Ruth Paine

[David G. Healy]

tell you what, Paul, old Ruthie is becoming a focus. Appears folks now want to know a bit more about just who this lady is.

If that lone nut Brown from McCrae's forum could find her for what he called an interview, I suspect you could too, blindfolded. Post if you decide to do so.

[Glenn Nall]

hate to say it, David, but Ruth, and her fairly large circle of associates, has been a focus of some people for quite some time. Perhaps it's not as romantic a concept, or maybe it's too obscure, but though there's been some focus there over the decades, there's been paid little energy. The route from the Paines to Henry Crown to Trafficante and Marcello (with some "company" collaboration) is rich with material, and thus far only skimmed.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's gaining attraction. But while people continue to propel - well, i was going to say, propel delusions of General Walker's ideologies, but in fact General Walker fits nicely into this route - while people continue to muddy the waters with theories of Umbrella Guns and other irrelevant details, a diversion from this font of data will prevail.

There is significance in the connections between Dresser Industries and Magnolia Labs and DH Byrd and GHW Bush and Allen Dulles and Malcolm Wallace and ...

that this roster is ignored astounds me.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Because Ruth Paine received a "12 cents postage due" letter / post card / note from the post office on 11/23/63.

That's why.

--Tommy

Tommy, sometimes I can't tell when you're being sarcastic.

Wasn't it already confirmed by the Irving Post Office that the "Postage Due" notice to Ruth Hyde Paine was redeemed by her, and the mail delivered successfully?

Why isn't that good enough for the CTers? It's solid evidence.

Why must anybody simply INSIST without further evidence that the "Postage Due" notice must somehow correspond to this UNDELIVERABLE PACKAGE, when there are three obvious errors:

(1) The UNDELIVERABLE PACKAGE did not have Ruth Paine's address on it!

(2) The UNDELIVERABLE PACKAGE remained at the Post Office!

(3) The UNDELIVERABLE PACKAGE didn't have a DATE on it! We have no way of knowing WHEN it was submitted!

These obstacles should be too high -- even for the dedicated CTer. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

Talk about jumping to conclusions on every page -- the CIA controlled Albert Schweitzer College, and the CIA controlled the Quakers, and the CIA controlled countless Churches, and used Churches everywhere to accomplish their "nefarious" goals of world-domination. Pitiful.

Didn’t that Albert Osborne/John Howard Bowen intelligence guy use a cover as a minister with the American Council of Christian Churches?

The CIA and the Vatican’s Intelligence Apparatus

By Martin A. Lee | July/August 1983 Issue


When the Allies liberated Rome in 1944, Morlion re-established his spy network in the Vatican; from there he helped the OSS obtain confidential reports provided by apostolic delegates in the Far East, which included information about strategic bombing targets in Japan.

Pope Pius’ decoration of Wild Bill Donovan marked the beginning of a long-standing, intimate relationship between the Vatican and U.S. intelligence that continues to the present day. For centuries the Vatican has been a prime target of foreign espionage. One of the world’s greatest repositories of raw intelligence, it is a spy’s gold mine. Ecclesiastical, political and economic information filters in every day from thousands of priests, bishops and papal nuncios, who report regularly from every corner of the globe to the Office of the Papal Secretariat. So rich was this source of data that shortly after the war, the CIA created a special unit in its counterintelligence section to tap it and monitor developments within the Holy See.

But the CIA’s interest in the Catholic Church is not limited to intelligence gathering. The Vatican, with its immense wealth and political influence, has in recent years become a key force in global politics, particularly with Catholicism playing such a pivotal role in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Unbeknownst to most Catholics, the Vatican, which carefully maintains an apolitical image, not only has a foreign office and a diplomatic corps, but also has a foreign policy. And with Polish Communists embracing Catholicism and Latin American Catholics embracing communism, the U.S. government and particularly the CIA have recently taken a much greater interest in Vatican foreign policy. A yearlong Mother Jones investigation has revealed a number of unlikely channels — both overt and covert — which the agency uses to bring its influence to bear upon that policy.

Since World War II, the CIA has:

· subsidized a Catholic lay organization that served as the political slugging arm of the pope and the Vatican throughout the Cold War;

· penetrated the American section of one of the wealthiest and most powerful Vatican orders;

· passed money to a large number of priests and bishops — some of whom became witting agents in CIA covert operations;

· employed undercover operatives to lobby members of the Curia (the Vatican government) and spy on liberal churchmen on the pope’s staff who challenged the political assumptions of the United States;

· prepared intelligence briefings that accurately predicted the rise of liberation theology; and

· collaborated with right-wing Catholic groups to counter the actions of progressive clerics in Latin America.

Read more here:

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/04/cia-and-the-vaticans-intelligence-apparatus/Mother Jones

And don’t forget the ratlines!

Where there’s smoke there’s fire!

But really, what can one expect from an English Professor with only a slight command of History or Church? Right -- you get "Deep Structures."

Seriously, an English professor would have a tremendous grounding in history and the church – so much of British literature is concerned with the church (Catholic and Anglican) and/or written by clerics that it is impossible not to have more than a slight command. Really you ought to read some Milton or Donne or Cardinal Newman or the Venerable Bede.

Let us strive to deal with facts and not knee jerk reactions or wild theories such as General Walker, which some throw around here without factual basis, that we want to be true so much we garble everything up in our minds until we think we can see a picture in the distance that recedes as we approach. I too decry the use of wild speculation!

And remember if it walks like a Paine, sounds like a Paine, looks like a Paine, it’s nothing more than an intelligence agent in Quaker clothing.

[Chris Newton]

Didn’t that Albert Osborne/John Howard Bowen intelligence guy use a cover as a minister with the American Council of Christian Churches?

Good one Mr. Blank!

Coincidently, I was considering another Osborn as a connection, Major General Henry Osborn. More on him later.

[Paul Trejo]

Didn’t that Albert Osborne/John Howard Bowen intelligence guy use a cover as a minister with the American Council of Christian Churches?

Yes, Martin, but Osborne/Bowen was a crackpot racist NUT. In no way was he a CIA officer, nor did he claim to be.

HOWEVER -- there two others I can name who were close to the JFK murder and who used Religion as a cover, and also brazenly lied about being officers of the CIA, namely:

(1) David Ferrie

(2) Jack S. Martin

Both of these street-level mercenaries who were "outed" by Jim Garrison, were both Fake Ministers of some Fake Church, and they also claimed (to young boys like Tommy Beckham) to be with the CIA.

But NEITHER was an officer of the CIA -- they were both street-trash mercenaries, bent on Military Overthrow in Cuba for money.

To blame the CIA for their twisted behavior is REACHING.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

tell you what, Paul, old Ruthie is becoming a focus. Appears folks now want to know a bit more about just who this lady is.

If that lone nut Brown from McCrae's forum could find her for what he called an interview, I suspect you could too, blindfolded. Post if you decide to do so.

Well, David, before I would even think of that, I would first ensure that I did this:

(1) summarized every page of Ruth Page's Testimony to the WC

(2) summarized every page of Michael Paine's Testimony to the WC

(3) read and re-read every book and article ever written about Ruth Paine in the past 50 years

(4) watched every YouTube video and interview ever given by Ruth Paine.

I have come fairly well along with that project already -- and all the evidence points in one direction: Quaker Charity Lady.

Here's what I know about Ruth Paine today:

(i) She never changed her story about LHO at any time in 50 years.

(ii) She always remained open to interviewers, worldwide, for 50 years, just to prevent wild rumors from spreading.

(iii) She has enough dignity to shut her door in the faces of strangers who scream L-I-A-R in her face -- and to slam her door to those who have never read her WC testimony.

It should embarrass anybody to demand Ruth Paine to "come clean" when they have never even read her WC testimony!

Actually, David, what I already know about Ruth Paine is that she's open to honest JFK researchers, and always has been. (Rabid, semi-literate CTers are the normal exception.)

So, I have every confidence, David, that when I'm good and ready to approach Ruth Paine, that she'll speak with me.

So -- trust me, David, if I ever find any smidgen or any crumb of material evidence that contradicts ANYTHING that Ruth Paine ever said in any interview in the past 50 years -- I will make this promise to you -- I'LL TAKE IT TO HER.

Until then, please, somebody, anybody, impress me with something I don't know about Ruth Paine!

So far, base rumor, naked speculation and immature innuendo are all anybody has shown me here!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

Didn’t that Albert Osborne/John Howard Bowen intelligence guy use a cover as a minister with the American Council of Christian Churches?

Yes, Martin, but Osborne/Bowen was a crackpot racist NUT. In no way was he a CIA officer, nor did he claim to be.

HOWEVER -- there two others I can name who were close to the JFK murder and who used Religion as a cover, and also brazenly lied about being officers of the CIA, namely:

(1) David Ferrie

(2) Jack S. Martin

Both of these street-level mercenaries who were "outed" by Jim Garrison, were both Fake Ministers of some Fake Church, and they also claimed (to young boys like Tommy Beckham) to be with the CIA.

But NEITHER was an officer of the CIA -- they were both street-trash mercenaries, bent on Military Overthrow in Cuba for money.

To blame the CIA for their twisted behavior is REACHING.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am privileged to now present to you the critically acclaimed "DVP II".

at least he's not malicious in his attacks. I think the illogic requires too much energy for him to be mean.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

tell you what, Paul, old Ruthie is becoming a focus. Appears folks now want to know a bit more about just who this lady is.

If that lone nut Brown from McCrae's forum could find her for what he called an interview, I suspect you could too, blindfolded. Post if you decide to do so.

Well, David, before I would even think of that, I would first ensure that I did this:

(1) flowcharted every page of Ruth Page's Testimony to the WC

(2) flowcharted every page of Michael Paine's Testimony to the WC

(3) read and re-read every book and article ever written about Ruth Paine in the past 50 years

(4) watch every YouTube video and interview ever given by Ruth Paine.

I have come fairly well along with that project already -- and all the evidence points in one direction: Quaker Charity Lady.

Here's what I know about Ruth Paine today:

(i) She never changed her story about LHO at any time in 50 years.

(ii) She always remained open to interviewers, worldwide, for 50 years, just to prevent wild rumors from spreading.

(iii) She has enough dignity to slam the door in the faces of strangers who come up to hear and scream L-I-A-R in her face -- and twice as hard for those who never read her WC testimony.

It should embarrass anybody to demand Ruth Paine to "come clean" when they never even read her WC testimony!

Actually, David, what I already know about Ruth Paine is that she's open to honest JFK researchers, and always has been. (Rabid, semi-literate CTers are the normal exception.)

So, I have every confidence, David, that when I'm good and ready to approach Ruth Paine, that she'll speak with me.

So -- trust me, David, if I ever find any smidgen or any crumb of material evidence that contradicts ANYTHING that Ruth Paine ever said in any interview in the past 50 years -- I will make this promise to you -- I'LL TAKE IT TO HER.

Until then, please, somebody, anybody, impress me with something I don't know about Ruth Paine!

So far, the rumor, naked speculation and innuendo are all anybody has seen for miles and miles!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"when I'm good and ready to approach Ruth Paine, that she'll speak with me"

how convincing. when you're good and ready. can't imagine the preparation required in reaching such a point. you must have spent years at this point, SO FAR, getting ready. and good.

i'd love to see just some of the questions you've spent so much time preparing. seriously. they must be some agonizingly astute and delving questions.

by the time you're good and ready, hell, you might cause her to have a heart attack. please go easy on her as you pounce.

[Paul Trejo]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am privileged to now present to you the critically acclaimed DVP the 2nd.

at least he's not malicious in his attacks. I think the illogic requires too much energy for him to be mean.

I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.)

Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said -- simply because the CIA-did-it CT's are so backward.

If DVP is really an LN, I can imagine that he's won 90% of his battles, and y'all fear him. Good.

But if DVP is really an LN, then I hope to be able to convince DVP that the scientific evidence supports multiple shooters at JFK in Dealey Plaza.

In no way could LHO have acted alone in the JFK murder.

I would also argue to DVP that the US Government covered up the CONSPIRACY to kill JFK.

HOWEVER -- I would also like to assure DVP that I think the US Government did the RIGHT THING by the Cover-up, because the alternatives in 1963 were (1) riots in the streets; (2) Civil War; and (3) World War Three.

So, I would argue with DVP that even though Hoover-LBJ-Dulles-Warren covered up the JFK murder, still, they all remain Great Americans who did the best thing for the USA by (ultimately) preventing World War Three as a possible outcome of the JFK murder.

I would also like to convince DVP that the Radical Right in 1963 Dallas murdered JFK. The evidence is mounting. Clues were available 50 years ago, but the noise-level of the CIA-did-it CTers was too chaotic -- and they wouldn't bother with General Walker -- the true mastermind of the JFK murder. (The HSCA didn't even consider Walker.)

With ridiculous theories that the Mafia-did-it, or Castro-did-it, or LBJ-did-it, it surely must sound ridiculous for somebody to even consider another alternative CT: Walker-did-it.

But that's my position. If I sound like DVP to some of you CIA-did-it CTers, then that is because the CIA-did-it CTers are ALL MISTAKEN.

And on that point DVP and I can surely agree -- and I welcome his support on that aspect of my theory, if no other.

To bring this thread back to Ruth Paine -- she has always remained an LN after the WC Circumstantial Evidence was presented to her (and all other evidence was hidden from her and all Americans). She always said she thought LHO *couldn't* have shot JFK, but that the WC Circumstantial Evidence was overwhelming. I'd hope to convince Ruth Paine with the same points I'd hope to convince DVP.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am privileged to now present to you the critically acclaimed DVP the 2nd.

at least he's not malicious in his attacks. I think the illogic requires too much energy for him to be mean.

I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.)

Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said -- simply because the CIA-did-it CT's are so backward.

If DVP is really an LN, I can imagine that he's won 90% of his battles, and y'all fear him. Good.

But if DVP is really an LN, then I hope to be able to convince DVP that the scientific evidence supports multiple shooters at JFK in Dealey Plaza.

In no way could LHO have acted alone in the JFK murder.

I would also argue to DVP that the US Government covered up the CONSPIRACY to kill JFK.

HOWEVER -- I would also like to assure DVP that I think the US Government did the RIGHT THING by the Cover-up, because the alternatives in 1963 were (1) riots in the streets; (2) Civil War; and (3) World War Three.

So, I would argue with DVP that even though Hoover-LBJ-Dulles-Warren covered up the JFK murder, still, they all remain Great Americans who did the best thing for the USA by (ultimately) preventing World War Three as a possible outcome of the JFK murder.

I would also like to convince DVP that the Radical Right in 1963 Dallas murdered JFK. The evidence is mounting. Clues were available 50 years ago, but the noise-level of the CIA-did-it CTers was too chaotic -- and they wouldn't bother with General Walker -- the true mastermind of the JFK murder. (The HSCA didn't even consider Walker.)

With ridiculous theories that the Mafia-did-it, or Castro-did-it, or LBJ-did-it, it surely must sound ridiculous for somebody to even consider another, alternative, Walker-did-it CT.

But that's my position. If I sound like DVP to some of you CIA-did-it CTers, then that is because the CIA-did-it CTers are ALL MISTAKEN.

And on that point DVP and I can surely agree -- and I welcome his support on that aspect of my theory, if no other.

To bring this thread back to Ruth Paine -- she has always remained an LN after the WC Circumstantial Evidence was presented to her (and all other evidence was hidden from her and all Americans). She always said she thought LHO *couldn't* have shot JFK, but that the WC Circumstantial Evidence was overwhelming. I'd hope to convince Ruth Paine with the same points I'd hope to convince DVP.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.)

Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said..."

please explain?

[Paul Trejo]

"I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.)

Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said..."

please explain?

I already did explain, Glenn. DVP attacks the CIA-did-it CTers. IMHO, all CIA-did-it CTers are BACKWARD.

The CIA didn't kill JFK. Two CIA guys -- ROGUES -- confessed. This most likely means that these ROGUES were supporting a CIVILIAN effort.

It was AMERICAN CIVILIANS (with military training) who killed JFK. That's what the facts will show.

Did you miss that?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am privileged to now present to you the critically acclaimed DVP the 2nd.

at least he's not malicious in his attacks. I think the illogic requires too much energy for him to be mean.

I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.)

Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said -- simply because the CIA-did-it CT's are so backward.

If DVP is really an LN, I can imagine that he's won 90% of his battles, and y'all fear him. Good.

That's hilarious. His logic defies the laws of physics. No one fears him; most have just tired of him.

But if DVP is really an LN, then I hope to be able to convince DVP that the scientific evidence supports multiple shooters at JFK in Dealey Plaza.

In no way could LHO have acted alone in the JFK murder.

I would also argue to DVP that the US Government covered up the CONSPIRACY to kill JFK.

HOWEVER -- I would also like to assure DVP that I think the US Government did the RIGHT THING by the Cover-up, because the alternatives in 1963 were (1) riots in the streets; (2) Civil War; and (3) World War Three.

So, I would argue with DVP that even though Hoover-LBJ-Dulles-Warren covered up the JFK murder, still, they all remain Great Americans who did the best thing for the USA by (ultimately) preventing World War Three as a possible outcome of the JFK murder.

Interestingly, this is exactly the argument LBJ used to convince Chief Justice Earl Warren, after much resistance, to Board the Commission (and which is what many believe is what had him in tears as he left the meeting between the two).

I would also like to convince DVP that the Radical Right in 1963 Dallas murdered JFK. The evidence is mounting. Clues were available 50 years ago, but the noise-level of the CIA-did-it CTers was too chaotic -- and they wouldn't bother with General Walker -- the true mastermind of the JFK murder. (The HSCA didn't even consider Walker.)

With ridiculous theories that the Mafia-did-it, or Castro-did-it, or LBJ-did-it, it surely must sound ridiculous for somebody to even consider another, alternative, Walker-did-it CT.

But that's my position. If I sound like DVP to some of you CIA-did-it CTers, then that is because the CIA-did-it CTers are ALL MISTAKEN.

IMHO, you sound like DVP because your logic and disinterest in anyone else's opinions are so similar.

And on that point DVP and I can surely agree -- and I welcome his support on that aspect of my theory, if no other.

Yes, your theory does need the support.

To bring this thread back to Ruth Paine -- she has always remained an LN after the WC Circumstantial Evidence was presented to her (and all other evidence was hidden from her and all Americans). She always said she thought LHO *couldn't* have shot JFK, but that the WC Circumstantial Evidence was overwhelming. I'd hope to convince Ruth Paine with the same points I'd hope to convince DVP.

yeah. let us know how this works out.

I'm still curious as to how you know so much of his theories if you've "never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

"I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.)

Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said..."

please explain?

I already did explain, Glenn. DVP attacks the CIA-did-it CTers. IMHO, all CIA-did-it CTers are BACKWARD.

The CIA didn't kill JFK. Two CIA guys -- ROGUES -- confessed. This most likely means that these ROGUES were supporting a CIVILIAN effort.

It was AMERICAN CIVILIANS (with military training) who killed JFK. That's what the facts will show.

Did you miss that?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I think what i missed is how you know so much of DVPs theory if you yourself have never read anything by him until this thread.

that was my question.

IMHO.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Paul Trejo]

I'm still curious as to how you know so much of his theories if you've "never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread."

Since I never read DVP before this thread, then there can only be one explanation for the agreement, Glenn, and that is because COMMON SENSE still holds a place in the American Culture.

Face it -- CIA-did-it CTers are a dying breed. Your last stronghold is evidently the science fiction of the H&L nonsense. That's the swan song.

Once Jeff Caufield's new CT book (which came out just last month) becomes more well-known, people will look back on the past 50 years of CT nonsense and laugh.

But just in case you missed it again -- I never read anything by David Von Pein until this very thread. That's the truth -- to the very best of my recollection.

If I had -- it's fairly certain that I would have contributed to threads that he dominated, because except for his LN conclusions, I like his clear-minded logic and reason. He evidently sees through the CIA-did-it CT errors like Superman.

(I've also seen that DVP can be ad hominem in argument, and I've personally asked him to tone that down in this particular thread.)

If you can find even one thread by DVP in which I have participated, Glenn, please refresh my memory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo