Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Brancato

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

My impression is that Ruth Paine was a good housekeeper, though things could get out of control in times when there were too many visitors.

On this particular weekend, not only were Marina and her two babies visiting for a long visit, but Lee Oswald was there as well as Michael Paine.  

Plus, Ruth had two toddlers of her own.  It was a full house.

In addition, Ruth had asked Michael and Lee to move furniture around for her that weekend.  So, it seems to me that although Ruth was usually neat and tidy, this weekend was an exception.

Lee had asked to borrow Ruth's typewriter on Saturday morning.  He would shield his papers with his body as Ruth walked by --drawing her attention to it.

When Lee was done, he left his original on Ruth's secretary desk.  He left it there the rest of the day, as if to tempt her.

On Sunday morning, Ruth gave in to the temptation and read the letter.  She was outraged.  It said negative thingy about the FBI.  Ruth held a favorable opinion about the FBI.

Ruth tried to show it to Michael, who hated to pry. He looked at the first scrawl Dear Sirs, which looked like 'Dear Lisa' to Michael.  This was a very private letter, he said, and told Ruth to put it back.

Saturday to Sunday is two.days.

I like how you utilize "the weekend" so that the events in your timeline can fit anywhere you want them to.

Let's clear something up: Saturday morning to Sunday morning is not 2 days (48 hr.s)  time frame but they are two different days, this is simply more obfuscation on your part.

Lee showed up Saturday and Michael arrived on Sunday.

What evidence do we have that this story occurred the way that you and Ruth Paine allege that it did?

 

PS I only asked if Ruth was a good housekeeper and now you've offered that this particular weekend "was an exception", can you explain why you stated this, post some citations and why this is seems important to add?

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

Sandy,

I have no idea why you mention Doris Nelson. The only people who were in Trauma room 1 while JFK's clothes were removed were Charles Carrico, Diana Bowron and Margaret Hinchcliffe. Of those three the only person who testified that the bullet entered above the shirt collar was Charles Carrico, and it is clear you do not believe him. Doris Nelson may well have entered trauma room 1 at a later point, but by that time JFK's clothes had been removed.

James,

I don't recall saying anything about Doris Nelson. But if you point out where I did, I will be happy to reply regarding that.

 

Quote

I have not the slighest idea why you would suggest that the bullet fired from a Mannlicher Carcano would travel slow enough to cause tears to JFK's shirt as opposed to a penetration hole. I assume you have seen the research by Michael and Lucien Haag for "Case Cold." Their presentation proved that a Mannlicher Carcano bullet could travel through 46 planks of pine creating a small round hole in each.

Strictly speaking, I was only replying to what Ray asked by explaining how a projectile could create slit-like holes.

Explaining how it came about that the bullet was traveling at a slow speed is another matter. Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:

  • The bullet traveled through the windshield before hitting the throat. The windshield slowed the bullet down.
  • The bullet traveled through the body before exiting the throat. The body slowed the bullet down.

You may recall that the explanation I gave Ray wasn't exclusively about the projectile being slowed down. I said that the slit-like holes may have been formed if there was no backing to hold the fabric in place as the projectile penetrated it. If the projectile exited the throat, it would have hit the fabric and stretched it to the point that the bullet tore through it, as opposed to cutting through it. This is analogous to cutting cookie dough without the dough being placed on a cutting board. Without the board, the cookie cutter will just tear through the dough. It won't cut it.

So that is another possibility.

And finally, it's possible that somebody intentionally made the holes with a tool.

 

Quote

But you state that this bullet can only tear the front of JFK's shirt. Can you comment why this same bullet created:

a) a hole in the back of JFK's jacket.

b a hole in the back of John Connally's jacket

c) a hole in the back of John Connally's shirt.

d) a perfectly round hole on the front of John Connally's jacket.

How was this bullet able to do all that and yet only tear the front of JFK's shirt?

I don't believe the throat bullet did any of that.

 

Quote

Assuming that this tear as a bullet exit JFK's body ( which I do not subscribe to ) this exit hole is below the collar line. That places the wound at approximately at the level of the Clavicle. That is nowhere near Vertabra's 3 and 4. The bullet cannot be in two places at the same time. If you are stating that this tear is evidence of the bullet's exit, then this exit wound is nowhere near Vertrabra's 3 and 4.

I honestly don't know where the throat wound is relative to the vertebrae.

But just from casually observing a profile photo of Kennedy taken on 11/22/63 (which I did do a day or two ago), it looked to me like the throat wound is roughly at the same level as the back wound. Which surprised me. (Note that I do not believe the two wounds are connected.)

 

Quote

JFK's shirt does not present the ambiguity of FOX 1. Because of the position of JFK's head on the table it is possible to argue that the wound is consistent with Vertabra's 3 and 4. the damage to the shirt is very different. There is no way to argue that this tear is not close to the Clavicle. The position of this tear is nowhere near vertabra's 3 and 4 and yet there is clear testimony that the exit hole in JFK's neck was adjacent to vertabra's 3 and 4.

James

Sorry, I don't know what "FOX 1" refers to. And I don't follow the point you're trying to make. Probably because I don't relate the throat wound to the location of the vertebrae.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

I like how you utilize "the weekend" so that the events in your timeline can fit anywhere you want them to.

Let's clear something up: Saturday morning to Sunday morning is not 2 days (48 hr.s)  time frame but they are two different days, this is simply more obfuscation on your part.

Lee showed up Saturday and Michael arrived on Sunday.

What evidence do we have that this story occurred the way that you and Ruth Paine allege that it did?

PS I only asked if Ruth was a good housekeeper and now you've offered that this particular weekend "was an exception", can you explain why you stated this, post some citations and why this is seems important to add?

Chris,

While some might say that two days must be at least 48 hours, other people would say that parts of two consecutive days could (and should) still be called two days.  

It isn't obscuring anything, because part of Saturday to part of Sunday is still two days, because it was overnight.  I'm certainly not alone in this.

As for evidence for my timeline -- it comes directly from Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony.  Nothing more nor less.  (I've read it thoroughly, and I can tell that many readers here haven't.)

As for my word, 'exception,' I am going partly by the way that Ruth Paine dressed -- very neatly -- and by the way she dressed her children -- very neatly, and by the Time Magazine and other photos and film of her living room, showing order, as well as FBI remarks.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


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

As for evidence for my timeline -- it comes directly from Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony.  Nothing more nor less.  I've read it thoroughly, and I can tell that many readers here haven't.

Ok. So we'll just work with Ruth's WC testimony and ignore everything else she's said under oath?

Did Ruth actually see the "Kotin/Kostikov" letter? I'm referencing the typed letter not the "rough draft" she absconded with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Ok. So we'll just work with Ruth's WC testimony and ignore everything else she's said under oath?

Did Ruth actually see the "Kotin/Kostikov" letter? I'm referencing the typed letter not the "rough draft" she absconded with.

Chris,

Of course we must include everything that Ruth ever said under oath (allowing for figures of speech, of course) because I maintain that she was (and remains today) an eminently honest person.  An observant Quaker, actually.

As for the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter -- you mean the typed version that was mailed -- Ruth Paine didn't hold that copy in her hands, but she did look over Lee Oswald's shoulder from a distance, to see him typing out his single longhand page for a long time.  She saw the page on her own typewriter.  But then Lee would shield his work with his body, she testified.

(BTW: this topic is still related to the theme of Paul Brancato's thread because of the CT literature that suspects Ruth Paine of being part of a long-term plot by the CIA to assassinate JFK.   Although David Lifton said that he does not suspect Ruth Paine, the CT arose within the context of this theme.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


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

Of course we must include everything that Ruth ever said under oath (allowing for figures of speech, of course) because I maintain that she was an eminently honest person.  An observant Quaker, actually.

As for the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter -- you mean the typed version that was mailed -- Ruth Paine didn't hold that copy in her hands, but she did look over Lee Oswald's shoulder from a distance, to see him typing and typing out his single longhand page for along time.  She saw the page on her own typewriter.  But then Lee would shield his work with his body, she testified.

Ok. I'm asking you what Ruth Paine testified to.

I don't remember her statement that she looked over his shoulder from a distance and she could see the letter.

..and just so we stay on the same page here, are we going to run with her early testimony or the later version?

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Ok. I'm asking you what Ruth Paine testified to.

I don't remember her statement that she looked over his shoulder from a distance and she could see the letter.

..and just so we stay on the same page here, are we going to run with her early testimony or the later version?

Chris,

I am currently running with Ruth's original testimony to the WC, and I'm unaware of any significant contradictions with any later version.  Here's what Ruth told the WC on March 21, 1964.

Mr. JENNER - All right, go ahead. 
Mrs. PAINE - He was using the typewriter. I came and put June in her high-chair near him at the table where he was typing, and he moved something over what he was typing from, which aroused my curiosity. 
Mr. JENNER - Why did that arouse your curiosity? 
Mrs. PAINE - It appeared he didn't want me to see what he was writing or to whom he was writing. I didn't know why he had covered it. If I had peered around him, I could have looked at the typewriter and the page in it, but I didn't....
Mr. JENNER - Is that a transcript, a literal transcript of the document you saw? 
Mrs. PAINE - Of course the document was in English, transcribing of what was said; yes. 
Mr. JENNER - By transcript I meant that it has been retyped, that it is literal. 
Mrs. PAINE - That is the document; yes. 
Mr. JENNER - That is interesting. You noticed that the document was in English. 
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, yes. 

This testimony shows that Ruth Paine did see a piece of paper in her typewriter - but she did not hold it in her hand, and she never read the typed version.  She read the original, longhand version of it the following morning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

This testimony shows that Ruth Paine did see a piece of paper in her typewriter - but she did not hold it in her hand, and she never read the typed version.  She read the original, longhand version of it the following morning.

 

So there's direct evidence that Oswald typed "something" and there's circumstantial evidence that the "something" was what the FBI would later call the "Embassy letter". Do we agree?

It sounds like Ozzie didn't shield the typewriter itself but he placed another paper over his handwritten draft, "he moved something over what he was typing from".

I also note that the high-chair that Ruth put her kid in is in the dining area correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

So there's direct evidence that Oswald typed "something" and there's circumstantial evidence that the "something" was what the FBI would later call the "Embassy letter". Do we agree?

It sounds like Ozzie didn't shield the typewriter itself but he placed another paper over his handwritten draft, "he moved something over what he was typing from".

I also note that the high-chair that Ruth put her kid in is in the dining area correct?

Chris,

We agree that Oswald typed "something."  There is circumstantial evidence that this "something" was what the FBI intercepted days later as the "Embassy Letter."   We agree so far.

We don't agree fully on your second point, since Ruth Paine only said here that Oswald, "moved something over what he was typing from."   That is ambiguous, i.e. the term "over" could mean "over my line of sight" or "directly, physically on top."  Yet we agree that Ruth was talking about the longhand original letter there.  Oswald blocked Ruth's sight -- perhaps deliberately, to increase her curiosity.

Yet please don't overlook her next sentence:  "I didn't know why he had covered it.  If I had peered around him, I could have looked at the typewriter and the page in it, but I didn't."

Notice that when Ruth says she could have peered around Oswald, that she could have looked at the TYPEWRITER and the PAGE IN IT.  This is decidedly not the original longhand letter.  In that sentence, Ruth is talking about the typewritten page.

Finally, as for the high-chair, it is very difficult to say if she meant the dining area, for two reasons -- first, the distance between the dining area and the living room was about 12 inches, IIRC -- and secondly, Ruth Paine had Michael and Lee moved furniture around for her that weekend.

Again -- I'm only going by the sworn testimony here -- I'm not making anything up.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


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

Finally, as for the high-chair, it is very difficult to say if she meant the dining area, for two reasons -- first, the distance between the dining area and the living room was about 12 inches -- and secondly, Ruth Paine had Michael and Lee moving furniture around for her that weekend.

Again -- I'm only going by the sworn testimony here -- I'm not making anything up.

I don't understand why you are deliberately being obtuse about the location of the dining area. Does this diagram accurately depict the Paine residence?

 

ce430.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I am not being obtuse about the dining area.  That diagram that you posted is ambiguous -- one can argue from it that the dining area is only 12" from the living room -- that is, the mere depth of a single wall.

Furthermore, inside this tiny house, there were eight people on this Veterans Day weekend, and Ruth was having furniture moved around.  It isn't as simple as you portray it.

How do you interpret it?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

I don't understand why you are deliberately being obtuse about the location of the dining area. Does this diagram accurately depict the Paine residence?

 

ce430.jpg

Chris,

I expect Trejo to say that Ruthie was in either the kitchen or the living room and, without actually going into the living room or the kitchen whichever the case may be, kinda reached her arm or head around the corner and snatched or put or spied that typed or handwritten letter on the kitchen table or the desk thingy from where she was at the moment.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


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

I am not being obtuse about the dining area.  That diagram you posted is ambiguous -- one can argue from it that the dining area is only 12" from the living room -- that is, the mere depth of a single wall.

How do you interpret it?

The dining table that Lee sat at, "the only table" per RP, was in the kitchen/dining area of that diagram not the "living room". We'll get to the furniture moving. We are trying to establish facts not your "interpretation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

The dining table that Lee sat at, "the only table" per RP, was in the kitchen/dining area of that diagram not the "living room". We'll get to the furniture moving. We are trying to establish facts not your "interpretation".

Chris,

IMHO, your interpretation of the "facts" is based on being strictly literal -- and no ordinary person is ever strictly literal, all the time.

I next expect you to try to isolate the words, "secretary desk" from the word, "table," but in common usage, that is untenable.

Webster's defines the word "desk" as "a piece of furniture with a flat or sloped surface...at which one can read, write, or do other work.   Synonyms...table..."

In common parlance, one could in passing refer to a "desk" as a "table".  I think I see your direction -- you want to claim that Ruth Paine "lied" when she said at one time that Lee was writing at a "desk," and another time at a "table."   I think this is reaching.

Your argument will also try to presume that a "table" must always be in a dining area, and a "desk" must never be in a dining area.   Right?

But in the real world -- especially on moving day -- that simply cannot be guaranteed.  I think you are seeking a "lie" where there is none.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Chris,

I expect Trejo to say that Ruthie was in either the kitchen or the living room and, without actually going into the living room or the kitchen whichever the case may be, kinda reached her arm or head around the corner and snatched or put or spied that typed or handwritten letter on the kitchen table or the desk thingy from where she was at the moment.

--  Tommy :sun

Hey Tommy thanks un-fubar-ing this for us.

I have a question for you.... is this the "original" typed letter?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=57

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

×
×
  • Create New...