David Von Pein

But even if that scenario was possible, we know the site of the luncheon (the Trade Mart) wasn't even finalized until either November 13th or 14th (WCR, p.31). https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm So that's one full month after the Paine/Randle/Marina coffee klatch and almost one full month after Oswald was hired by Roy Truly at the TSBD. Did the evil plotters of the patsy scheme just got lucky when the place where Oswald got hired turned out to be the perfect spot for a sniper? Isn't it much more likely (and reasonable) to conclude that Lee Oswald took advantage of happenstance colliding with a golden opportunity that he just couldn't pass up on Nov. 22nd? I think so.

Despite what some CTers have said, one thing I do know for a fact is that Ruth Paine could not have known for a fact on October 14, 1963, what the exact motorcade route through Dallas was going to be. And, hence, she also could not have known for a fact on Oct. 14th that the Texas School Book Depository Building would be a viable location to place a "patsy" named Oswald on 11/22/63.

And what you just said is one of the major problems I have with CTers. When the conspiracists have to accuse various people of telling lies in order for their theories to have even the slightest chance of being correct, then I would say it's time for those CTers to put on the brakes and re-think things a little bit. For, in just this one sub-topic (LHO getting hired at the TSBD), you've got---what?---3 different people telling a string of lies about how Oswald got hired? Paine, Randle, and Truly? Right? Anybody else? Also -- can you please inform me of what the "strong circumstantial evidence" is that "requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD"? Your words "requires" and "strong" are piquing my interest. Please elaborate.

You do realize that Ruth Paine could not possibly have "planted" LHO in the TSBD in order to set him up for Kennedy's murder, don't you Tom? The timing and the overall circumstances concerning the way Oswald obtained his Depository job positively eliminate the notion that LHO was "placed" in the TSBD by any evil forces. And once a reasonable person comes to the realization that Lee Oswald got his Depository job by way of the most regular, ordinary, and non-conspiratorial way imaginable, then (IMO) the remainder of the smears that have been attached to Ruth Paine by CTers vanish into nothingness. Because if Ruth didn't help "place" Oswald in the TSBD for any kind of nefarious purpose (which she definitely did not do), then what WAS her job as far as the "Frame LHO" plot was concerned? To cook his meals on weekends? To allow Marina to stay at her house? To teach Lee how to parallel park? How do any of these things "advance" the alleged plot along to frame Lee Oswald for the murder of the President? Or do some CTers think that Ruth's main purpose in the "plot" occurred AFTER the assassination, in the role of "Spreading lies and disinformation" concerning LHO? Is that it? ~shrug~ http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/was-oswald-planted-in-tsbd.html "Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE regarding [Ruth] Paine, [Roy] Truly, [Wesley] Frazier, and [Linnie Mae] Randle in order to weave the magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" plot that conspiracists imagine took place. But just because nobody has yet been able to come close to weaving that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people (like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop conspiracy theorists from pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those very people really did occur in 1963." -- David Von Pein; July 1, 2008

If Connally ever did say that, he was most certainly overstating things. In fact, I've made a pretty good case for there possibly being only TWO tiny fragments of bullet lead remaining inside the whole body of John B. Connally at the time of his death in 1993.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

I'll let others answer that one for me. I have to walk on eggshells around here---and I know it. So I'll do just that and not allow Mr. DiEugenio to bait me. But even with those eggshells beneath my feet, I won't hesitate to call a theory "loony" if I think that is the description it deserves. And, in my view, the theories being propped up by many CTers concerning Ruth Paine do most definitely belong in the "loony" category.

I was very careful, in fact, about the specific wording I utilized in that Ruth Paine logo. I intentionally did not use the words "Conspiracy Theorists" in that logo. Instead, I used the words "Conspiracy Theories". Implying, in my view, that it's the THEORIES about Ruth Paine that are "loony", which IMO they most certainly are. Any other complaints today, Jim?

Along similar lines, I've asked the following question in past years on this forum (to combat the notion posited by CTers that Bardwell Odum, due in part to a lack of FD-302 reports, never went to Parkland in June of '64 to show CE399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P Wright).... Has anyone seen any of the FD-302 forms for ANY of the other 59 FBI interviews that are also represented in the document known as CE2011? I never have. Has anyone? Does that therefore mean that if we can't locate FD-302s for any of those various interviews, we have to trash ALL of those interviews in CE2011? Including this one here, which says that G.M. Doughty of the DPD identified his mark on the bullet shell he received from witness Barbara Davis at the scene of Tippit's murder? And should we also scrap this interview that Odum did with J.M. Poe on July 6, 1964, wherein Poe said he marked the two bullet shells he handled at the Tippit scene? But it's hard to believe that CTers would want to think THIS "Poe" part of CE2011 is a fraud, because it's always the contention of CTers that Poe really did mark the shells, even though he hedged on that point in front of the Warren Commission. So the FBI must be telling the truth about this then. Point being: Even when the evidence doesn't always mesh together neatly and cleanly, the FBI is on the record saying so, such as the Poe example above. And I doubt that any large investigation like the JFK/Tippit investigations ever has 100% of its evidence and testimony and reports come together in a perfect, neat package, free of any errors and/or discrepancies.

Thanks, Vince. And I see you've just added some "What's My Line?" clips to your own YouTube channel. Nice. WML is a favorite of mine. If you're interested, I've got a "Kennedy-Related" WML page on my site: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/whats-my-line-kennedy-related-episodes.html

You're merely stating your OPINION as to when Gov. Connally was shot. But as we know, there are more "opinions" about the timing of the shots than you can shake a stick at. I've got my "opinion" on the matter too.... http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com

See the first post in this thread.

Greg's posts regarding Ruth Paine are hardly "silly" at all. They are very good, and very useful (to a reasonable person, that is, who realizes that all of the efforts by CTers to trash Ruth Hyde Paine are nothing more than pure conjecture on the part of those conspiracy theorists. Gee, what a sweet comment, Jim. (But it's not surprising, of course, considering the source.) Jean Davison is hardly a "hack". She has written some of the finest online replies when dealing with CTers that I've ever seen. I've archived many of her posts at my own website. Everybody should take a look sometime. Equal time (re: Jean's 1983 book "Oswald's Game", which is a fine book on LHO): http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com On January 20, 2021, I discovered this interesting 1983 newspaper article on Jean Davison. Click to enlarge it:

QUOTING JEAN DAVISON (one of the best and finest JFK researchers I've ever had the pleasure of talking to): "The book you're quoting claims that Adams spoke with someone at the Paine house about an offer for a permanent, higher-paying job. But if you'll look at Adams' affidavit you'll see there's no evidence that he mentioned any details about this job to Ruth. His affidavit says only that he left a message for Oswald to contact him: [QUOTING ROBERT ADAMS:] My best recollection is that on that day I called [the Paines' phone number]. I learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not there. I left a message with that person that Oswald should contact me at the Commission. My further recollection is that the following morning at 10:30 o'clock I again called ... and learned from the person who answered that Oswald was not there and that he had in the meantime obtained employment and was working. [END ADAMS QUOTE] http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0246a.htm Everything else was the author's [James Douglass] assumption -- or rather, the assumption of whoever first made this allegation about Ruth Paine. [...] Again, there's no evidence that she [Ruth Paine] ever heard these details [about how much the airline/cargo job paid], so why should she recall them? [...] [Robert Adams' affidavit of 8/4/64] says that on October 7 Adams left a message at the Paine house. Evidently Ruth told Oswald, because he applied for the job but wasn't hired. It would've been a permanent job paying $350 a month. Here's the agency record showing Oswald's job referrals. "NH" in the Results column means "not hired." (Scroll down) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209b.htm [...] It's likely that Ruth took the call [from the Texas Employment Commission after Oswald was hired at the TSBD], certainly. But you're still *assuming* that she was told there was a *higher-paying job available* -- there's no evidence for that! Adams said the message was to have Oswald return his call, nothing more. It's possible that Ruth did tell Oswald about the call, and that Oswald himself decided not to bother since he'd already started working somewhere else. Don't people usually stop looking for work after they've found a job? Ruth apparently did pass on a lead to a different higher-paying job, mentioned above. How does that fit into her nefarious plans for Oswald, in your view? If he'd gotten that job, no 6th floor sniper's nest for him!" -- Jean Davison; June 29, 2008 [Original 2008 discussion is HERE.]

PPPS....

PPS. Yes he did. 😇

You're wrong about what you just said above, Denny. I have done no such "modifying" of my own responses after I take them to my website/blog. The responses you see by me on my site are the very same responses that also appear in the original threads here at this forum. Do you have a particular discussion(s) in mind (occurring during a period when I was an active member of this forum [Aug. 2010 thru Aug. 2019]) that prompted you to make the claim you just made?

Such information was no doubt deemed totally unnecessary to obtain by the Warren Commission. And the reason those things were totally unnecessary in this case is fairly obvious: It was because the Warren Commission knew that J.D. Tippit's killer (Lee Oswald) was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands just half-an-hour after Tippit was killed with that very same gun (as proven by the four bullet shells that littered 10th Street and Patton Avenue, which were shells matched conclusively to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver, Serial No. V510210). (The protests of conspiracists notwithstanding, of course.) The following comment is worth repeating every few days whenever the topic of Oswald & The Tippit Murder comes up. And so I had it digitally laminated in July of 2021 in the form of this logo below. I'm thinking of having a few hundred wallet-sized versions printed up and distributed to all conspiracy theorists in the United States and Canada: http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Hi Sandy, Once again, I think these concerns you have with the "gouge" all come down to perspective and the angle that the camera is to the bullet. Perspective can play such a huge role in our perception of things, as I'm sure you'll agree. Here (below) is another NIST photo (which I posted once earlier today), which shows the gouge in relation to the very top of the bullet. As we can see, the gouge is not right AT the very top of the bullet. There's some distance between the gouge and the bullet's top. I'm not sure this picture below will resolve any doubts you have about the gouge's location, but I think it goes to show (once again) that perspective is huge in photographic matters like this. Also --- When trying to reconcile the perceived differences in the "gouge locations" between the various CE399 photographs, what would a reasonable "CTer" alternative be? Would a reasonable alternate conclusion be that we're really seeing two different bullets in the various photo montages that have been posted in this thread (with both bullets displaying other characteristics that are identical in nature)? I don't think any "2 bullet" alternative answer is a reasonable one.

FYI / FWIW.... Here's yet another "montage" photo that I just now created---this time depicting a different NARA photo of CE399 from the ones presented earlier. And this is quite frustrating, because the area of the bullet which most definitely does contain the "ET" initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd is most certainly shown in this NARA image below---just to the right of the "K" in Charles Killion's initials. And Killion's "K" is easily discernible in both photos, indicating that Killion dug deeper into the bullet's surface with his marking than did Todd, because I can't see a trace of Todd's "E" or "T". This only tends to emphasize the point I have made many times over the last 10 or more years --- i.e., that Todd's initials are most certainly on the bullet, but the NARA photos just aren't clear or pristine enough to capture those initials. I enlarged the NARA pic in this montage below. To see the same photo in its original (non-enlarged) condition, go here --- https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-CE399

As an addendum to my thoughts about the "gouge" and the "scraped" area which appears to be an extension to the left of that gouge, I created another comparison montage, using the two NARA photos below. When viewing these non-hi-def NARA pictures, so much depends on the angle and the light which is falling on certain parts of the bullet when the photos were taken. Here we can see the "gouge" at the top of the bullet, but because of the way the light from the flashbulb strikes part of the gouge, that gouge has a totally different appearance in each photograph. Such differences might cause some CTers to shout "Something's wrong here", but IMO the differences in appearance can easily (and properly) be explained in ways that are far from conspiratorial in nature.

Indeed, Micah. It was that way for years. Here's just one example: -------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HARRIS -- "Those initials [of FBI agent Elmer Todd] are not on CE399." DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yes, they are. You just can't see them in the NARA photos." JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "This has now gone beyond absurdity. Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages: Prove John Hunt is a l-i-a-r." DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399. Get real. Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread. And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399. Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 and CE2011). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself. Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period." -------------------------------------------------- [The above discussion is from October 2012. The original EF Forum link is HERE.] --------------------------------------------------

I think I can see what you're getting at, Sandy. But, again, I think it's just a case of being at the mercy of the NARA photos, which just are not nearly as good and clear as the new NIST images. In the NARA photo you posted above, the gouge at the top of the bullet seems to have a different appearance than it has in the NIST picture with the "ET" initials. But here's another NIST image (below) posted by Steve Roe in his June 11th Washington Decoded article. Take note of the "scraped" area just to the left of the gouge itself. That scraped area (for lack of a better term) kind of looks like an extension of the gouge, and is probably what we're seeing (in a blurrier form) in the NARA photo.