Martin Blank

Ruth Paine can only repeat what she's repeated for 52 years -- IT WAS A COINCIDENCE.

Ruth says that because IT'S THE TRUTH. What else could she possibly say except the Truth?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

um, she could have lied through her cia teeth.

Your problem, Martin, is that you have no material evidence of any kind that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

But like I say -- haters gonna hate.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

and people break promises. i don't think cia people wear id badges. and where was nixon's quaker sense of mercy. i'm sure ruthie would have no trouble taking a lie detector test. and francis gary powers was flying a weather plane!

you have no facts for anything just a rubiks cube of speculation

Well -- let's give John Armstrong the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he's actually done some independent research. I'm looking forward to picking his article apart.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'm looking forward to seeing how John gives credit to Ruth (and not Linnie Mae Randle) for suggesting Oswald apply for a job at the TSBD.

Accusing Ruth Paine of placing LHO at the TSBD to be blamed for the murder of JFK has been a favorite pastime of CTers for decades.

There's no way to dissuade the prejudiced, however. The facts from testimony are these:

1. LHO was out of work for the second time in 1963, and his wife was about to have another baby.

2. Marina was embarrassed to be sponging off of Ruth Paine, a new friend, when her husband should be supporting her -- or at the very worst, her husband's own family should be putting her up.

3. But Marina brought this upon herself when back in March, 1963, she began complaining to a friendly person she had only met a week ago, that she was pregnant and LHO was threatening to send her back to the USSR without him.

4. Marina might have known that this would enrage Ruth Paine, and set Ruth on a course of Quaker Charity to "save Marina Oswald" from her lazy, irresponsible husband -- and to keep Marina Oswald in the USA, where she urgently wanted to stay.

5. On 23 April 1963, Ruth went to visit Marina as scheduled, only to find LHO out of work, and planning to go to New Orleans alone -- leaving Marina only a bus ticket and a promise to write her a letter when he got a job and a place to stay. Marina was worried because a normal husband would have at least placed her at his mother's house before leaving the State, leaving her alone with a baby and $10 to her name, not speaking English.

6. So, Ruth Paine -- in Quaker Charity -- offered to keep Marina Oswald at her house for a few days until LHO got on his feet and he could call on the phone instead of writing a letter, and besides that Ruth Paine would drive Marina and June to New Orleans personally. LHO jumped at the offer.

7. Seventeen days later, LHO did call, and Marina was so excited she exclaimed to baby June, "Papa loves us!" She wasn't sure if she was being abandoned or not. Now she believed LHO again. So, Ruth Paine packed them up and drove her two kids, baby June and Marina Oswald to New Orleans.

8. Ruth and Marina continued to exchange letters during the summer. Marina said she was getting along better with LHO now. After Ruth's summer vacation back East, she drove home in late September and stopped off at New Orleans to visit Marina. SHE WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT LHO WAS OUT OF WORK AGAIN.

9. Worse, this time Marina was eight months pregnant and waddling. Plus, Marina had no health insurance. She could literally drop any day.

10. So, again, because of her Quaker Charity, Ruth Paine offered to take Marina Oswald back to Dallas, to register her at Parkland Hospital, so that Marina Oswald could have her new baby in a healthy medical environment. Ruth said that after the childbirth, Marina was welcome to stay at her home through January 1964, as her mother was coming to stay with her in February 1964. Again LHO jumped at the offer.

11. LHO said he was going to Houston to look for work there.

12. LHO packed up their station wagon (without a rifle) and sent them away to Texas on 23 September 1963.

13. On October 7, 1963, LHO appeared at Ruth Paine's doorstep -- STILL WITHOUT A JOB. He was also low on cash, and had checked into a room in Dallas. Marina was EXTREMELY embarrassed.

14. Marina was frantic that LHO was still OUT OF WORK. One day, as the neighborhood mothers were having a coffee gathering, they got to talking about LHO being OUT OF WORK. They talked about how they might help. Linnie Mae Randle was there with perhaps five women. Ruth translated for Marina. One of the things that Ruth brought up was that LHO had no car -- and even if he did, he had little driving experience and no driver's license. Then Linnie Mae said that her teenage brother just got a job at TSBD, and he drives a car. She heard they were hiring.

15. MARINA'S EYES LIT UP. After the meeting, when they got home, Marina Oswald asked Ruth again and again to please call the TSBD about a job. Remember that Ruth Paine liked Marina Oswald a lot. She was good Russian conversation, kind and patient with Ruth's Russian grammar errors, was a hard worker, and called her Auntie Ruth to baby June. Ruth had lots of time for Marina Oswald.

15.1. So, because MARINA WAS INSISTENT, Ruth Paine not only called the TSBD and got Roy Truly, but she gave Roy Truly the hard sell. This was a good Marine, she said, who needed a job because his wife had one baby and the other was on the way. Roy was basically sold, but of course had to see LHO with his own eyes.

16. The next day LHO applied for the job -- he was well-groomed and very polite, very eager and looked like an honorably discharged Marine to Roy Truly. He got the job on the spot. He would report to work in the morning.

17. As we see in WC testimony, on the day that LHO was interviewing with Roy Truly, the TEC was trying to call Ruth to tell her they had a baggage handlers job at the airport. But there was nobody home.

18. The next morning LHO appeared for work at the TSBD. That day the TEC called Ruth Paine about this baggage handler's job, but Ruth didn't bother to talk with him -- she just said, "Lee already has a job, thanks," hung up, and forgot about it.

OK, Sandy, those are the facts. Now, if a person is prejudiced against Ruth Paine, or wants to convict her of a CIA plot to kill JFK (like some here do) then there's no way to convince them otherwise, because the fact is that Ruth Paine was the single most active person in getting LHO that job in the TSBD.

But consider this -- if Ruth Paine was totally innocent of any CIA plot to kill JFK -- all the facts that I cited above would still stand without alteration. In other words -- haters gonna hate. People who want to find some sacrificial scapegoat for their political paranoia are going to blame Ruth Paine for the fact that LHO was working at the TSBD when the Conspiracy to kill JFK came to fruition six weeks later.

Ruth Paine can only repeat what she's repeated for 52 years -- IT WAS A COINCIDENCE.

Ruth says that because IT'S THE TRUTH. What else could she possibly say except the Truth?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

um, she could have lied through her cia teeth.

Paul Trejo,

You have talked with Ruth Paine recently? Today is February 22, 2016.

Paul, may I ask Ruth three questions.

The questions are:

1. Did Ruth take the pictures of June in New Orleans?

End of questions.

Good question, Jon. I'll send Ruth Paine an email right away. I'll let you know the result on this FORUM.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Jon,

Ruth Paine responded to your question on Thu 25 Feb 2016 at 4:24 PM. She wrote:

Hi. I took no photos of Marina in New Orleans.

Paz. Ruth

My question to her implied both Marina and June, and I take it that her reply also implied both Marina and June.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

it implied no such thing

Paul,

Here's the point of my question:

When was JFK first struck? From where? By what?

I'll leave it at that.

The debate here is based mostly on opinions, not facts. Let's have verifiable facts.

Well, Jon, I think I presented some interesting and verifiable facts about the JFK assassination.

Yet you're asking about facts WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN VERIFIED.

We even have a MOVIE of the JFK murder -- and yet we still can't answer in any VERIFIABLE way: "When was JFK first struck; From where? By what?"

We have a thousand guesses. The umbrella of "Umbrella man" was a dart-thrower! Yes, even that is one of the guesses.

But we have a major obstacle -- the decision by Hoover and LBJ on 11/22/1963 to insist upon a Single Lone Nut who killed JFK, and their willingness to use the entire US Government to twist all evidence -- eye-witnesses, photographs, film, ballistics, medical, X-ray, crime scene, fingerprints, palm prints -- to make an Unbelievable Case that a single madman killed JFK with the precision of a coordinated Military Ambush.

Because of the twisting of Evidence -- ostensibly for National Security during the Cold War (e.g. the USSR must not be allowed to crow about our shame) -- how in the world can we VERIFY today -- a half-century later -- that which those closest to the events had failed to verify back then?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

fact: a thing that is indisputably the case

​so there is no such thing as an unverified fact since by definition a fact has been verified by actual real evidence and not mere speculation like your entire last two paragraphs

Facts are paramount.

To all here: What are the verifiable facts?

i think they are non-trejo-isms. a trejo-ism by definition has no facts of any kind involved. they are mere speculation with no factual support

Underhill also said "This country is too dangerous for me. I've got to get on a boat. Oswald is a patsy. They set him up. It's too much. The bastards have done something outrageous. They've killed the president! I've been listening and hearing things. I couldn't believe they'd get away with it, but they did. They've gone made! They're a bunch of drug runners and gun runners - a real violence group.I know who they are. That's the problem. They know I know. That's why I'm here.''

interestingly, several of the cia guys implicated or associated with jfk's murder were sent to vietnam, shackley and morales among them.

​also i can't believe that the kuomintang and corsican mob didn't take hefty cuts along with s. vietnamese officials

James - why would Nagell try to warn Oswald of the plot, and claim Oswald didn't believe him, only later to state that Oswald was part of the plot?

John Armstrong might have the answer

Everyone here knows all about intelligence operations, I know. So please respond, based on your training and experience as a military intelligence officer in a war zone.

Since we taxpayers paid for your training please enlighten us and help us out of the darkness of ignorance and enlighten us

There is no proof he was in the employ of the CIA. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.

i'll bow to allen dulles on this matter

Allen Dulles: This is a hard theory to disprove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent? How do you disprove it?

Hale Boggs: You could disprove it, couldn't you?

Allen Dulles: No...I never knew how to disprove it.

One last point, Kennedy's economic policies, as formulated through he and Walter Heller--who despised Milton Friedman--really worked. By 1963, the economy was humming along.

But once LBJ got in there and reversed Kennedy's Vietnam policy, he had a huge problem. He knew that America would not pay for that war, at least not completely. So he started printing money. As the war expanded, he printed even more.

This caused the terrible curse of stagflation, that is money losing value as the same time productivity is going down. It drove Nixon nuts and he made it even worse, with his price controls and his Israel policy which caused OPEC to jack up oil prices. It then had a large role in ruining Carter since Volcker decided to wring the inflation out of the economy with high interest rates.

Then Reagan and Bush came in, followed by Clinton, and globalization has now run rampant. To the point that its the opposite of what Kennedy wanted. Businesses get rewarded for going abroad and the middle class in America has been pretty much gutted. So, like his foreign policy, his economic policy was also turned around.

Yep, so I think Kennedy's murder matters today. Its a terrible country. I mean Trump is probably going to be our next president.

If my girlfriend had a passport, I would seriously think of moving to Costa Rica or the south of France.

i recommend battling wall street as well

Nice one Martin.

thanks.

​more than anything else i think he was a visionary

On the contrary, James, the JFK Plotters failed to get what they wanted most -- the invasion of Cuba and a replacement for Fidel Castro.

The reason that LHO was sheep-dipped for SIX SOLID MONTHS in New Orleans to look like a good friend of Fidel Castro, was so that the JFK Plotters could pin the JFK murder on Fidel Castro, the FPCC and the Communists, and so justify the invasion of Cuba.

J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren figured out their nefarious scheme before 11/22/1963 was over. Hoover led the way, because Hoover had a stack of files on 544 Camp Street, and Hoover knew exactly what LHO was doing there with Guy Banister.

By 3pm on 11/22/1963, FBI records tell us that Hoover called RFK to tell RFK the opposite of the news coming out of Dallas. Dallas was reporting continually that LHO was a Communist and an FPCC Secretary. Hoover told RFK calmly and bluntly that LHO was not a Communist and was not an officer of the FPCC.

The game was up at that point. The JFK plotters failed to get what they wanted -- and they went home with their tails between their legs.

US Politics as usual won out in Washington DC (for better or worse) thanks to J. Edgar Hoover.

Does the JFK murder matter? Yes, because Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren decided to not prosecute Walker and his henchmen, because this would have given the USSR an enormous propaganda victory right in the middle of the Cold War.

So, the mythology of LHO as the "Lone Nut" was forged by the entire FBI marching in step. Even Bethesda was forced to conform to this Cover-up.

I repeat -- the JFK Kill Team was completely separate and even opposed to the JFK Cover-up Team. That's what 50 years of CIA-did-it CTers have missed.

As a result, we have had an unpunished Radical Right running amok in the USA since 1963. Thank goodness for President GHW Bush, who signed the JFK Records Act of 1992, promising to release all US Government Top Secret documents on the JFK murder on Thursday 26 October 2017.

On that day, I predict, we will witness a comeuppance in the USA second only to the surrender of Robert E. Lee.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

lee was a traitor who should have been executed for treason

Does it matter today that JFK was killed?

Immensely. Why do you think the media did what it did at the fiftieth?

But more directly, the plotters got what they wanted out of his death:

1. A policy reversal in Vietnam, and the expansion of the war way beyond what JFK ever dreamed it would be.

2. A freeze out in Cuba as to a relaxation of tensions, which would not be renewed for fifty years.

3. A reversal of policy in Indonesia towards Sukarno, which would would result in the absolutely horrifying CIA coup there in 1965 which brought Suharto to power.

4. A reversal of policy in Congo, which would end the legacy of Lumumba and bring to power Mobutu, another Suharto.

5. A reversal of policy in the Middle East, which would now result in a turning away from Nasser and Egypt, and a friendly tilt toward Saudi Arabia, and Iran and an almost loony favoring of Israel vs the Palestinians.

6. A rapid acceleration of favoritism toward the big banks/ Federal Reserve system vs the smaller bank and easier credit policies of James Saxon.

7. The spurning of the democratically elected Juan Bosch in Dominican Republic, in favor of preserving the military junta that replaced him

Etc etc etc. If you add up all the lives that were lost in these reversals you are well into the millions. The money is in the trillions--yes trillions-- especially in Congo and Indonesia. JFK wanted that money to got to the native peoples there. At the time of his death, he was actually arranging for Sukarno to nationalize certain businesses by giving their owners a fair deal on their value.

The myth about JFK was that he was a moderate liberal.

Not true. Kennedy was the most radical president in the last seventy years--and no one else comes close.. And as with Roosevelt, the Power Elite--as David Talbot so nicely put it--decided they had enough of him.

he was quite simply our last real president and maybe one of the few in our history

Norm – Something that is usual, typical, or standard; A standard or pattern, especially of social behaviour, that is typical or expected:

"Nonetheless beating and even raping one's wife was pretty much the norm in this country into at least the 1980s. Certainly it was the norm in the early 1960s."

​Seriously? Where is the statistical proof. Facts, etc. Let me get this straight you are saying that I (given your dates) most likely have beaten my wife and raped her? I find your insinuation about men in general to be reprehensible, shameful, inexcusable and disgraceful.You tar a lot of good and innocent men (who have never raised a hand or committed another crime of violence against a woman). So put your brush away and think about it.

​Lately, it seems you are becoming trejo-lite and deal out trejo-isms with no regard for the truth. btw was it the norm in your house to beat and rape your wife? tell the truth.

Yikes.

Paul,

You keep dismissing the idea (or fact, as I consider it) that the CIA was involved in the assassination.

How do you account for Richard Case Nagell? He shot at the ceiling of the bank and waited for police to arrive. He told them they would know soon why he did that. He got himself arrested for protection. He had on him a copy of Oswald's military ID card.

CTers who believe the CIA was involved quickly understand the Nagell situation... it makes sense. But it seems that for you it would make no sense at all. Nagell must have been close to Oswald (in order to have gotten the ID card), but beyond that he must have been crazy to have done what he did.

I'm curious to know your take on him.

this should be priceless

another one bites the dust:

from the undefeated champion of the forum in the super hevyweight class. you know hims as paul trejo: Ruth and Michael Paine knew NOTHING then, and still today know NOTHING about the plot to kill JFK -- nor anything at all about the Cover-up.

Another suspicious event involving the Paines occurred on the day of the assassination. At 1:00 pm on November 22. 1963, Michael Paine placed a collect call to his wife to discuss Oswald's involvement in the assassination. While the telephone operator remained on the line, Michael Paine told his wife that he “Felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but was not responsible.” Rather ominously he added, “We both know who is responsible.” (FBI report of Robert C. Lish, November 26, 1963, JFK Document No. 105-82555-1437) The most extraordinary thing about this call is that it took place one hour before Oswald's arrest. For obvious reasons, the Warren Commission wanted to sweep this little problem under the rug as swiftly as possible. During Michael Paine's testimony, the ever resourceful commission attorney Wesley Liebeler changed the date of the call to the following day:

Let's take "most." Most here (all musicians) means more than half; let's call most 50.1%.

Accordingly, 99% of most = 0.99 x 0.501. Which is .496, or 49.6%.

So, the fact that 99% of most musicians aren't geniuses means, at the very least, 49.6% of all musicians aren't geniuses. Which means, at the very most, 50.4% of all musicians are geniuses.

It's rather profound.

i think it's 99.9 % of each individual who is counted in the majority. you know like a pound of flesh from each of these people adjusted for their height and weight

I ask that, Jon, because it makes a difference when a boy is exposed to a given science or art at a very young age. Young children learn faster and deeper than adults. For example, very young children can learn four or five different languages with ease, while adults struggle to learn just one foreign language.

Also, the greatest musicians were always the ones who were exposed to music from very young ages, like Mozart, for example, or whose parents were musicians, like John Lennon or Brian Wilson.

So, the fact that Edwin Walker went to Military School before he went to West Point is likely to have stimulated his imagination and entered his personality, far more so than somebody who studied military science as an adult. I think that stands to reason, with psychological statistics.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

oh so girls don't count. "likely?" you know this for a fact?

Just an aside question:

What does "99% of most" mean?

what does any of what he says mean?

I ask that, Jon, because it makes a difference when a boy is exposed to a given science or art at a very young age. Young children learn faster and deeper than adults. For example, very young children can learn four or five different languages with ease, while adults struggle to learn just one foreign language.

Also, the greatest musicians were always the ones who were exposed to music from very young ages, like Mozart, for example, or whose parents were musicians, like John Lennon or Brian Wilson.

So, the fact that Edwin Walker went to Military School before he went to West Point is likely to have stimulated his imagination and entered his personality, far more so than somebody who studied military science as an adult. I think that stands to reason, with psychological statistics.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

statistics please. just because you want (need) something to be true doesn't mean that it's true. also any other refereed articles about the effect of military school on a person's later personality.

LOL

Actually Martin, I don't think there is a KGB today. Putin renamed it.

see how sneaky they are

Paul Trejo,

When I was in the army, I served under various field-grade Military Intelligence officers, including one who was promoted to Brigadier General. I got to know some of them fairly well as human beings. These were men deeply schooled, deeply experienced, in a broad array of intelligence matters. Several of them were West Point graduates. All were war veterans.

None of these individuals, not one, had any training or experience in carrying out political assassinations. Sure, they were savvy in military history, doctrine, training, weapons, and other topics. But army never taught them how to carry out assassination of an American president or any other kind of political assassination.

If these men knew nothing about high-level political assassination, how would Edwin Walker?

You can convince me I'm wrong about Walker by documenting his training and experience specifically in high-level political assassination. Simply arguing that he was a two-star general who had combat experience signifies nothing; those guys were and are a dime a dozen.

Two questions, Jon.

(1) How can you be so certain what these Army officers didn't know?

(2) Were any of these Army officers also raised in Military School as children, and also West Point graduates?

It makes a difference.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

how so? if you make the statement you have to tell us how USMA graduates are all political assassins and those junior and high schoolers are assassins, too. thanks, i know how important the facts are to you.

also i didn't realize that roger staunch an NMMI and Annapolis graduate was a political assassin. i knew that chuck barrios, his of the gong show, claimed to have been a via assassin. wrote a book about it

No I do not.

But this is a break with the past.

Holley was hired on his watch.

must have had some temps or kgb working that day

Paul Trejo,

You're arguing that Walker had training and experience as a warrior.

A warrior has one skill set. A professional assassin or assassination planner has another skill set. The skill sets have little overlap.

The warrior seeks to kill any number of armed opponents and doesn't worry about offending sensibilities, necessarily. The warrior may be skilled at large- or small-scale killing. Curtis LeMay vs. Carlos Hathcock.

The high-level political assassin has one target, who is unarmed. The assassin works in the political arena. The warrior acts in the military arena.

I can go on, but I expect you get the point.

I get your point, Jon, but I beg to differ. Walker didn't just get Army boot-camp training. Walker was a LIFER.

Walker studied warfare as a CHILD and then he went to COLLEGE to study it further. Then, at about the age of 22, Edwin Walker entered SPECIAL FORCES. I gather that with your military background you know that that can entail.

I reckon that Edwin Walker -- a true patriot until 1961 -- was one of the most dangerous men alive.

By the way, if (and only if) Edwin Walker needed or wanted extra advice on assassination, IMHO he could have obtained this from David Sanchez Morales, a rogue CIA officer who IMHO had joined Guy Banister's "Kill Fidel" operation in 1963 there at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. Joan Mellon says that SOMEBODY in the CIA around August 1963 gave Guy Banister's team Top Secret CIA information that JFK was seeking outreach to Fidel Castro.

For Guy Banister -- and for Edwin Walker -- as well as for David Morales, this was TREASON and worthy of a firing squad -- not for money, but for the sake of honor and (however misguided) patriotic duty..

The JFK murder wasn't a simple Mafia hit. It was a well-orchestrated military-style ambush. CIA officer William Harvey had already made similar plans for the assassination of Fidel Castro in a motorcade. Odd how an identical plan happened to come to Dallas...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

yeah william harvey planned both

Paul Trejo,

You're arguing that Walker had training and experience as a warrior.

A warrior has one skill set. A professional assassin or assassination planner has another skill set. The skill sets have little overlap.

The warrior seeks to kill any number of armed opponents and doesn't worry about offending sensibilities, necessarily. The warrior may be skilled at large- or small-scale killing. Curtis LeMay vs. Carlos Hathcock.

The high-level political assassin has one target, who is unarmed. The assassin works in the political arena. The warrior acts in the military arena.

I can go on, but I expect you get the point.

walker's initial field of specialty and training was artillery