• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Chris Newton

Where's Ruth's couch?

99 posts in this topic

Earlier today I thought I know I've read this letter before but I don't remember what it said.  I then found a larger print version of the WC version than this: 

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_15.pdf

One line that really caught my eye was "unless I use my real name".  So IF the letter was Really from Oswald he was stating in writing that If he Really did go to Mexico he used a different name to do so.  A pretty incriminating admission to commit to in writing even if your not already contemplating shooting the president a couple of weeks later.  It kind of stretches credulity that a young man smart enough to become a radar operator with the necessary security level, learn Russian (fluently), defect and return to the US with a Russian wife would knowingly set himself up that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems maybe the Quaker aspect was pushed as part of the cover up.  I.E., Quakers are God fearing, loving caring people who help others unquestionably (like Nixon).  Thus they "took in" Marina and befriended Lee, helped him find a job, out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron:

That is what Richard Russell thought about them also.

And that was a month or so after the assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, If the couch was on the east wall on 11/22 as depicted in the photograph taken 11/23 then this entire section of testimony, unrelated to the "Mexico Note", was perjurious. Included in this exchange is the actual marking of the alleged location of the couch and television by Ruth Paine. The feint "XX" for the couch and "X" for the television are still visible on WC Exhibit 430.

Starting near the bottom of page 412:

MR JENNER. "Consequently, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963,..."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43&relPageId=420

...and the next page, where Mr. Jenner starts making a big deal about what could be seen and could not be seen if the couch was where Ruth claimed it to be, on the north wall.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43#relPageId=421&tab=page

I don't yet have a "handle" on what argument is being built upon or prepared in that line of questioning by Jenner. I know that it's entirely wrong if the couch is on the east wall and the curtains are open. I also know that if a couch is oriented on a wall which runs north-south, a person could not sit on that same couch to my west.

 

See the feint "X" and "XX" marks in the living room:

ce430.jpg.d5fe0e577f02b488a08994ffaa8cc674.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the actual home vs. CE 430. I spent way to much time last weekend manipulating layers in my favorite paint program, (GIMP), and could not align CE-430 with an actual photograph of the home. It looks like my original theory about possible manipulation of the actual dimensions of the home might have "legs".

Assuming the front door is the standard 36", I aligned CE 430 along the bottom edge of the front wall of the home, (X Axis), and the west wall of the living room (Y axis).

 

paine_home_ce_430.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 1:03 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Ron:

That is what Richard Russell thought about them also.

And that was a month or so after the assassination.

I just re read the sub chapter in Reclaiming Parkland about "Russell says No" / Russell's Dissent.  I thought that's where I'd read about Russell's smooth over by Dulles.  Somewhere I thought I read of Russell refusing to sign the final draft of the Warren Commission Report.  Dulles stepped in and said we can add a Dissent at the end.  He convinced Russell to sign after he deceived him.  Dulles persuaded Russell to record his dissent before a stenographer recording it for the record.  The stenographer was not a stenographer, nothing was recorded.  Is this just my imagination, running away with me?

 

 

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:24 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I just re read the sub chapter in Reclaiming Parkland about "Russell says No" / Russell's Dissent.  I thought that's where I'd read about Russell's smooth over by Dulles.  Somewhere I thought I read of Russell refusing to sign the final draft of the Warren Commission Report.  Dulles stepped in and said we can add a Dissent at the end.  He convinced Russell to sign after he deceived him.  Dulles persuaded Russell to record his dissent before a stenographer recording it for the record.  The stenographer was not a stenographer, nothing was recorded.  Is this just my imagination, running away with me?

Guess I'm wrong again.  I just re-re read the above and it was Rankin.  But I'd of sworn I read something about this in more detail and that Dulles was involved (which would not be surprising given his leading activity on the commission and his involvement in selecting Rankin).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 0:27 PM, Joe Bauer said:

"And he used my typewriter and that offended me deeply."

This statement by Ruth Paine is actually very curious.

Ruth says that she never saw the typewritten letter and that Oswald's act of covering up his draft in her kitchen roused her initial curiosity.

How then could she surmise that this note, found on her little desk secretary in the living room, was the unseen draft of the unseen typed document?

I think it's more evidence of a story created "after-the-fact" that was not well thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far unpublished, as far as we know, the un-cropped version of Alan Grant's 11/22/63 Paine photo:

from_AG_proof.jpg

 

My recreation of the living room based on WC dimensions and Ruth Paine's testimony of how the room looked the morning of 11/11/63. The purple design shows the approximate field of view of Grant's camera when the picture was taken (on the evening of 11/22/63):

before_move_grant_perspective.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if it could be blown up a bit, as grainy as it is that might hurt more than help though.  It looks like you can see a good bit more of the desk secretary to Ruth's left but it seems taller in this version.  Is that Michael Paine on the right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requesting some input

 

I need some opinions for this photo in the Warren Commission files. I think that what I'm looking at is a door that is open, (and opens into the kitchen/dining area) and has been swung to the left. I know it is the doorway to the garage and that the large kitchen desk secretary is to it's right. All that I'm asking about is what appears to be the open door.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10897#relPageId=8&tab=page

 

 

 

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

It would be nice if it could be blown up a bit, as grainy as it is that might hurt more than help though.  It looks like you can see a good bit more of the desk secretary to Ruth's left but it seems taller in this version.  Is that Michael Paine on the right? 

Yup, Michael on the right. Everyone is dressed the same as they were when photographed at the DPD on the night of 11/22/63. Per Alan Grant's account, this was taken when they returned home. The Life photographers stayed for a bit and then waited outside in their car until Michael got in his car and left. Then they waited until they saw the lights turned off in the house. They did this because the reporter with Alan Grant wanted to be sure no other reporters arrived to "scoop" them. The Life "team" then returned the next morning with a Russian interpreter.

That image is all we have for now (*). You are welcome to save it and blow it up all you want. It is the only un-cropped copy I've ever seen.

 

(*) Note: it's a cropped scan of a photocopy of the negative sheet and that's why it looks to have been taken with a potato.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Did you record this with a potato%3F

Edited by Chris Newton
added note & link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This photo looks a little better than the one you posted.

ce435_zps83oxbdxs.jpg

Yes, it appears to be an open door on the left, the door is obscuring the door molding on that side.

If it is the doorway leading from the kitchen to the garage, the door-swing direction was changed in the remodel, and a partition was added to the right of the door. That looks like maybe an air-return opening in the upper right of the picture. If you have a modern picture showing that same air-return, that would lend credence to the authenticity of the old photo.
 
 
 
 
Edited by Tom Hume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

This photo looks a little better than the one you posted.

ce435_zps83oxbdxs.jpg

Yes, it appears to be an open door on the left, the door is obscuring the door molding on that side.

If it is the doorway leading from the kitchen to the garage, the door-swing direction was changed in the remodel, and a partition was added to the right of the door. That looks like maybe an air-return opening in the upper right of the picture. If you have a modern picture showing that same air-return, that would lend credence to the authenticity of the old photo.
 
 
 
 

That may be a register. Yet, amusingly, I am recalling those oversized plastic doorbell boxes. The house I am thinking of was built in 72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Hume said:

...and a partition was added to the right of the door.

Thanks Tom for your comments. What do you mean about a partition? If you are talking about the little round-ended counter that is to the left of the entrance from the living room to the kitchen, that existed in 1963. It's not shown in WC floor plan, for some unknown reason. It can be seen in the Grant photo of the three women in the kitchen taken 11/23/63.

What I'm trying to get at here and this garage doorway would seem to confirm is that there was no door from the living room to the kitchen, that it was just a "doorless" passage from one room to the next.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0