Jon G. Tidd Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No one here has proved Ruth Paine was a xxxx and deceiver. I think she was. But I can't prove it. I dislike Ruth Paine viscerally. Maybe, as Paul Trejo maintains, she is an honest person. I know one thing: if Ruth wanted to clear the air, she would come forward openly and answer all questions to the best of her knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No one here has proved Ruth Paine was a L-I-A-R and deceiver. I think she was. But I can't prove it. I dislike Ruth Paine viscerally. Maybe, as Paul Trejo maintains, she is an honest person. I know one thing: if Ruth wanted to clear the air, she would come forward openly and answer all questions to the best of her knowledge. Well, Jon, it's obvious that you haven't searched the Internet for the countless times that Ruth Paine has come forward for public speaking and interviews over the past fifty years. Your error is that you listen to these CTers who rag on Ruth Paine, but who are too lazy to read the hundreds of pages of WC testimony (in response to more than five thousand legal questions), or her Grand Jury testimony to Jim Garrison. You're smarter than they are, Jon. Please just read Ruth Paine's testimony. It's online and free for the taking. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 6, 2016 Author Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Uh Jon: The Paines did prevaricate. They did to Jim Garrison, and they did about the Minox camera. That article in on this thread. As Bill Kelly once said, the Paines should have been water boarded. Edited February 6, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Ruth Paine has come forward? She is still open to conspiracy theories? You are dreaming. And what about those tax returns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Re: Paines, So for the down and dirty who absolutely have to some answer about their involvements before they're gone. According to Talbot they're both up in Santa Rosa, Cal. So it wouldn't have to be a bi coastal abduction. ......For anybody from any intelligence agencies that might be monitoring this site. It's just a joke! Yes she's the most interviewed witness in the 26 volumes, and she at times has been accessible. But she really hasn't addressed any of the new evidence that has surfaced in the last 25 years. It's too bad they couldn't be interviewed under the right auspices. It would be nice to see how they react to some of these questions. (is that better?) Hey "The many faces of Ruth Paine", she looks like a sort of hot 60's villainess in a Perry Mason episode. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Uh Jon: The Paines did lie. They lied to Jim Garrison, and they lied about the Minox camera. That article in on this thread. As Bill Kelly once said, the Paines should have been water boarded. It's easy to toss out accusations, James. Show your work -- or should I say, Carol Hewett's work. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 6, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Ruth Paine has come forward? She is still open to conspiracy theories? You are dreaming. And what about those tax returns? It's no dream, Paul B., this is what she herself said. And what tax returns are you talking about -- and why in the world would her tax returns be important to the JFK murder? Isn't it the case that the class-conscious wing of the CT community is simply jealous of rich people? So they easily blame the Paines for the JFK murder? Come up with something solid for a change. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 6, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Re: Paines, So for the down and dirty who absolutely have to some answer about their involvements before they're gone. According to Talbot they're both up in Santa Rosa, Cal. So it wouldn't have to be a bi coastal abduction. ......For anybody from any intelligence agencies that might be monitoring this site. It's just a joke! Yes she's the most interviewed witness in the 26 volumes, and she at times has been accessible. But she really hasn't addressed any of the new evidence that has surfaced in the last 25 years. It's too bad they couldn't be interviewed under the right auspices. It would be nice to see how they react to some of these questions. (is that better?) Hey "The many faces of Ruth Paine", she looks like a sort of hot 60's villainess in a Perry Mason episode. No? Ruth Paine is an intelligent woman -- but to some people that's a threat. Intelligent women are transformed in the male chauvinist mentality into -- well -- anything they like. Ruth Paine is probably the single most interviewed, and the most open, of all the WC witnesses. Those who attack her don't really bother reading her testimony, but are too lazy for all that work. Instead, they confine themselves to the easy insults in old, tired issues of Probe magazine, with all its countless errors about the Paines. The main issue that Probe magazine harped on about the Paines was that they were wealthy. They attacked Ruth Paine as a "Fake Quaker" and insulted her charity to Marina Oswald. Not with any good reasons, but just hoping that most readers hate the wealthy, also. The Anti-Paine arguments are extremely flimsy -- and if there were any strong arguments -- even one -- people would have raised it here over the past several months -- don't ya' think? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 6, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 6, 2016 Author Share Posted February 6, 2016 We already did Paul. As Ernie pointed out with Harry Dean, you are not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Agree James. Trejo doesn't write for us here, he writes hoping that someone out there thinks his arguments, true or false, sound better and more grounded. To that point he constantly repeats things that aren't true, such as the idea that you me and others have a problem with the Paines because they were old money or 'rich'. My understanding is that tax documents for the Paines are being withheld. I have no idea why. That is not the point. Again you create a false argument and then knock it down. When she says she is 'open' to conspiracy theory but just hasn't read one yet that convinces her, that is the same as saying she is 'closed'. Why would I care what she said, or what you say she said? Your further implication that we are intimidated by her because she is an 'intelligent woman' just convinces me of what a male chauvinist you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) We already did Paul. As Ernie pointed out with Harry Dean, you are not interested. You DID? Sorry, James, I must have missed it through all the wise-cracks and insults. Why don't you refresh my memory and tell me JUST ONE of the attacks on Ruth Paine for which you have actual FACTS. The Probe magazine fictions of the 1990's don't cut it anymore, James. It's the 21st century, and you've got to pony up. Here's a clue. If you can show ONE PLACE where Ruth Paine's testimony is contradicted by FACT, I'll grant you the point. As Jon Tidd said yesterday: "No one here has proved that Ruth Paine was a L-I-A-R and deceiver." So, as I see it here, the current score is Trejo 07 and DiEugenio 00. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 7, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 You've been insulting DiEugenio for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) You've been insulting DiEugenio for months. Paul B., I've noticed that they've been insulting each other for months. But since "Jimbo" is so popular with the members of this forum, his insults are overlooked. Condoned, actually. --Tommy Edited February 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) You've been insulting DiEugenio for months. Paul B., I've noticed that they've been insulting each other for months. But since "Jimbo" is so popular with the members of this forum, his insults are overlooked. Condoned, actually. --Tommy Thank you, Tommy, for your observation. Actually, the way I see it, James DiEugenio has been insulting me with comedy and barbs, while I have been merely CRITICIZING HIS WORK with solid and logical points. I haven't been tempted to actually INSULT James yet -- but if he keeps it up, he's going to reap exactly what he sows. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 7, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Thomas - can't you see the derision in Trejo's attacks? Can you tell the difference between an earnest researcher and a pompous critic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now