Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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

Jeff Carter

Members
  • Content count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Carter

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. The latest from Ruth Paine

    An educated guess would place this as an FBI-directed tap on the Paine’s phone. The intended target may have been Marina Oswald. Extensive surveillance, including phone tap and room microphones, was admittedly directed at Marina in early 1964: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10098#relPageId=9&tab=page Paul Barger reported that he “received information” (i.e. the Paine conversation) and that a “male voice was overheard” (i.e. this conversation was listened to by either Barger or a phone company source, in real time or a recording). Internal FBI memo identifies source as “Confidential Informant Dallas T-4”, an identification known to refer to surveillance methods such as phone taps. Paul Barger would serve as an FBI intermediary with Ruth Paine as she discovered new evidence in Oswald belongings. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62437#relPageId=97&tab=page Following the November 26 memo which describes the “male voice” speak of Oswald and “who is responsible” half an hour after the shots in Dealey Plaza and before JFK was announced dead, the handling of this information becomes rather muted. Michael Paine, for example, is not asked about the call for a whole month (http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=72&tab=page). The FBI, and later the Warren Commission, treat this call as akin to a rumour and allow the mis-attributed date to inform Michael Paine’s denials. Paul Barger, for his part, would come up with several different unsatisfying stories about his “source” at the phone company. However, it should also be noted that the FBI did conduct extensive investigation into the Paines and their background. And the Warren Commission lawyers would treat them with some suspicion. But the information from this phone call did not start any bells ringing - although the content could be interpreted as potentially explosive. This suggests the Paines were for some reason already cleared or above suspicion regarding the assassination per se, and the phone call itself was downplayed lest it reveal sources and methods or force the FBI to explain why friends and family of the “lone-nut” were being surveilled ahead of the assassination.
  2. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Here is the original FBI report: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57756#relPageId=51&tab=page The information is presented as a summary , it is not a verbatim transcript. The date of the phone call is listed as November 23. Recently Ruth Paine, as claimed by Paul Trejo, denied that Oswald’s name ever came up in this conversation. Otherwise the summary of the content of the call - “we both know who is responsible” - has never been challenged. Here are the records of the Southwestern States Telephone Company which establishes the date of the call as November 22. Both Ruth and Michael Paine acknowledge they spoke on the phone, Michael calling from his Bell Helicopter office from the number listed in the FBI reports, at 1 PM that day. This call could not have been made the following day. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772#relPageId=127&tab=page Here is the same information as it appeared in the FBI’s January 7, 1964 Gemberling Report. This Report was withheld from the Warren Commission. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=71&tab=page In the Gemberling Report the information is attributed, in place of Paul Barger, to “Confidential Informant Dallas T-4”. This designation would lead to the claims that this must be referring to a wiretap. For his part, Paul Barger told several differing versions in 1964 and later in 1975 of an “individual” from the phone company who provided the information. Additionally, Paul Barger was specifically requested by Ruth Paine when she showed up at the Irving Police headquarters in the weeks following the assassination to pass along pieces of evidence she had allegedly found inside Oswald belongings.
  3. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Michael Paine and backyard photos - his testimony in 1963/64 only acknowledges seeing a backyard photo at DPD headquarters on the night of the assassination (the photos would not be officially discovered until the following afternoon). Paine describes his first meeting with Oswald in April 1963 in extensive detail to the WC, but never discusses being shown a backyard photo at that time. Only in 1993 does Paine start to claim Oswald showed him a photo. The “we know who is responsible” phone call happened at 1 PM on Nov 22/63, confirmed by the Paines and phone records. The information about the content of the call came from an Irving police officer who had been assigned to the phone company’s offices. Therefore the “tap” appears to have been located at the phone company. Attributing the date of the phone call to November 23 (rather than 22) first appears in FBI documents from December 1963.
  4. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Considering Michael Paine as informant of some kind relies on the veracity of the claim by Buddy Walthers that files with information on Cuban sympathizers were found at the Paine home. Those files would provide the unspoken context of Paine’s activity at Luby’s Restaurant in the Spring of 1963. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59614#relPageId=36&tab=page During his Warren Commission testimony, Paine would refer to his inclination to “sense the pulse of various groups in the Dallas area.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=420&tab=page Ruth Paine was also apparently an informant of some kind in the 1980s. The deMohrenschildt’s apparently did not know the Paine’s before the Magnolia Oil party in February 1963, when Ruth Paine met Marina. The host of the party was Everett Glover, who made the invitations. Ruth Paine would soon be persistently offering Marina the opportunity to separate from Lee. Jeanne deMohrenschildt would speak of a similar project to separate the Oswalds, prospectively for several months within the White Russian community, through the autumn of 1962. Also that autumn, George deMohrenschildt was trying to find Lee work in industrial security, and initiated the brief separations which did occur. I don’t think the Paine’s had connection or interest in the Walker/Banister milieu, but suspect person(s) with such connection were the link taking the Paines to the Oswalds. Ruth Paine enabled a separation just as Oswald was initiating his FPCC activity.
  5. The latest from Ruth Paine

    The files were probably Michael Paine's. The Warren Commission questioned him about reports he was chatting up SMU students about Cuba. Paine conceded he did this. Paine's WC testimony indicates he was an informant of some kind. In my opinion, the answer to "we both know who is responsible" is the person or persons who brought the Paines to the Oswalds in the first place. I believe such person(s) to have links to the Walker milieu and the Banister milieu.
  6. The latest from Ruth Paine

    hi Paul thanks for taking time to read the article. Just to clarify: I believe Michael Paine's 1993 claim that he had been shown a backyard photo by Oswald in April 1963 severely compromises his WC testimony based on Paine's painstaking detail in describing handling the blanket later alleged to have held the assassination rifle and presuming it instead held camping equipment. The backyard photos portray a figure not just holding but rather brandishing and exhibiting leftist political literature and firearms, which in the context of conservative America (Dallas) in 1963 is a provocative gesture which Michael Paine would have presumably been savvy to. That he would not have informed his wife about this, or suspected more than camping equipment when handling the blanket some months later is hard to believe.
  7. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Paul Trejo - “when the radio news mentioned the TSBD, bells in Michael's head went off.” hi Paul, Having read through the testimonies of both Paines, I must say that my impressions and conclusions are quite different from yours. In my opinion, you tend to take things at face value and so bypass important context. Specific to the phone call, Michael Paine’s testimony to the Warren Commission does not really imply that “bells went off”, rather he agrees that his first impression was that Oswald was not involved. He also claims the 1 PM phone call to Ruth occurred before he heard the TSBD mentioned on the radio, although what would then motivate bringing up Oswald (as reported to the FBI after review) is unknown. Michael Paine’s account of monitoring the immediate aftermath of the shooting at Bell helicopter differs somewhat from what Frank Krystinik would say. But between the two accounts, and because Oswald was mentioned in the phone call, it seems that the TSBD had been mentioned on the radio, Krystinik was suspicious of Oswald, and MP decided to check in with Ruth. Why either Paine would assume Oswald “was involved” based solely on the location is hard to fathom. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=433&tab=page
  8. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Irving Police captain Paul Barger was assigned to the Southwestern States Telephone Company in Irving, and it was there he developed the information about the phone call. “He said he felt sure the information he furnished SA LISH had come from some telephone company sources, but he was still unable to identify the individual who related it to him, and he was unable to recall whether it was related in person, or by a telephone call.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=91&tab=page The phone records gathered by the FBI concern the Paine home, not Bell Helicopter. Although not explicitly determined, it appears the tap was on the Paine home phone and the records (or recordings) of the tap were held at the telephone company.
  9. The latest from Ruth Paine

    I discussed the Nov 22 1 PM phone call in Part 5 of my Backyard Photo series. I’ll link it because the footnotes lead to primary documentation of this event: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5 The Warren Commission, via counsel Liebeler, deliberately made the call appear to be a rumour, and so it was disappeared from the record until the mid-70s when Bernard Fensterwald came across the declassified Gemberling FBI report which identifies the source of information about the call as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4. Irving Police Captain Paul Barger, who initially uncovered the information, made contradicting statements in 1964 and 1976 designed to deflect the source of the information away from the likely wiretap. This tap may have been installed at the phone company rather than in the Paine home. The focus of the tap may have been Marina Oswald rather than the Paines. The issue neither Paine has accounted for is why did Oswald, in their minds, figure in the shooting which had occurred only 30 minutes earlier? This has not been clarified because neither was interviewed by the HSCA (despite the controversy sparked by Fensterwald), or later by the ARRB. (I agree that if the Paines had pre-knowledge of the assassination they would not have made this call). It’s likely that the explanation is simply that the call was immediately preceded by an exchange between Michael Paine and Frank Krystinik, after the initial identification of the TSBD, during which Krystinik urged Paine to contact the FBI re: Oswald. Krystinik had been introduced to Oswald, by Michael Paine, on October 25 when the three men attended an ACLU meeting, and had been offended by Oswald’s “Marxist” viewpoints. This simple explanation was not pursued or developed, it seems, to protect FBI sources and methods plus the uncomfortable acknowledgment, or emphasis, that the Oswalds were in the radar all along. Which underlines the official cover-up.
  10. Jack T. Martin

    A Jack W. Martin was identified as a possible suspect in JFK assassination before Oswald was apprehended. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=604&tab=page
  11. More on the BYP

    hi Paul Michael Paine’s claim, beginning in 1993, that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in April 1963 is best considered with healthy scepticism. For one thing, it calls into question key parts of his WC testimony, particularly his painstaking descriptions of handling the “rifle blanket” thinking it held camping equipment, and how he never suspected Oswald might own firearms. His description to the WC of meeting Oswald that April is very detailed as well - no BYP. Also, at least three BYP third poses were unearthed in the mid-70s, all from former Dallas PD. And there is no record of a BYP seen before the evening of the assassination, although the DeMohrenschildt copy may have been placed in the record album before then.
  12. More on the BYP

    I wonder when exactly the 1967 recreation was made. I am referring to the bush behind the figure - it looks like winter (or it is dead). There’s an obvious difference between the growth of the bush behind the Oswald figure in the original BYP, and that same bush in the DPD recreation dated to late November 1963. I don’t know anything about plants in the Dallas region, but a comparison between the growth of the two might help locate when the original BYP were taken (i.e. in the spring or in the summer). That HSCA panel applied photogrammetry science big time examining shadows and sun angles etc, but at the end of the day everyone had to admit that a skilled forger with good equipment could swap an Oswald face onto another’s body. That’s why the BYP had to be approached in terms of their provenance, and that’s where the HSCA came up short.
  13. More on the BYP

    The HSCA put a fair amount of resources into a photographic “authentication” panel which examined the backyard photos extensively (see HSCA Appendix VI), and yet they were unable to explain the third pose which appeared at the time of their deliberations. R.L. Studebaker, of the Dallas Police, was interviewed to supposedly clear this issue up. The Studebaker executive testimony, regarding handling of photographic evidence by the Dallas police, is now available online: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146602&search=Studebaker_October+5+1978#relPageId=2&tab=page Studebaker’s testimony leaves most of the important questions unanswered, and the HSCA left it at that. If the photos are authentic, as the HSCA’s panel suggests, then this third pose is confounding as there is no accounting for it in the developed story of how these photos came to be, and no accounting for how it ended up with the DPD shortly after the assassination. If the photos were faked, then the twelve year silence regarding the existence of this third version strongly suggests the provenance of the faked photos was known by, at least, the Dallas PD - and possibly Secret Service and FBI as well. The HSCA really dropped the ball on this one.
  14. Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    hi David J It’s my understanding that the private Zapruder footage in the Z-film was returned to the family, while the motorcade sequence was sent to the Sixth Floor Museum, after its official validation. The head and tail leaders tabulated in the handwritten note from 1997 are typical presentation for an archival film. IMO, Zapruder kept his film initially because he articulated his property rights and was also cooperative. If the Zapruder camera was shifted from RUN to SLOW MOTION during the assassination sequence, the transition from 16fps to 48fps would not have been immediate but ramped (gradual). Any calculations using the Zapruder film to determine time-based measurements such as mph of vehicles are at best “ballpark”. Regardless, we both arrive at the same conclusion: the apparent shooting sequence cannot be reconciled with the lone nut three shots bolt action rifle paradigm.
  15. Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    We are looking at the same data but with different reference frames. You and Chris D are seeing the plats etc through the frame of Z-film alteration, while I (and others) see them as attempts to in effect pound a square peg (shot sequence evidence seen in Z-film) through a round hole (three shots/one bolt action rifle). The clue I think most important is that the Secret Service were intent, at NPIC Brugioni event, to determine timings between perceived shots. They insisted even after Pearse told them it was a useless effort if they were trying to be accurate. So now the investigators are counting frames. It gets determined that the bolt action rifle needs minimum 2.8 seconds to operate (Frazier FBI says 4.6 seconds to fire two shots, add one second if moving target) which is understood as about 50 Z-frames (at original determination of 18fps). So this is how I understand all these original measurements- they were trying to create a shooting scenario which fit the characteristics of the found rifle. Does anyone see Connally first hit at Z-264, or even Z-242? These are among the scenarios being measured. A late shot beyond Z-312? Being considered because one can plausibly count the frames and say Oswald did it. How many of these surveys went down? I count three or four, which change the parameters every time.
×