Michael Paine dies at 89

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jeff:

What do you make of Mike Paine's statement to Liebeler that he saw the BYP on the evening of the 22nd? (2H402)

And further, that he recognized the Neely Street address by the small clapboard? Yet, I think the photo was taken in the back, right?  And there was no indication in his testimony about his meeting with Oswald then that they went to the back. 

I repeat my hope here that Michael Paine left a memoir about his JFK Assassination period.   

The vain hope that some people have that everything about a person should or could be found inside WC testimony is always ludicrous.

Just because Michael Paine didn't tell the WC that he saw the inside and the ousted of Oswald's tiny apartment doesn't mean it never happened. 

Michael Paine did not volunteer everything that happened with Oswald -- he simply and calmly answered the precise questions that the WC attorneys asked.

In a sense -- we can blame the WC attorneys for the paucity of information we have -- because they failed to ask sufficient questions.

The amazing thing is that they asked Ruth Paine over five thousand questions (that's not an exaggeration) and yet they asked Michael Paine so few questions.

Case in point -- the Backyard Photographs.   They bear the stamp, IMHO, of Lee Harvey Oswald working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall (JCS) which had superb photographic equipment.

It was at JCS that Lee Harvey Oswald forged many items of Fake ID for Alek Hidell -- his alias.   Marine card, vaccination card, on and on.

It seems likely to me that Oswald was fired from JCS precisely because he was wasting time with his personal Fake Photo projects.

In any case, the old CIA-did-it CT took a shot to the head when Michael Paine told Gus Russo and Dan Rather that he saw LHO's BYP on 4/2/1963.   A true Blockbuster.

The CIA-did-it CTers are still reeling to this very day.   What can they do but deny it, and claim yet another CIA conspiracy?

All best,
--Paul Trejo, MA

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul said:

In any case, the old CIA-did-it CT took a shot to the head when Michael Paine told Gus Russo and Dan Rather that he saw LHO's BYP on 4/2/1963.   A true Blockbuster.

The CIA-did-it CTers are still reeling to this very day.   What can they do but deny it, and claim yet another CIA conspiracy?

All best,

Oh I'm reelin' Paul,---- reelin' and a rockin'!  I recently had heard that Michael lived in Waltham Mass., but it is interesting to note, that he lived and died 10 miles from Ruth Paine despite neither ever living near that area in their previous adult lives!  I wonder if they conversed at all later in life? That seems like the kind of thing you might be checking into Paul.

But re: Michael, I always wondered about the WC  interview with Alan Dulles and Michael Paine. Did Dulles approach the interview with the same apprehension that William Hurt had when confronting the little niece, who had seen him with Kathleen Turner in "Body Heat"?????        

Somehow, I think not.

Or Paul, maybe before the interview began,  Michael said to Allen, "Hey dude, we know some of the same people! So I hear you did a thing with Mary Bancroft?, we know her!, she's friends with my Mom! Isn't that weird?"

[Jeff Carter]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jeff:

What do you make of Mike Paine's statement to Liebeler that he saw the BYP on the evening of the 22nd? (2H402)

And further, that he recognized the Neely Street address by the small clapboard? Yet, I think the photo was taken in the back, right?  And there was no indication in his testimony about his meeting with Oswald then that they went to the back. 

If Oswald and Paine wandered out to the backyard, then Paine’s ID of the Neely St house would have likely been based on the stair structure which is the prominent architectural element. What’s odd regarding the comment about the clapboard is that it is really the least prominent structural feature in the BYPs, but also - how many of us can recall exact detail of exterior siding after visiting a house one time only more than seven months previously? Paine specifically told the WC that he retained detailed recollection of the April 1963 meeting, and his memory was much less exacting regarding the more recent encounters which occurred that autumn. That raises questions which were not asked.

Liebeler was fishing for other information when Michael Paine mentioned being shown a BYP on the evening of Nov 22, so he either missed the substance of the statement or didn’t realize its import. It is really one of the “mistakes” in the Warren Commission’s record, as there is no way to square the presence of a BYP at DPD that evening with the “discovery” of the photos the next day. At least two others - reporter Jerry O’Leary and Captain Fritz - confirmed that a BYP was in possession of the Dallas police before they were found. In light of that, it’s important to recall that the announcement of the “discovery” of the photos - along with the mail order rifle form - was presented to the media as a major breakthrough by Chief Curry early on Saturday evening. 

Officially, other than Liebeler’s mistake, the possession of a BYP by the authorities many hours before their discovery was effectively disappeared from the record. The HSCA should have clarified this, and actually had opportunity to do so during their interview with RL Studebaker, who had worked in the DPD’s photo lab and was present the assassination weekend and following. The lack of curiosity by the HSCA’s representatives is striking. Despite expending considerable resources investigating the authenticity of the BYP, the HSCA failed to address basic questions such as how the police came to possess a BYP by Friday night, and where the third photo, recently unearthed and apparently unknown until then, came from.

[Jeff Carter]

Paul T - "The vain hope that some people have that everything about a person should or could be found inside WC testimony is always ludicrous."

And yet soon after typing this you are on another thread claiming that Marina Oswald's WC testimony is the "core" of the case and should be considered of utmost value and relevancy.

[James DiEugenio]

I agree Jeff, the HSCA should have been all over that one.

Are those two other sources, O'Leary and Fritz in your article?  Where could it have come from, if not from the Paines?

That is unusual about eh clapboard is it not?  What a disgrace the WC was.

 

Costner as Garrison: "Ask the question!"

Edited March 21, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Are those two other sources, O'Leary and Fritz in your article?  Where could it have come from, if not from the Paines?

 

Yes, the sources appear in Part Four of the backyard photo article, but I should say that John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" was the book which highlighted this information in the first place.

I speculate in the article that the BYP in possession of the Dallas police on the Friday night was actually the third pose 133-C (which didn't surface publicly until 1975). This is based on the use of that pose for the recreation photos taken the week following. Where it came from is unknown, but I believe the source would be considered controversial and so it was effectively disappeared. My #1 unanswered question regarding this is whether the 133-C photo came to the Dallas police in the drugstore print format of the other two photos, or in another printed format. 

[James DiEugenio]

Then let me ask you this one:  How did the DeMohrenschildt version originate?

Since that seems to have been taken with an entirely different format with different field of view and resolution.

[Tom Hume]

James DiEugenio wrote: 

“Then let me ask you this one: How did the DeMohrenschildt version originate?

Since that seems to have been taken with an entirely different format with different field of view and resolution.”

While we’re waiting for Jeff to respond to Jim’s question, I have a couple of comments: According to the HSCA Photographic Panel Report, CE133A and 133A de Mohrenschildt are supposedly first generation prints made from the same exact negative (apparently a negative that has never been recovered). The 3x3 CE133A is assumed to be a standard drugstore type print (as is CE133B), but 133A de Mohrenschildt is a 5x5 enlarged print, perhaps done at another facility. The bottom line is, 133A de Mohrenschildt, while a bit damaged, is the same click of the camera as CE133A.

Years ago, Jack White noticed that all three backyard photos (CE133A, CE133B, and, 133C) were taken from almost exactly the same spot in space. This is bizarre for a number of reasons, and I don't think this aspect of the BYPs has received enough attention. 

It’s my view that the three photos were taken within the same two to three inch area, as if they had been shot with Lee Oswald’s Stereo Realist camera mounted on a tripod. In fact, CE133A and 133C reveal a dandy 3D image when rotated 88 degrees and the pair viewed through a Stereoscope. Perhaps some have seen my posts on this topic months ago. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Jeff Carter]

The DeMohrenschildt version features higher resolution and is not cropped on the sides (i.e. it was created directly from the negative). Wherever it came from, it was not the Dallas Police photo lab, as the equipment which created it is higher quality than what they possessed. It is very tempting to propose that Oswald created this print at J-C-S, and certainly the HSCA’s photo panel’s report guides the reader to presume that as well. Oswald did create a few (innocuous) things for personal use there, but that he printed (or even created) the BYP at J-C-S needs to be considered in light of the workspace being open plan - that is, there really wasn’t a room he could hide away in, so any work on such photos would be in potential view of other employees. The HSCA panel notes some printing flaws are visible on the DeMohrenschildt version, which suggests the fixing process for the print might have been rushed. It is possible that Oswald (or a confederate) processed the photos via the commercial drugstore process, and then Oswald took a negative into work and created the print now known as the DeMohrenschildt version.

Michael Paine’s late claim to have been shown a BYP neatly fits into the latter possibility, as the print he described was larger than the small drugstore prints. Paine’s embellishment that Oswald seemed to be proud of the photo also dovetails nicely with the Warren Commission’s supposition of its purpose (Oswald’s self-image). So it is easy to assume Oswald created the print as a farewell gift to George DeMohrenschildt. Case Closed!

However, as can be effectively argued, Paine was not shown a Backyard photo during that April visit. There are other logical issues:  why would Oswald go through the trouble of creating a print, signing it to his friend, and then forget to actually give it to him soon after when the DeMohrenschildt’s dropped over to say goodbye? And what, presumedly months later, would make Oswald assume the language records Jeanne DeMohrenschildt passed on to Marina would actually make their way back, someday, to the DeMohrenschildt’s? (thinking that it was Oswald who placed the photo there). In 1967, Jeanne DeMohrenschildt was actually surprised to see the records with their belongings, according to her husband’s account. In other words she didn’t expect to see them again, and if that's not the case and they were just on loan why weren’t they returned during the goodbye at Neely Street? It is assumed these records travelled to New Orleans and back, so did Oswald in September tell Ruth Paine that they should be delivered to the DeMohrenschildt storage locker? There is no indication of that, nor is there any indication Oswald even knew there was a storage locker. From the record, it was actually entirely Michael Paine’s initiative to deliver the records to the storage locker. 

(And then of course there’s this one:  why did Oswald permit a cache of English-Russian language tutoring records to be in his house for months when the story was he was adamantly opposed to Marina learning English?) 

Hi Tom  - the negative for 133-A is in the Archives. It was the negative for 133-B (and 133-C for that matter) which is missing.

[James DiEugenio]

So no one really knows where that came from I guess.

Alright, then since I have you here, how about the other picture?  The one that was burned by either Marina or Marguerite?

Isn't that a completely different pose?  Greg Parker thinks that was taken in Russia.

[Jeff Carter]

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So no one really knows where that came from I guess.

Alright, then since I have you here, how about the other picture?  The one that was burned by either Marina or Marguerite?

Isn't that a completely different pose?  Greg Parker thinks that was taken in Russia.

Another pose - possibly holding a rifle aloft, over his head. Another "ask the question" moment, as Marguerite's interlocutor does not pin down whether it is a backyard photo or not (i.e. was he next to the staircase as seen in the other photos). I personally concur with Parker - it was taken elsewhere, not a BYP.  

[Tom Hume]

Hi Jeff, 

You wrote: “Hi Tom  - the negative for 133-A is in the Archives. It was the negative for 133-B (and 133-C for that matter) which is missing.”

Perhaps I’m confused, but the HSCA report linked below says:

“CE749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/Rifle.html

As for the possible backyard photo destroyed by either Marina or Marguerite, my bet would be that it was the 3D mate to CE133B. According to my highly subjective puzzle research, there were originally 4 backyard photos taken with the Stereo Realist camera - CE133A and 133C are a 3D set with Lee Oswald’s head attached to Wesley Frazier’s body, and CE133B and a missing photo are a 3D set featuring a different body-double with Lee’s head attached.

I have started a rough draft of this argument at the link below. It’s an old thread of mine that I’m intending to rewrite if I can live long enough. If you get a hold the right piece of equipment you can view some of Oswald's 3D image creations there.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

...Michael Paine’s late claim to have been shown a BYP neatly fits into the latter possibility, as the print he described was larger than the small drugstore prints. Paine’s embellishment that Oswald seemed to be proud of the photo also dovetails nicely with the Warren Commission’s supposition of its purpose (Oswald’s self-image). So it is easy to assume Oswald created the print as a farewell gift to George DeMohrenschildt...

Jeff,

To grasp the George DM version of the Oswald BYP, we must examine George DM's 1977 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

In this manuscript we find a description of George DM and Volkmar Schmidt egging Oswald forward to hate and despise General Walker.

It is almost certain that an old boaster like George DM would tell young Oswald that he once worked for the CIA -- which would entice Oswald, who wanted to work for the CIA so badly that he could taste it.

If so, then it seems likely that the naïve young Oswald tried to kill General Walker as a gift to George DM and Volkmar Schmidt.   We get a taste of this, too, from Bill Kelly's interview with Volkmar Schmit in 2008.  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

If so, then this also explains the BYP that Oswald gave to George DM in the record albums that Marina returned to Jeanne DM through Everett Glover when the DM's were in Haiti.

If so, then Michael Paine's revelation to Russo and Rather that he saw the Oswald BYP in April, 1963, is credible and should be treated as US history.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Jeff Carter]

14 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Hi Jeff, 

You wrote: “Hi Tom  - the negative for 133-A is in the Archives. It was the negative for 133-B (and 133-C for that matter) which is missing.”

Perhaps I’m confused, but the HSCA report linked below says:

“CE749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/Rifle.html

 

hi Tom 

you are correct, my mistake. (data overload)  The negative for 133-B is in the archives. The negative for 133-A is missing, although it was listed in the original police files and their Dallas Identification Bureau actually made an 8x10 from it late in the afternoon of Nov 23/63. No explanation why it subsequently disappeared. Perhaps it was removed from DPD custody to create the DeMohrenschildt print. No one knows, no one tried to fully account for this, although the HSCA was claimed to be authoritative on this matter.

[Jeff Carter]

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

To grasp the George DM version of the Oswald BYP, we must examine George DM's 1977 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

In this manuscript we find a description of George DM and Volkmar Schmidt egging Oswald forward to hate and despise General Walker.

It is almost certain that an old boaster like George DM would tell young Oswald that he once worked for the CIA -- which would entice Oswald, who wanted to work for the CIA so badly that he could taste it.

If so, then it seems likely that the naïve young Oswald tried to kill General Walker as a gift to George DM and Volkmar Schmidt.   We get a taste of this, too, from Bill Kelly's interview with Volkmar Schmit in 2008.  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

If so, then this also explains the BYP that Oswald gave to George DM in the record albums that Marina returned to Jeanne DM through Everett Glover when the DM's were in Haiti.

If so, then Michael Paine's revelation to Russo and Rather that he saw the Oswald BYP in April, 1963, is credible and should be treated as US history.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

hi Paul

I have serious misgivings of Michael Paine's late story of being shown a BYP in April 1963, for reasons which I have detailed elsewhere. You are of course free to have your own opinion. 

I would point out, re: DeMohrenschildt, that in his first statement after the assassination, appearing in a State Department airtel from Haiti, he says that "everyone" in Dallas believed that Walker staged the attempt on himself. I have no reason to doubt Volkmar Schmidt's information, but that Oswald would literally shoot at Walker as a result of that conversation is a suspicion or surmise, not actual proof of such event.