 2015 article on Michael Paine and the Backyard Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are some comments. Your text will be in red. In 1993, Michael Paine began telling interviewers that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo when they first met in the Spring of 1963. If Michael Paine’s relatively recent claim is actually true, then his Warren Commission testimony is severely compromised, a fact which appears to have escaped many mainstream journalists and network research departments (Jeff Carter, 2015). You use the phrase, "severely compromised," Jeff, and then you explain why: This event, if true, is entirely absent from Paine’s long and detailed description of his half hour with Oswald as told to the Warren Commission. As I see it, Michael Paine withheld this fact about seeing the Backyard Photographs because of the "hang-em-high" atmosphere of the JFK investigation. Observing the torture that was given to Sylvia Odio in Mexico City gives a clue to the mindset of Dallas, Texas -- seeking Communists to blame for the JFK assassination was a high priority. That explains why Michael Paine would only answer the questions asked -- exactly as asked and no further. Then you add: If true, and Oswald was offering Michael Paine visual evidence of an apparent tendency to violent fanaticism, it is not at all clear why this troubling information was not passed to Ruth Paine as she continued to forge her friendship with Marina. Ruth Paine claimed to the Warren Commission that she did not know Lee owned a rifle and would not have accepted the presence of a rifle in the same home as her children (Jeff Carter, 2015). To use a phrase from Ernest Hemingway, "the rich are different from you and me." Michael Paine's wealthy father was a Trotskyite Marxist. Michael didn't favor Marxism, but he knew a lot about it -- far more than Oswald would ever know. What Michael saw in Oswald -- very quickly -- was that Oswald was a Fake Marxist. Furthermore, just because Oswald posed in a photo with guns, did not in the slightest prove that Oswald himself owned any guns. Nor did it prove that Oswald was violent. Nor did it suggest that Oswald was a "violent fanatic." Instead, Michael Paine regarded Lee Harvey Oswald -- very quickly -- as a sort of clown. (Michael Paine had no reason on April 2, 1963, to suspect the Backyard Photos of being Faked. Ruth Paine was interested in Marina Oswald -- with utterly no interest at all in Lee Harvey Oswald. Besides that -- Ruth could take care of herself. Michael wasn't concerned. He was bemused. Too bad the interesting Marina Oswald came with this unfortunate baggage -- but she did. Michael Paine denied the content of the call during an interview conducted December 23, 1963 by FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum. “Mr. PAINE advised that on November 23, 1963, he did not make any statement to anyone that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President but did not feel OSWALD was responsible ... Mr. PAINE advised that what he did say, in fact, in a conversation with his wife, was that he was not sure that OSWALD had killed the President, because at that time he had no facts at his command ...” (Jeff Carter, 2015) Michael Paine was being entirely truthful -- according to what Ruth Paine told me personally (12/12/2015). While Michael did add, "We both know who's responsible," meaning the Dallas Radical Right (says Ruth Paine), Michael never said that he felt sure that Oswald killed JFK. We do agree that Paul Barger’s story of a telephone repairman -- or that he could not remember -- lacks credibility. A good wiretap has reliable documentation, but this wiretap was, IMHO, politically motivated. Ruth Paine does not deny that the call happened -- she does deny that the transcript of the call was correct. Also, she remains upset that the US Government has refused to tell her honestly who tapped her telephone on 11/22/1963. Since I believe that Ruth Paine is telling the truth -- it is reasonable for me to presume that Michael Paine would agree with her. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  2. Paul B., It seems to me that you and I see the work of Bill Simpich through the same lens here. I think that the next step is to combine the work of Bill Simpich with the work of Jim Garrison. How can it be possible that Guy Banister of 544 Camp Street could be involved with CIA rogues in Mexico City? I think that's the new question. I don't see Guy Banister as merely trying to "discredit" the FPCC, or even trying to "infiltrate" the FPCC. Instead, Banister used LHO to create a Fake FPCC, which had only one member -- LHO. Then, Guy Banister used David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Tommy Beckham to frame LHO to look like a real FPCC officer. This had no impact on the FPCC, so why would the FBI or CIA high-command be interested in Banister's Fake FPCC? Now -- here is another point -- I'd like to ask your opinion: Marina Oswald testified that LHO took all these New Orleans newspaper clippings to Mexico City, to present himself as a Fake FPCC officer. This also matches the Lopez Report (2003) which actually prints those newspaper clippings, along with the result of LHO's Fake FPCC resume which he showed to Sylvia Duran (complete with photographs) and to Eusebio Azcue. Marina Oswald agrees with the CIA on this point. Do you suspect that Marina Oswald was working with the CIA? Regards, --Paul Trejo
  3. Chris, I put my chip on scenario #2 -- with one difference -- the typed version of the "Kostin letter" is genuine. IMHO, the "Kostin letter" was written only to irritate the FBI and befuddle Ruth Paine. The Soviet Embassy -- once they received it -- recognized it was another "crank" letter. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  4. Anna, What's your specific interest in the JFK assassination discussion? Regards, --Paul Trejo
  5. George, We sharply disagree. Jim Garrison knew in 1968 that Guy Banister wanted Oswald to kill JFK. I agree with Jim Garrison. One only needs to read Jim Garrison's book, On the Trail of the Assassins (1988), to see the truth in this. DAP was hoping that Oswald would help him kill Fidel Castro in Cuba. That's what the Mexico City trip was all about. One only needs to read DAP's unpublished bio-novel, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) to see the truth in this. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  6. Jeff, This is extremely interesting. I'll respond by the numbers. (1) I believe that both of the Paines accounted for their suspicion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) so soon after the JFK assassination. Not directly -- I grant you that -- but indirectly through their WC testimony, taken as an extended whole. (2) I am willing to go into the details of their WC testimony if you wish a dialogue on the topic. Otherwise, I'll rest content with some general comments here. (3) Ruth Paine gave clear impressions of LHO in her WC testimony -- and most of it was negative. (4) First, Ruth Paine's main interest was in Marina Oswald -- a young mother, college educated, kind, polite, with aristocratic Russian grammar. Ruth had spent years learning Russian, but like many of us who study Spanish in high school or college, when we visit Mexico, we can hardly keep up with the taxi drivers. (5) Ruth had no Russian conversational skill, and she was paying a lot of money for almost useless lessons from Dorothy Gravitis, the elderly mother-in-law of professor Ilya Mamantov. Professor Mamantov had turned Ruth Paine down for lessons, because Ruth's skill was so poor. (6) When Ruth first met Marina Oswald at a party on February 22, 1963, Ruth tried to join a conversation between Marina and Jeanne DeMorhrenschildt, regarding baby Ruth, who was cranky at the party. Marina was kind enough to correct Ruth's grammar in a polite manner. Ruth really wanted this new friendship, and made arrangements to meet. (7) When Ruth first met Marina at a park with their three children, Marina quickly began to complain about LHO. He was trying to send her back to the USSR without him, she complained -- and she was pregnant. (8) So, right away, Ruth didn't like LHO. He was a deadbeat dad, and he wouldn't let Marina learn English, which is so important in the USA. (9) In mid-April, 1963, when Ruth went to visit Marina, she was surprised to find LHO there, bags packed to go to New Orleans, and asking for a ride with his bags to the Greyhound bus station. He was going to leave Marina and baby Ruth alone at their Neely Street apartment, with a few dollars and a bus ticket, and would write a letter (as they had no phone) when he got a job. He was going to live with his aunt and uncle there. (10) Outraged at this prospect, Ruth offered to bring Marina and baby Ruth to her own home, to live with her and her two children. That way, LHO could just call on the telephone when he was ready, and Marina wouldn't be all alone in Dallas, speaking no English. Then, when LHO was ready, Ruth herself offered to drive Marina to New Orleans. LHO accepted. (11) Ruth testifies that she and Marina both accepted the possibility that LHO would abandon his family, and Marina would never hear from him again. If this happened, Ruth planned to see Marina through her upcoming childbirth, with registration at Parkland Hospital, and then help Marina learn English and get a job -- or else move to New York where there were lots of Russian-speaking immigrants, so she could work there, as a single-parent. Marina liked the idea. (12) Again, Ruth had a very low opinion of LHO at this time. LHO surprised them both by calling in about two weeks. Marina shouted to baby Ruth, "Papa loves us!" She was so surprised. True to her word, Ruth packed up her station wagon with all Marina's things, and drove Marina and their three children to New Orleans. There, Marina saw the roach-infested apartment that LHO found, and Marina and LHO began fighting again right away, and all night long. (13) Ruth and Marina kept up their letter-writing correspondence, and Marina continued to complain that LHO kept threatening to send her back to the USSR without him. She could hardly stand the pressure, she complained. Ruth came to detest LHO at this point. (14) Ruth went for a long summer vacation back East to stay with her family and friends. While they wanted to talk about her separation from Michael Paine, all Ruth wanted to talk about was saving Marina Oswald -- and what a louse LHO was. (15) Then, at the end of the summer, the third weekend of September, 1963, Ruth drove to New Orleans on her way back from her summer vacation. Surprised -- LHO was out of a job again. (16) This time it was worse. Marina Oswald was now eight months pregnant, had no health insurance, and had not seen a doctor at all during her pregnancy. It was a crisis. (17) It's not just that Ruth Paine was a Quaker and inclined toward charity -- Ruth Paine genuinely liked Marina Oswald, and could hardly stand to see Marina -- this college educated and hard-working young mother -- going through such misery. (18) So, Ruth Paine AGAIN offered to take Marina Oswald and baby Ruth into her home, and register at Parkland Hospital, and keep Marina at her home through February, 1964, when her mother was going to come to live with her. LHO again agreed. So he loaded up her station wagon, and Ruth, Marina and their three children drove to Texas. (19) When Ruth unpacked the car, there was no sign of a rifle anywhere in the Oswald luggage. She remains certain. (20) Again, briefly, Ruth and Marina considered the possibility that LHO would just run away and never be heard from again. Until Oswald re-appeared two weeks later, they never heard from LHO, and barely noticed the absence. The real problem was the upcoming childbirth, the medical attention, and the possibility that Marina would be a single-parent in the USA. (21) About two weeks later, in early October, LHO showed up at Ruth's place. Penniless and out of work, LHO was not welcome to live with Ruth. Her house was small, and there were already five people living there. But he asked if he could come around on weekends, and Ruth, out of kindness to Marina and baby Ruth, said yes. (22) There was a brief period in mid-October 1963 when Ruth Paine began to develop a mildly positive impression of LHO, and she wrote her mother about this change in attitude, because her mother was worried that this negative person whom Ruth had complained about all summer, was now coming into Ruth's home on a weekly basis. So, Ruth sent her mother a "don't worry" letter, and painted a positive portrait of LHO for her. (23) But that all changed with the first days of November, 1963, when FBI agent James Hosty came to visit. Marina became cranky about it. Then LHO became cranky about it. Then Ruth found LHO's "Soviet Embassy Letter" in her home, which slammed the FBI, and Ruth didn't like that. Ruth was and remains a conservative American. (24) Oswald was an oddball. Michael Paine came around to visit on weekends when LHO was there, because his children were in the house, after all. Ruth and Michael discussed whether LHO was dangerous, and they both agreed that he was not. He was something of a leech, but that's not dangerous. Ruth had a commitment to Marina Oswald, and schlepping LHO along was just part of the cost. (25) Ruth and Michael Paine were unimpressed with LHO's "Marxist" pretensions. Any normal Marxist would join some Communist Party or other, and spend his weekends at some political rally or march. LHO would watch TV on the weekends. (26) About the only thing that LHO and Michael Paine agreed upon was General Walker, the right-wing nut. At least, that's what Michael believed. (27) Michael's apprehension about LHO was not sparked by Frank Krystinik, his co-worker at Bell Helicopter. Frank witnessed Michael getting upset all on his own. The problem was that LHO worked at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) -- and when the radio news mentioned the TSBD, bells in Michael's head went off. (28) The same was true of Ruth Paine. The tone of the JFK assassination was shocking -- but to hear the TSBD building named over the radio, sent bells off in her head. Ruth immediately ran out to the backyard where Marina Oswald was hanging laundry, and announced, "The shots came from the TSBD building!" She was already nervous. (29) Ruth Paine knew that her lifestyle in Texas was unique. She and Michael came from wealthy, East Coast families with intellectual backgrounds. This alone was rare in Dallas and Irving, Texas. But then they added Marina Oswald to their world -- and they were nearly unique. LHO was the odd duck which made everything weird. (30) Ruth and Michael Paine knew that LHO was weird. I mean, they were from the East Coast so they knew people even more weird. But this was Texas -- and LHO really stood out like a sore thumb. (31) So, IMHO that explains the premonitions of Ruth and Michael Paine soon after the JFK assassination. It completely fails to explain why somebody in the US Government had tapped their telephone on 11/22/1963. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  7. The fiction by Elena Garro de Paz, relating that her personal friend, Sylvia Duran, had personally befriended Lee Harvey Oswald at a "twist party" in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963, has been long known and well-established as pulp fiction. The Mexico City press of December, 1963, was full of tabloid fiction about Sylvia Duran, the pretty young consul of the Cuban Consulate at the Mexico City Embassy Compound. Stories of sex orgies abounded -- Sylvia was a Communist tramp, as expected, and Oswald was one of her many lovers. Such was the tripe dished out by the Mexico City press to gullible readers, who wanted nothing more than to hear that the Communists under Fidel Castro had killed JFK, by using Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald as his puppets. The tragedy is that the Mexican Police believed Elena's fiction, and arrested Sylvia Duran, and tried to beat the "truth" out of her. This is the legacy of Elena Garry de Paz. It's nothing new. The fact that a CIA agent, June Cobb, tried to raise the story as American History, does not make the fiction come to life. It remains a cheap tabloid fiction today, just as it was in 1963. That said -- I do maintain that Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed in Mexico City in the company of others. Oswald was never alone. According to Harry Dean, the companions of Oswald in Mexico City were Loran Hall, Larry Howard and famous war hero, Guy Gabaldon. Thus, Oswald's companions were decidedly non-Marxists -- they were ultra-rightwing fanatics. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  8. Absolutely right. If the KGB really killed JFK, then David Lifton's CT of a pre-autopsy autopsy would be out of the question. Also, if the KGB really killed JFK, then the KGB would have needed moles not only inside the CIA and FBI, but also inside the Dallas Police Department. What nonsense. The Leonov theory of the JFK assassination is DOA. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  9. George, First, there is no need for personal insult here. If you don't like my answers, then stop asking me questions. That simple. Secondly, David Atlee Phillips was only ONE of Oswald's handlers. Guy Banister was a different handler, with different connections and a different purpose. This was shown conclusively by Dr. Jeff Caufield (2015). There are many other interpretations of the behavior of Oswald than simply blaming David Atlee Phillips. For Caufield, General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK assassination, and had a personal vendetta against Lee Harvey Oswald because of the April 10, 1963 attempted assassination of Walker. Caufield links Guy Banister with General Walker in 1963. There is the explanation for Oswald's return to Dallas -- without the need to pull DAP into the argument. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  10. Paul B., Your CT there neglects the real possibility that the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were two different groups, with opposing purposes. It is certainly true that the JFK Kill Team could not have controlled the US Government Cover-up. They didn't expect to get caught. They put their lives on the line for what they believed, namely, that JFK was a Communist. They killed JFK and tried to blame the Communists. If they would have been caught in normal times, they would have all faced a firing squad. However, these weren't normal times. This was the COLD WAR. The JFK Kill Team continually tried to argue that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. Even in the pages of the Warren Commission, we hear them (starting with General Walker, going through Robert Alan Surrey, Revilo P. Oliver and Bernard Weissman, to name a few) blabbering on about Oswald being part of a Communist plot to kill JFK. But the Warren Commission considered them to be "nuts" just as they considered Oswald to be a "nut." It was one of the strangest facts of US History -- but the JFK killers got away with it -- to a point. Yet what they really wanted was to spur the invasion of Cuba. THAT WAS DENIED TO THEM. Ultimately, the JFK Killers got lots of NOTHING. They all crawled back into the holes from which they came -- shame-faced to the world for the rest of their lives. The JFK Cover-up was clearly an act of STATE. However, the JFK assassination was caused solely and only by the US Radical Right. Big difference. (As evidence I propose the recent book by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).) Regards, --Paul Trejo
  11. David, Let's go a little slower, please. I don't name Giancana or Roselli as JFK plotters -- although they most likely heard rumors through a live grape-vine, i.e. they knew what was going on to a large degree. But they weren't inside the inner circle. The inner circle was in Dallas -- not Miami. Also, I don't name Richard Helms as a JFK plotter. He was clueless, IMHO. The same applies to David Atlee Phillips -- I accept his quasi-confession in his unpublished novel, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) as real and true history -- that's my personal opinion. DAP was clueless. Also, I don't name James Jesus Angleton, because he started the Simpich Mole Hunt on October 1, 1963, trying to find out which CIA agent had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City. Again -- clueless. As for E. Howard Hunt, I must name him as a conspirator, because he confessed on his deathbed to his son, and I accept that confession. Yet it is open to interpretation, because he used diagrams instead of words in places. In any case, Hunt said he was "on the sidelines," and he reluctantly accepted the invitation of Frank Sturgis as forwarded from David Morales. I accept that Hunt was "on the sidelines," aside from handing some money over to some gun-runners. He was dogged by Mark Lane for the rest of his life -- which is a form of punishment. Frank Sturgis allegedly confessed and even boasted about his role in the JFK assassination. He was later jailed for his role in Watergate. As for David Morales -- he also confessed to his pal, Ruben Carbajal. He lived out his life as a drunkard -- paranoid of everybody. He had betrayed his own Company and leaders, and he lived out his life in guilt -- a special kind of prison for any man of honor. Yet none of those men were at the center of the cyclone -- namely -- in Dallas. The center, IMHO, was Ex-General Edwin Walker, the only US General to resign in the 20th century, in 1961, spurning his 30-year US Army pension. Walker resigned because he regarded the Pentagon as "Communist-influenced," which was the standard creed of the John Birch Society. For his role in the Ole Miss racial riots, General Walker had been sent to an insane asylum by JFK and RFK on October 1, 1962, but was released three days later by the ACLU and others. In January, 1963, General Walker was acquitted by a Grand Jury, and went about suing all those AP newspapers who printed the truth about him -- that he was the leader of the Ole Miss racial riots. Walker lost 9 out of 10 of those cases, but the few he won gave him more than $3 million in court winnings by 1966. What was his punishment, IMHO, for his role in the JFK assassination? When the AP appealed to the Supreme Court, Walker's case was heard by none other than Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. Earl Warren found for AP, and sent General Walker home empty-handed. Penniless, Walker had no choice but to beg for his Army pension to be "restored." Walker had to wait another 16 years for it -- Walker finally got his Army pension in 1982. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  12. George, I don't take James DiEugenio as an authority today. IMHO James has extended the 1968 arguments of Jim Garrison as far as they can go -- but no further; his work is repetitive. The attacks by James DiEugenio upon the CIA in general, and upon Allen Dulles in particular are based on guesswork, innuendo, rumor and imagination. The CIA did not kill JFK. The Pentagon did not kill JFK. There was no coup-de-etat in the USA. Such thinking is beyond CT, it is almost paranoid. The solution to the JFK assassination has one and only one solution -- and the solution has nothing to do with guesswork or imagination. The fact that JFK had many enemies in the CIA and in the Pentagon proves NOTHING AT ALL. People can hate without being murderers. There is no smoking gun discovered in the works of James DiEugenio. In desperation James also attacks Quaker charity lady Ruth Paine, accusing her of CIA membership and plotting against JFK. What nonsense. If you want my recognition for an argument, George, please select a better source. James DiEugenio's Probe Magazine (1990's) was a big failure. David Lifton also rejects James DiEugenio's conclusions; I'm not a lone wolf here. Here is a source that I find very solid -- former FBI agent Don Adams, who investigated Willie Somerset, informant against ultra-right-wing Joseph Milteer, in his book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle (2012). The solution to the JFK assassination starts there -- with the US Radical Right. Not the CIA. Not Allen Dulles. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  13. George, It is more likely that Prouty misunderstood the action -- he was very quick to accuse General Lansdale of participation in the JFK assassination. Not everybody agrees with Fletcher Prouty. I offer Larry Hancock as only one stellar example. There was an accusation that I read once -- that the US Military had rehearsed the funeral of JFK a week before the assassination. That turned out to be a rehearsal for a funeral of another US Government official. But the rumors fly. We must learn to more sharply distinguish facts from rumors. Otherwise, the rumors take over -- as we saw in Probe Magazine (1990's). Also, the whole CT literature about an alleged coup-de-etat with the JFK assassination -- this is all exaggeration and melodrama. There was no coup. Also, if you want to make statements about the power of the CIA relative to the US Military, then please read more books by Larry Hancock, who is an expert in such issues -- and don't just guess at it. There is a web site called, "Counter-Coup" which features such JFK rumors. It's part of what drags down honest researchers. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  14. Michael, You're adding words that aren't there. The first thing that LHO does is ask Sylvia Duran for (and I quote) "requirements to go to Cuba." It's in the very text that you cited to me, Michael. How could you miss it? My speaking of an "Instant" visa refers to the full story -- LHO becomes impatient when Sylvia Duran explains that LHO must wait several weeks for a visa to Cuba. This was because LHO presented her with a Fake FPCC resume, which was obviously bogus. He wasn't getting into Cuba that weekend. But LHO insisted on getting into Cuba THAT WEEKEND. If you read the Lopez Report fully you would know that. You aren't even trying, dude. You're just being pushy. I'm setting your account to IGNORE again. Bye now, --Paul Trejo
  15. Chris, Just admit it -- the idea that the KGB would impersonate Oswald in Mexico City by using the Fake FPCC resume that Guy Banister devised at 544 Camp Street defies any and all possible logic. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  16. Michael, If this is truly a polite challenge as you claim, then first admit that you contradicted yourself. Your sentence above is the OPPOSITE of the sentence by Sylvia Duran Tirado. Next, admit that you accused me of quoting testimony when I was only explaining my case. The phrase "instant visa" is mine, intended to emphasize an obvious fact Third, admit that Sylvia Duran Tirado was under pressure, spoke broken English, and was being guided by the attorney. If you refuse to admit these few points, then I'll conclude again that you're just being pushy. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  17. Chris, Yes, Tommy failed to explain WHY any KGB agent would want to impersonate Oswald at the Cuban Embassy. Also, Tommy failed to explain HOW the KGB would get its hands on the 544 Camp Street resume of Oswald, which Oswald created under the guidance of Guy Banister. Duran and Azcue disclosed this resume, and the Lopez Report revealed it as a keystone of the Mexico City episode. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  18. Dan, Thanks for sharing the article. The irony of this underhanded little piece is clearly seen in this text: “I hate having truth besmirched,” she told the several dozen Friends House residents... She said to her fellow Friends House residents, “Did you know I worked for the CIA?” The author let that final sentence stand on its own, which turned Ruth's sarcastic remark into something ambiguous. Well -- what do you expect from a small-minded writer? Regards, --Paul Trejo
  19. Chris, I agree. It would have taken the FBI a short time to figure it out -- but IMHO it would have pointed back to Dallas FBI agent James Hosty, who was tracking Oswald in 1963 -- and Hoover didn't want to go there. Also, the WC didn't want to go there. The WC didn't press the Paines for this phone call and statement because the US Government itself had dirty hands in the wire tap. So, they let it pass. After all -- they got their answer -- the Paines were clueless about the real JFK killers. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  20. Joe, I'm certainly not purposely avoiding the truth when I say that I see no relevance to Michael Paine's family connections and Michael Paine's own political interests, as you imply. Michael's parents were rich. Yet Michael's father was a Trotskyite Marxist. Michael didn't grow up with his father, but as a high-school freshman, his mother let him visit his father one summer. It was eye-opening for Michael, because his father opened his large house in California to a wide assortment of Marxists in intellectual meetings. Michael heard them argue and debate, and saw clearly that one had to join one Communist group or another, to have any recognition at all. At the end of the summer, Michael Paine realized that he had nothing in common with any of the Marxist Parties. Not one of them. He would continue his higher education in engineering, and leave the Marxist politics to the hoi polloi. Michael's hobby was Madrigal singing. He toured Europe as a Madrigal singer. One of the reasons that Michael Paine was unimpressed with Lee Harvey Oswald, was because Oswald refused to join any Marxist group. Oswald liked to repeat phrases from Marx, to show off, but Oswald had no interest in working in a real project. Michael realized that Oswald was a dilettante. Any truly educated person could see this. For example, this is from the testimony of Baron George De Mohrenschildt about Lee Harvey Oswald: Mr. JENNER. Did you have the feeling that his views on politics were shallow and surface? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Very much so. Mr. JENNER. That he had not had the opportunity for a study under scholars who would criticize, so that he himself could form some views on the subject? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Exactly. His mind was of a man with exceedingly poor background, who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them. He read complicated economical treatises and just picked up difficult words out of what he has read, and loved to display them. He loved to use the difficult words, because it was to impress one. Regarding the political interests of Michael Paine in 1963, there was one aspect of Oswald's politics that they both had in common -- namely -- gathering information about Right Wing groups in Dallas. They didn't have exactly the same interests, but slightly so. Thus, on the evening of October 23, 1963, Michael drove Lee to downtown Dallas to hear the US Day Rally by General Walker, as Michael himself went to a John Birch Society meeting -- just to see what it was all about. There was one other thing. Michael Paine liked to talk to young college students at coffee houses. (This was when he was separated from Ruth Paine.) He evidently boasted to a group of young students that he personally knew a Marxist who had lived in Russia, who also returned to the USA. They were impressed. One of the students told the FBI. As for Ruth Paine's older sister, although she was indeed a psychologist for the CIA, she never spoke about her work. (CIA employees are not allowed to speak about their work, even to family members). So, Ruth didn't know much about it when asked. Simple. Finally -- as I've stated several times on this Forum -- Ruth Paine told me personally (12/2015) that when Michael Paine called her on 11/22/1963 and said, "We both know who's responsible," they tacitly meant the Dallas Rightwing, which had published the WANTED FOR TREASON:JFK handbill, as well as the WELCOME, MR. KENNEDY, TO DALLAS black-bordered ad. So, that's been asked and answered. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  21. In 2002 Thomas Mallon published a book entitled Mrs. Paine's Garage which Ruth Paine herself approves. Aside from this book, the theories and rumors that have circulated about her have always intrigued me. She is sometimes regarded as a CIA agent -- a conspirator to kill JFK -- a member of a Quaker-Unitarian conspiracy within the CIA (George Michael Evica) and even a lesbian who drove LHO to kill JFK out of insane jealousy (William Manchester). So much nonsense has been written about Ruth Hyde Paine, that I want to start a catalog of all the rumors. At the same time, I want to -- gently -- propose my own theory of Ruth Paine, as follows: IMHO, Ruth Paine was an innocent bystander in the JFK murder. She was a Quaker who believed in the USA and in Christian Charity. She truly felt pity for Marina Oswald's plight in 1963, since Marina was pregnant and Lee could not hold down a steady job. Worse, as Marina complained to her, Lee Oswald began ordering Marina Oswald to return to the USSR without him. Whether he was teasing her or harassing her we don't know, but Ruth Paine thought this was abuse. Ruth wanted to make it possible for Marina Oswald to live in the USA as an independent woman with her children -- if (and only if) that's what Marina wanted. Aside from that involvement, Ruth Paine offered to the Warren Commission two critically important letters written by Lee Harvey Oswald: (1) The Walker Letter (written 10 April 1963) (2) The Mexico City Letter (written 09 November 1963) My CT claims that the letters are genuine, written by Lee Harvey Oswald on the dates indicated, and that they prove two facts: (I) That Lee Harvey Oswald truly did try to assassinate General Walker (II) That Lee Harvey Oswald truly did try to enter Cuba through Mexico City in September 1963, using the "credentials" list revealed by the Lopez Report. The Mexico City Letter which Ruth Paine found in her home on 09 November 1963, and copied by hand, matches the original received by the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC. More importantly, the Mexico City Letter matches the form and substance of the "credentials" list revealed by the Lopez Report. I therefore maintain -- on the basis of this empirical evidence -- that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) tried to kill Walker on behalf of George De Mohrenschildt; and (2) tried to enter Cuba through Mexico on behalf of Guy Banister. I propose, further, that Michael Paine was aware of (1) but ignorant of (2), while Ruth Paine was ignorant of both (1) and (2). Regards, --Paul Trejo
  22. David, The reason that the rogues did not get punished was because of the Cold War. J. Edgar Hoover came up with this idea of the LN Oswald first, and LBJ approved it quickly (says Professor David Wrone). The Truth was that the US Radical Right had killed JFK -- precisely through all these rogues in the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, retired Military, and so on. However, the Truth could never be admitted for 75 years because of the Cold War. This adequately explains why the rogues weren't punished (in public). Regards, --Paul Trejo
  23. Andrej, Inside the pages of David Lifton's superb book, Best Evidence (1981), he often steps back to ask how the evidence might have a benign explanation. Sadly, David has stopped doing that today. But the solution to the JFK assassination requires CTers to continue doing that. The JFK Kill Team was different from the JFK Cover-up Team. Although David Lifton was willing to consider this in 1981, he has become cynical, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  24. George, There was no coup. The Vice President assumed the duties of the President, under the US Constitution. Don't believe all the CT fiction out there. Most of it is rubbish. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  25. Chris, Not quite. They were not asked directly about it, so they didn't answer directly about it. That's not the same as a "denial." You're correct that they weren't pressed about it. This is probably because the phone tap was obtained illegally, and the WC would have to go into that. They didn't want to. In a phone conversation with me in December 2015, however, Ruth Paine admitted that this phone conversation actually happened -- although not exactly as transcribed. Ruth's big problem was that she was never allowed to face her accuser. Nobody took responsibility for tapping her telephone. Ruth did admit that one phrase, "We both know who's responsible." So I asked her what she meant. "Who was responsible?" Ruth replied, "We meant it generically -- the same ones who published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill, along with the "WELCOME, MISTER KENNEDY, TO DALLAS" black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News." That answers the question for me. Regards, --Paul Trejo