Paul Brancato

Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

667 posts in this topic

David,

You agree with Paul Trejo that "Ruth Paine gets a bad rap." But there's one thing above all that bothers me. Do you think it was just a coincidence that she was responsible for Oswald applying for work at the TSBD? Or do you think that the plotters had to wait to find out where Oswald was going to be working (hopefully somewhere) and then go from there?
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/19/2017 at 4:06 PM, Ron Ecker said:

David,

You agree with Paul Trejo that "Ruth Paine gets a bad rap." But there's one thing above all that bothers me. Do you think it was just a coincidence that she was responsible for Oswald applying for work at the TSBD? Or do you think that the plotters had to wait to find out where Oswald was going to be working (hopefully somewhere) and then go from there?

Ron,

I look forward to David's reply, but in the meantime, here's my opinion.

While I tend to agree that the placement of LHO at the TSBD was controlled, I cannot find any crack in Ruth Paine's testimony to link her to this placement in any conscious or deliberate manner.

So, in my CT, Ruth Paine was an unwitting tool of a larger group, of which she had no membership, nor any moral approval.

In my CT, that group was the Friends of Walker -- a popular Radical Right group in Dallas in 1963.

Linnie Mae Randle and her husband would be my first suspects, if I could turn back time.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I cannot find any crack in Ruth Paine's testimony to link her to this placement in any conscious or deliberate manner.

 

I assume that's your way of saying it was a coincidence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 2:58 PM, Paul Trejo said:

David,

More to come, but for now I'll raise the claims of Ricky White about his DPD officer father, Roscoe White.

Yes, they went home and had dinner with their families.

The culture in 1963 Dallas was far different than you seem to imagine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

Much delayed, and in the spirit of "clean-up":

I do not have the time to debate (or "re-litigate") the entire Ricky White/ Roscoe White matter.

Suffice it to say that this whole area was widely debated--and (IMHO) seriously debunked, some 20 years ago (if memory serves).

To anyone following this discussion, simply Google the two names, and set aside hours for reading through all of that.

As I recall, Dave Perry analyzed it and did a good job; and there are one or more articles about it at the McAdams website.

My own recollection: it was a farce, and --essentially--established to be a hoax.

I would never ever base any legitimate assassination analysis on the accounts of Rickey White. It was all dissected, deconstructed, and proven to be malarky.

(And, in the spirit of FYI, I recollect Robert Groden, appearing on some talk radio show, trying to milk every last drop from that false story).

DSL

4/19/2017 - 5:05 p.m. PDT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

I'm still trying to evaluate your current position with regard to Oswald and Kostikov.  Perhaps the best clue you gave was your citation of the book by a former Russian consul in Mexico City, Oleg Nechiporenko, namely, Passport to Assassination (1993).   So, here are a few lines from that book. 

The context itself is riveting: Oswald had spent face time with Kositkov in the presence of Nechporenko, but had no idea that Kostikov was a KGB assassin.  Together and separately they interviewed Oswald for a total of 2.5 hours on Thursday 9/26 and Friday 9/27.   

Nechiporenko recalled that instead of Oswald being just one more intelligence agent who had lost contact in his country, and came to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City to re-establish contact, they found just "the opposite."   Nechiporenko writes:  "His behavior was evidence to us of the opposite -- that he had no contact at all with intelligence." (p. 105)

They repeatedly denied to Oswald any possibility of receiving the "instant visa" that he demanded.  Oswald later returned to that Soviet Embassy with a loaded pistol, and then after they took his pistol, removed the bullets and handed it back to him, Oswald cried crocodile tears, and said that the FBI was harassing him.

At the end, Nechiporenko and Kostikov shared notes, as follows "As far as arriving at some kind of conclusion based on his personality....here again our opinions meshed, and we gave Oswald our unconditional evaluation...psychotic."  (p. 105)

The most interesting thing here, IMHO, is that, according to Oleg Nechiporenko, we observe that Lee Harvey Oswald did in fact meet face to face with Valery Kostikov, KGB assassin, but also that Oswald had no clue in the world who Kostikov really was!

From this viewpoint the letter that Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy from Ruth Paine's typewriter makes more sense -- Oswald did write "Kostin" only because he didn't remember the name of Kostikov, because he had no idea who Kostikov really was

This would confirm my suspicion that Oswald wrote his "Soviet Embassy Letter" simply to annoy the FBI, whom he knew would intercept the letter.  Oswald could be sure that the Soviets themselves would not know (or care) what he meant by this letter.  It was strictly a performance -- like his performance at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City on Friday 27 September 1963.

Yet the CIA said (according to Bill Simpich) that the caller from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet Embassy on Saturday 28 September 1963 was certainly NOT OSWALD.  The same applied, said the CIA, to the caller on Tuesday 1 October 1963, in which the caller fished until the name of Kostikov was mentioned, thus linking the name of Oswald and Kostikov on the CIA's most heavily-tapped telephone.  Only somebody who knew about wiretapping in Mexico City would make that call -- a CIA Mole.

So -- it now seems possible that Oswald actually did meet with Kostikov -- but had no idea who he was.  Yet this CIA mole (probably David Morales, says Simpich) certainly knew who Kostikov was, and could not let this opportunity get away.

Hmm.  More to ponder.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Will come back to this post later, if time permits. i just want to call your attention to a chronological error.  Your post states:

"The context itself is riveting: Oswald had spent face time with Kositkov in the presence of Nechporenko, but had no idea that Kostikov was a KGB assassin.  Together and separately they interviewed Oswald for a total of 2.5 hours on Thursday 9/26 and Friday 9/27. "

Oswald did not arrive in Mexico City until the morning of Friday, 9/27.  On 9/26, he was still en route. 

DSL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

You agree with Paul Trejo that "Ruth Paine gets a bad rap." But there's one thing above all that bothers me. Do you think it was just a coincidence that she was responsible for Oswald applying for work at the TSBD? Or do you think that the plotters had to wait to find out where Oswald was going to be working (hopefully somewhere) and then go from there?
 

 

Ron: 

I agree there was pre-arrangment of a sort, and that's very important--of course it is--but   this problem has not been analyzed correctly.  My own analysis, and what I believe to be a valid explanation, will be included in Final Charade.  (I cannot get into that, at this point.)  But, changing the subject, and  FWIW: I am far more concerned about the Paines, in the Feb/March 1963  time frame, than in the October 15/17th 1963 time frame. My question is, more or less, how did the Paines get involved with Oswald, in the first place? (Sure, I know the "official" explanation; they were introduced by DeMohrenschielt, at a party, etc.)  But I do not believe that is the full story.  And what, to my mind, has never been resolved, is the possible hand (once again) of Allen Dulles.

Read on. . .

FYI: Michael Paine's mother--also named Ruth--was best friends with the mistress (in years past) of CIA Director Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft. Bottom line:  Mary Bancroft was a major person in Allen Dulles' life.  Now CUT TO the 1980s.  Mary Bancroft --living in Manhattan on the upper East Side) wrote a book--Autobiography of a Spy, published in 1983, which is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the possibility of a Dulles-through-Bancroft-to Paine "connection."  No proper questioning or investigation of this linkage was ever conducted--as far as I can tell. 

But there's the  possibility of a key link, and it was not just "never pursued"; it worse than that: it wasn't even known to exist, back in the 1963/64 time frame.

Food for thought.

And now, for the finale, and you can view this as a Postscript:  if you look back at an earlier post that I made on this thread: what I've just described is why Pat Valentino and I--accompanied by a member of the Paine Family--went to Berkeley, California (circa 1993-1995), and spent an hour or more with Michael Paine's mother (Ruth) and her husband Arthur Young.  Ruth was above 90 years old, and we couldn't tell -when I asked all the key questions--whether  she was feigning memory loss, or the fact that she was just getting over a bad cold, or just didn't know. But it was a really interesting , and potentially significant, experience.

One other final thought, and this concerns DiEugenio, and the whole question of the Paines:  I've spent time with Ruth Paine's mother (and Michael's step-father, Arthur); I've spent time with Michael Paine himself, in a mult-hour taped interview at his home in Boxboro, Mass; and I did all of this with the assistance of a younger member of the Paine family.  Meanwhile, DiEugenio sits in his lofty armchair, over at CTKA, and throws darts at the Paines, making clear his belief that he believes they both committed crimes, and perhaps should have been prosecuted, and belong in jail. He doesn't understand the medical evidence, and relies on Gary Aguilar for his (mis) information in that area. He was a big promoter of John Armstrong (and his two-Oswald theory) when that was the flavor of the month.   From what I can see, he's not going to win any awards for investigative journalism, in this area, nor has he developed the skills to interview anyone properly, or the ability to "walk in the other guy's shoes."  But he has a website and a following.  Go Figure.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 6:15 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Lifton said:

 

Didn't Michael Paine lie on that TV special and say that Oswald personally showed him the backyard photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Ron: 

I agree there was pre-arrangement of a sort, and that's very important,  but this problem has not been analyzed correctly.  My own analysis, and what I believe to be a valid explanation, will be included in Final Charade.  (I cannot get into that, at this point.)  But, changing the subject, and  FWIW: I am far more concerned about the Paines, in the Feb/March 1963  time frame, than in the October 15/17th 1963 time frame. My question is, more or less, how did the Paines get involved with Oswald, in the first place? (Sure, I know the "official" explanation; they were introduced by DeMohrenschielt, at a party, etc.)  And what, to my mind, has never been resolved, is the possible hand (once again) of Allen Dulles.

Read on. . .

FYI: Michael Paine's mother--also named Ruth--was the mistress (in years past) of CIA Director Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft.  Mary Bancroft was a major person in Allen Dulles' life. Mary Bancroft wrote a book--Autobiography of a Spy, published in 1983, which is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the possibility of a Dulles-through-Bancroft-to Paine "connection."  No proper questioning or investigation of this linkage was ever conducted--as far as I can tell. 

But there's the  possibility of a key link, and it was not just "never pursued"; it worse than that: it wasn't even known to exist, back in the 1963/64 time frame.

Food for thought.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 6:15 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David, You might find this interesting....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


49 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Ron: 

I agree there was pre-arrangment of a sort, and that's very important--of course it is--but   this problem has not been analyzed correctly.  My own analysis, and what I believe to be a valid explanation, will be included in Final Charade.  (I cannot get into that, at this point.) 

I look forward to reading it.

....the possibility of a Dulles-through-Bancroft-to Paine "connection."  No proper questioning or investigation of this linkage was ever conducted--as far as I can tell. 

But there's the  possibility of a key link

Yes, I've read before about this indirect Dulles-Paine connection. Which LNers can only say is another dadgum coincidence. Coincidences can be such a pain.

Then I think we might can agree with what I think Sandy said earlier, that Ruth Paine "is not an evil person," but she certainly had some evil connections.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Ron:

Re "Otherwise why have Ruth Paine give a copy of that letter -- that connects Oswald to Kostikov -- to the authorities? "

IMHO: this is a case where (sometimes) --and as the saying goes, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I don't subscribe to this super-sinister view of Ruth Paine. I think she was genuinely shocked by finding that letter; and that's why she did what she did.

DSL

4/19/2017 7:20 a.m PDT

David,

The Ruth Paine story about how and why she acquired the original "Kostikov" letter and made a copy baffles the mind. It simply does not add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This shows how current Lifton is on things:  there is no CTKA anymore.

It was dissolved about five months ago.  

And somehow, some way Lifton managed to miss what Douglass said about the Paines. Or George Michael Evica.   I mean, how could anyone suspect anything about those kindly Quakers. For God's sake, even Richard Russell didn't buy them.

 (Watch Lifton come back with his Corso story.)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

BTW, to get back to the original point of the thread, which somehow got lost, I think the conspiracy and cover up were enacted by the same upper level of the plotters.

I think Lifton and I disagree on who that level was, at least back in his Best Evidence days. Back then, his friend Wallace Milam told me that Lifton thought the top level was LBJ and the JCS.

I don't think that was the controlling level.  But I do think the topmost level planned both the conspiracy and the cover up.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm disappointed to read that the great David Lifton has fallen for that old Probe Magazine claim, namely, that since the childhood friend of the mother-in-law of Ruth Paine later became a mistress of Allen Dulles, that this suggests something suspicious about Ruth Paine herself.

Yes, it is juicy gossip, but it is also toothless and a fracture of logic.  It is one of the weakest ideas in the history of CT literature, bar none.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I assume that's your way of saying it was a coincidence.

Ron,

Since David Lifton himself is speaking about Ruth Paine, I will belabor the point.

I'm not saying that it was a coincidence -- I'm saying that the Friends of Walker were watching Oswald carefully in Dallas, and that Linnie Mae Randle and her husband were *possibly* members and possibly the ones who manipulated Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald to push Oswald toward the TSBD.

It would have happened at that tea party at the home of Ruth Paine's next-door neighbor.  That's what I'm saying. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I'm not saying that it was a coincidence, rather, I'm saying that the Friends of Walker were watching Oswald carefully in Dallas, and that Linnie Mae Randle and her husband were *possibly* the ones who manipulated Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald to push Oswald toward the TSBD.

 

You are also saying that it was a coincidence that Ruth Paine and Allen Dulles indirectly crossed paths, so to speak, through the mistress. It either means something or it was a coincidence.

I personally hate coincidences in cases like Dallas and 9/11 and so forth, which doesn't mean it wasn't a coincidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now