Allen Lowe

On 10/22/2022 at 11:24 PM, Matt Allison said:

Someone else please explain to this guy what I wrote and why he's 100% wrong.

I guess if you wrote it must be true?. On the other hand what’s your documentation? I’m always willing to listen to those less fortunate than I. 

Just now, Matt Allison said:

You are rapidly becoming the best reason for people to suspect the Paines have been falsely maligned.

Yes I am certain that I shall soon be the subject of a national inquiry pointing out that I’m the number One reason innocent people are accused.

53 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Mysterious because she found it? 

1. She didn't get Oswald the job at TSBD, she passed along the info from Linnie Mae Randle.

2. She didn't know a single thing about an offer that was "better". And she passed along earlier offers from the Employment Commission that Oswald followed up on.

Your guilt by association claims are LAZY and you have no PROOF of any nefarious actions. NONE.

You've done nothing but subscribe to the decades-old dogma that Ruth Paine conspired to kill JFK which is complete BULLSHIT.

These lazy takes do nothing but make real JFKA research look like a joke; fringe tin foil hat stuff.

Do you think the 2020 election was stolen as well?  Because your bar for EVIDENCE is as low as the traitors that invaded the Capitol.

 

She was instrumental in getting Oswald placed in the job and she did receive a call from the employment commission offering work elsewhere. This is one time you might actually want to read the Warren commission testimony.

Call me lazy? Because I’m questioning the official story? Who is lazier, somebody like you who accepts everything he is told obediently and then bows his head, or researchers like jim and Pat who constantly question the official story and who have spent years trying to uncover the truth?

17 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And somehow you can say that despite a complete lack of evidence to show the "involvement" of either of the Paines.

Or are we supposed to count "gut feelings" as "evidence" nowadays?

 

Give it up Dave there’s tons of evidence you’re just too lazy to look at it.

2 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

@Allen Lowe, in my humble opinion, your analysis is sound and correct.

thanks, I was beginning to think I was on the wrong forum.

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Baker said he wasn't sure if the shots came from the building. He just knew he could get a good look from the roof. Truly said he thought the shots came from the railroad yards. He thought the elevators at the back of the building were locked up on the fifth, and told Shelley to go make sure no one suspicious came out the elevator at the front of the building from where he would have to have assumed the shots were fired, if indeed they were fired from the building. He also tells Piper to guard the back door. He runs with Baker up to the second floor. Baker stops to get a look at Oswald. Truly gives Oswald the OK. They then proceed up to the fifth, take the elevator to the seventh, and go up on the roof. At this point neither of them have reason to suspect Oswald. As Truly comes down moreover he sees Dougherty working and assumes it was Dougherty who rode the elevator down as they ran up. Soon thereafter the Dallas police officers and county sheriffs, who had almost universally raced to the train yards, race into the building, searching for the shooter they assume is hiding in the building. Serious attention is paid to the seventh floor, which is dark and has a small room in the corner. They send out for lights. After 20 minutes or so of this chaos, Mooney finds the sniper's nest on the sixth floor and another 10 minutes or so pass before Fritz comes up and begins the search for the rifle. Boone finds it 10 minutes later. It would only now dawn on Truly that Oswald may have been the shooter. Either he goes looking for him, or is told Oswald is missing, and this alarms him to the extent he tells Fritz. It is more than an hour after the shooting.

 

seem strange that Baker goes to the 5th floor and then the 7th but skips the 6th? I don't believe that they were thinking 7th because it was dark and unoccupied. Then why did they go to the 5th? Just to catch the elevator? Could be but in my opinion the whole thing is done to give the 6th floor perpetrators time to get their stuff together, arrange things as needed, and get out.

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Yes; sorry Allen, but this is garbage. 

Ruth Paine was an easy target, and would have gotten tons of guff whether she was cooperative or not

thanks boys; I know both of you have extensive investigative experience. And of course, like Ruth, every other relative of yours works for the CIA.

Just plain folks, all of you.  And btw name me another assassination witness/suspect who has so clinged to the public's attention over the years -  Marina? Harry Olson? Billy Lovelady (who moved and moved until he dropped dead)? Buddy Walthers (oh I forgot, he got shot)?; Michael Paine (no he rarely appeared)? Beverly Oliver (oh yes she's very credible)?

Why was Ruth an easy target? Because she mysteriously found evidence? Got LHO a job at the Book Depository and failed to report another offer? She was accused in Nicaragua by fellow Quakers of spying? Her husband reported that LHO was spying on political dissidents? She never saw the rifle, only an empty blanket?  Her sister and father were CIA connected? Her husband was related to Allen Dulles' mistress? Her leading advocate today (Alesi) did intelligence work?

Part of the problem is that you guys are so unaware of Cold War history. The CIA was regularly recruiting liberals and people on the left in the '50s and '60s to spy on their allies who might have been just a little too Left Wing for them. Ruth in her movements, manipulations, and equivocations fits this m.o. perfectly.

My suggestion? Read a book. It's American history.

I want to address something about Ruth Paine that I don't think anyone else has mentioned. One of the things cops/detectives will tell you is to beware of the suspect who is too anxious to help, to be constantly consulted, because this type pf person is likely guilty or had guilty knowledge and wants to appear cooperative while keeping an eye on what the police are doing.

Who does this remind us of? Think fast - the woman who has been harassed by researchers for years - most people in her situation would avoid the light of day and not sit for hundreds of hours of interviews by the people they know to be suspicious of them. But not Ruth, who not only carries the facade of innocence (not just in relation to the assassination but also about here sister's employer and her family's mazs of intelligence connections), but who says yes to a major documentary at a time when she could have ignored it (even though it will be seen by millions).

Now before the rest of you Paine apologists try the obvious argument - that just the opposite is true - well, you've been had by a classic sociopath. In real life, witnesses like Paine who had first hand knowledge of incriminating events repeatedly walked away or died (think Mercer or Bowers). But not good old Mr. Paine, who doth protesteth way too much. Even as she smiles for the cameras and tells the WC how offended she was by LHO's request for counsel!

What is very wrong with this picture?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28181-the-coveralls-wearing-customer-in-shasteens-barbershop-in-irving-was-that-oswald-or-a-mistaken-identification/ explains why I disagree. I would be interested in your opinion or reasons if you think the same as here after you consider that (if you would please post there if so, thanks). Unfortunately it is a long article and I know you prefer brevity. If you can tolerate the length.  

 

I have read plenty of length on the subject, mostly by Jim diEugenio, and that’s good enough for me.

On 10/17/2022 at 6:07 PM, Greg Doudna said:

You mean where did Oswald get his hair cut? One possibility would be this barber in Oak Cliff near his rooming house on N. Beckley who said he cut Oswald's hair: 

 

“Mr. Herman I. Harrison, owner, Harrison’s Barber Shop, 2005 North Beckley, Dallas, Texas, advised SA John V. Almon on December 5, 1963, he recalls having cut Lee Harvey Oswald’s hair on two occasions, although he  was not aware of Oswald’s identity until after the President’s assassination. Harrison stated that Oswald was quiet and made no comment concerning his personal affairs, associates or political ideas.” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95673#relPageId=31)

That barber's two haircuts in Oak Cliff could account for all haircuts of Oswald between Oct. 4 and Nov 22.

I have a more recent and fuller discussion on the Shasteen barbershop which supercedes this one, at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28181-the-coveralls-wearing-customer-in-shasteens-barbershop-in-irving-was-that-oswald-or-a-mistaken-identification/.

 

and yet Greg, as we know (because you told us so) a lot of people thought they saw Oswald. Unfortunately for your case, Shasteen was the most credible.

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Another lovely unintelligible statement from Mr. Healy. (As per usual.)

David, the only lone nut I know of is you.

23 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

There was obviously some confusion. Sawyer thought he went to the top floor. But it was the fourth floor. 

Now, it could be that he wanted to go to the sixth floor but was deliberately taken to the fourth floor by Shelley. That can't be ruled out. 

this is something I noticed a while back. Baker was taken to the fifth and then the seventh floor when he came in the building, according to testimony. They clearly were trying to give somebody time on the six floor. I’m convinced that some of this crap was an inside job.

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I was talking to DiEugenio.

Correct, but this is an open forum and anyone can read your posts.

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Also, you have referred several times now to what you characterize as an "utterly crucial piece of evidence" having "utmost importance" in which you see near-apocalyptic scale significance in Ruth Paine having misspoken in her Warren Commission testimony concerning the location of a sofa in her living room.

Ruth Paine in April 1964 to the Warren Commission told of her sofa the previous Nov 22 being on a different wall from where a photo of Nov 22 has it. From that has been originated a brand-new Ruth Paine conspiracy theory in which it was darkly urged that Ruth never moved her sofa and desk on Sun Nov 10 as she claimed (which was the occasion of her obtaining Oswald’s draft of the Soviet embassy letter). Instead an elaborate theory is urged that Ruth fabricated the whole sofa move claim as part of her role in a Soviet embassy letter plot. The evil Ruth Paine just brazenly, wilfully perjured on the location of her sofa in her living room, so the theory goes, despite knowing gazillions of police and news photographers had taken pictures and had memories of the true location of the sofa in her living room. This will really nail Ruth Paine. They've got her on that one!  

I did some digging and found that Ruth was moving the sofa because of sun in the eyes in late pm/early evening when watching the television located at the southwest corner of the living room, with the sun coming through her southern exposure living room picture window. The move of the sofa from the north wall (less desirable “fishbowl” location, but out of the late-sunset rays of the sun) to the east wall (more desirable, more private and comfy, no sun in the eyes there in the winter with early sunset) location of the sofa on Nov 10 (when two men were there to do the heavy lifting at Ruth’s direction) closely followed the change to Daylight Savings Time some days earlier. Ruth had Michael and Lee switch the positions of the sofa (on the north wall) and a desk (on the east wall) to vice versa on Nov 10. The sofa was returned to its preferred position on the east wall since the sun would no longer be in the eyes of persons on the sofa in early evenings in that position. The move of the sofa was not more complicated than that.

By the time of her Warren Commission testimony the sofa had been moved back again to the north wall in her living room—this sofa moving would be twice-annually based on this sun in the eyes factor—and those moves simply got Ruth mixed up on where her sofa was on Nov 22 in her testimony. You call this non-argument "of utmost importance" because you think it proves Ruth wilfully perjured over getting the wrong wall where her sofa was. In the thread in which Chris Newton showed the photo proving the sofa was on the east wall on Nov 22 instead of the north wall as Ruth said in her WC testimony and concluded from that that Ruth had lied in claiming the sofa had been moved at all on Nov 10, I wrote that it was moved because of the sunlight and explained the mundane explanation. What I wrote seemed to do no good, nobody addressed the mundane explanation I gave. Chris Newton never responded. However Chris Newton never pursued the subject further either after I wrote that. 

I'm an experienced window cleaner. Sun direct on glass is the bane of window cleaners. I know a lot about southern exposure picture windows and working around hours of the day when there is not direct sun on glass. That is how I realized what was going on with Ruth having the sofa moved on Nov 10, just after onset of Daylight Savings Time.  

Filibustering doesn’t prove your point. But since you’ve given me a headache with all that prose, I guess you win the argument.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

None of Michael's family was CIA, and in Ruth's family the only known CIA employee was her older sister Sylvia out of three siblings, and I doubt her sister’s CIA employment even was known to Ruth at the time of her Garrison grand jury questioning, if Sylvia had not told her. That Sylvia's employment with CIA was overt not covert is established by a simple fact: that Sylvia Hoke turned up in a published city directory listing her as employed by CIA. I investigated how city directory information was obtained and found that it was obtained primarily from door-to-door canvassing but could also include information obtained from neighbors or public domain records. When the Falls Church, Va. city directory listed Sylvia Hoke as CIA employment, that means it was not covert. When an internal CIA document noted Sylvia Hoke’s city directory listing, that had the effect of putting Sylvia’s name on an internal database ruling out Sylvia for consideration for covert use because it would be assumed foreign intelligence agencies would have access to public records such as a city directory. That is, CIA’s awareness of a public record that Sylvia had overt employment with CIA is an argument against Sylvia having been used covertly.    

There is no evidence Sylvia’s husband was employed by CIA although there is evidence he applied and was turned down several times, and that he was liaison with CIA from his non-CIA job involving a security clearance. Sylvia Hoke and her husband lived in the D.C. area in which most CIA employment was overt. Overt CIA employment in the D.C. area was (so I have read) considered desirable employment in terms of pay, benefits, credit reference, and social status. However (so I have also read) many overt CIA employees have not liked to broadcast the fact. My wife worked for several years as a TSA airport security screener here in Bellingham, Washington. Because TSA airport screeners have been widely disliked, many of her coworkers used euphemisms when asked where they were employed. If Sylvia did not tell Ruth her CIA employment even though it was not legally secret or classified, something similar would be operable.  

I believe Friends were used symbiotically by CIA/State Department in the Soviet-U.S. exchange programs in which Ruth was involved in the 1950s. How many and which Friends involved in those programs were wittingly involved with CIA is unknown, I doubt a high percentage but I also suspect the percentage was higher than 0%. Although CIA was regarded unfavorably among all Friends circles I have known, I also know from Friends history and dynamics that there is a history of cooperating with kings and despots when they carry out good programs which benefit people, such that I could see by analogy some Friends wittingly cooperating with State Department/Cold War-motivated Soviet-US citizen exchanges, out of support for the idea of better relations between American and Soviet-bloc people on grassroots levels in principle. However there is no evidence Ruth was in witting relationship with CIA in those US/Soviet exchange programs and she has denied that she was. 

Therefore in terms of evidence there is one many-years-older, not necessarily close, older sister of Ruth out of three siblings of Ruth, and that one instance is the only known CIA employment in either Ruth's or Michael's families. Now you can suspect this and suspect that and go two degrees of separation logic, but that is the logic of McCarthyism which hurts innocent people. And all of that does not add up to Ruth was involved in the serious crimes of fabrication and planting of physical evidence to frame Oswald believed by some, for which there is no proof or plausibility at all. 

What are the ethics of making accusations of persons with no proof?

 

Give me a break, please do you think the CIA posts personnel online? She was up to her ears in it as was her husband and his whole damn family as was their relationship with  Dulles as was her sister etc. etc. etc. You got to get real on this Greg; you’re so far behind on this important aspect that you’ll never catch up if you don’t start to be realistic.

On 10/9/2022 at 12:45 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I have spoken with Joe Alesi two times. Strikes me as a decent, quiet, soft-spoken guy, who lives in the area where Ruth Paine lives in California and came into contact with Michael and then her by accident through his collecting activities (a contact with Michael who was then in California but not at that time living in the same assisted living place where Ruth Paine is, over a collector's item as I recall is how it started for Joe). As I understand it he became a friend and confidante to Ruth (who I understand has had some dark moments of private grief over how she is portrayed, behind her strength in public, and can use Joe's shoulder, so to speak). The "handler" suggestion is unwarranted and baseless from anything I can see. I see no sign that anybody is handling Ruth Paine other than herself. If there is a handler in that relationship, it is Ruth handling Joe in the sense of Joe being willing to do favors for Ruth, but mostly a listening ear. Joe told me that as he came to know Ruth personally he came to totally believe in her innocence. I can relate to that.

In addition to working as an investigator for Defense Investigative Service, at an earlier stage he told me he worked for the IRS. Since Ruth has some history as a war tax protester (wilful violation of federal law with respect to income taxes, to make a political statement against how the money is used), Joe told me of that as irony since he was on the other side working for IRS (as an auditor I think). 

Joe told me many interesting stories of some of his collecting history, of encounters with famous people, both involved with the JFK assassination and apart from the JFK assassination. I have no experience in the world of collecting myself so for me this was an insight into that world and fascinating.

One item in particular of possible interest is Joe told me he has some original notes of Jack Ruby handwritten when Ruby was in prison, apparently not previously known. A letterhead authenticates them purportedly signed by Earl Ruby, Jack Ruby's brother in Chicago, deceased. I was intrigued and have seen and read them, several dozen pages of handwriting. Nothing in content that bears on Oswald or the assassination. Mostly it is stories of fights or altercations Ruby was in, names and details, with Ruby's side of those altercations explained. However, and I expressed this to Joe, certain things cause me to suspect a question of authenticity with these, i.e. possible forgery, in terms of content, late apparent emergence to knowledge of these notes, and chain of custody. However, the handwriting is extensive and since authentic Jack Ruby handwriting also exists in extensive quantity, expert comparison could be done and presumably establish up or down whether that is really Jack Ruby's handwriting (which is over my head in terms of expertise). 

But never mind that, back to Alesi. I looked up Defense Investigative Service, the former name for what is now called Defense Criminal Investigative Service (the name change occurred 1999). Wikipedia says this under its article by its current name:

The Defense Criminal Investigative Service is the criminal investigative arm of the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense. DCIS protects military personnel by investigating cases of fraud, bribery, and corruption; preventing the illegal transfer of sensitive defense technologies to proscribed nations and criminal elements; investigating companies that use defective, substandard, or counterfeit parts in weapon systems and equipment utilized by the military; and stopping cyber crimes and computer intrusions. (. . .) To be considered for a DCIS special agent position, an individual must: Be a U.S. citizen, age between 21 and 37 years, pass screening, background investigation and have exceptional communication skills. DCIS special agent candidates initially receive training at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) located in Glynco, Georgia. They attend FLETC's basic training course for special agents, the Criminal Investigator Training Program, which lasts about 12 weeks and represents the beginning of basic training received by DCIS special agents. Later, agents may return to FLETC to attend specialized training in contractor fraud, money laundering, computer crimes, advanced interview techniques, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Criminal_Investigative_Service)

 I am glad Ruth Paine has someone supportive nearby like Alesi.

“preventing-the illegal transfer of sensitive defensetechnologies to proscribed nations and criminal elements”

sure sounds like intelligence work to me.

15 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

At least Ron Bulman couches this post in "I think," because there's no actual evidence to support his claim, as Kirk Gallaway's earlier post summarizes so nicely.

They were referring to Oswald as the one who was responsible, not some nefarious government force! Why is it that you have a problem with her being "cooperative," when she was in perhaps the best position of anyone to testify to Oswald's attributes and behavior in the months prior to the assassination?

The Ruth supporters among you have missed everything here. You need to read Jim DiEugenio s work, as Ruth was far more than just a witness; after the assassination when more evidence was needed she invariably found it, like little notes and other incriminating things. Not to mention how she clearly ignored the employment commissions suggestion of a different job for Lee. No I don’t think she was a witting supporter of the assassination plot, she was a handler, like many CIA agents,  on a need to know basis. You guys need to get real and read the literature. Not to mention that whichever way you look on her family tree, the branches say “CIA.” Please get real. How many CIA agents are in your family?

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

This is uncalled-for Allen. I know a bit about war tax resistance. Rarely are there criminal prosecutions. Usually IRS collects the money plus penalty money and war tax resisters do not resist the forcible collection from the bank account. You fling the smearing of Ruth Paine and don't know what you are talking about. 

Wilful failure to file, in which one writes the IRS and tells them there will be no filing for reasons x, y, z, that is informs IRS of one's wilful violation of the requirement to file, is taken seriously by IRS and can be expected to risk prosecution though not always. The IRS may do their own assessment of what is owed and collect it and penalties in lieu of prosecution. But more commonly among Friends involved in tax resistance there is a filing, with partial amount of the tax money placed in a bank account for peaceful purposes instead of paid to IRS, with information to the IRS that the money is placed there instead of paid to the government for reasons x, y, z. On the books that is a violation of a different federal law (wilful failure to pay) but in practice IRS pursues collection not criminal prosecution in these cases. I don't know the details but I assume Ruth Paine followed this second route or something close to it and prosecution would not have been expected. 

An article on war tax resistance in Friends history: https://www.friendsjournal.org/quaker-war-tax-resistance/. 

Friends have long sought the U.S. Congress to pass a bill which would legalize conscientious objection for war taxes analogous to conscientious objection to military service, in which taxes paid by conscientious objectors would be earmarked for peaceful purposes. There is at present no prospect of passage. https://peacetaxfund.org/about-the-bill/

"The Peace Tax Fund Bill would affect the “current military” portion of the U.S. budget. The Peace Tax Fund Bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit taxpayers conscientiously opposed to participating in war to have their income, estate or gift tax payments spent for non-military purposes only. The Bill excuses no taxpayers from paying their full tax liability." 

As usual Greg you are widely missing the point here. You cite chapter and verse of penalties, as though you know this is what Ruth faced. No she never faced it, she never paid any penalties, she was never pursued. Or was she? I have no evidence either way but unlike you  I don’t cite guesses as facts. “ I don’t know the details.” Thanks.  I couldn’t have figured that out on my own.

And what is this, I am offending her honor? And you are defending it?  Well, to quote Groucho, that’s  probably  more than she’s ever done. 

Von Pein is like a bad nickel, keeps popping up to show us how fake it is. As for Ruth being a war tax protester, was she ever prosecuted for this? Of course not. She has, like all intelligence operatives, a get out of jail free card

The CIA is a terrorist organization.

Not a controversial post, but I happen to be in Brookline Massachusetts awaiting surgery this week so I went by the JFK birthplace, which is currently being renovated (during the busing controversy years ago it was fire bombed and someone wrote “bus Teddy” on the sidewalk. Years later Whitey Bulger confessed to having done this): 

they were clearly trying to deflect attention away from their own culpability, either deliberate or not, for the assassination (and I believe, Vince, from reading a lot of your work, that there was Secret Service collusion in the killing). Remember what Abe Bolden said about their carelessness and racism. They had plenty of reason to defame someone who could no longer respond.

coming late to this, but there is so much that makes no sense here - JFK found out about Sol Estes ripping people off with goats etc and got him convicted? No, the president of the USA is not going to be going after local criminals. And then you say Sol Estes' conviction was overturned because of cameras in the courtroom? No such constitutional issue. B.S. And if his case was overturned, he would not have had to be paroled. And I am just scratching the surface of this silliness. This is all fiction.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned that not only does the dark complected man appear to have a radio, but it’s clear in one of the pictures at least that he’s talking into it. There’s very little ambiguity. As for Witt, I don’t have a strong opinion except for the fact that his claim that the black man said “they done shot  those people” is…silly and not believable. Who talks like that except black characters in old Hollywood movies?

Another thing I would add is that Larry Hancock has commented elsewhere that the black man looks like a Cuban active in anti-Castro politics named, IIRC, Felipe Santiago? I may be wrong about the name.

I agree that Paine was in this up to her ears, but the whole “learning Russian” thing is not the least bit surprising or suspicious in the context of the times and her professed Quaker beliefs. You guys may be too young, but this was exactly the time when things were just starting to thaw out in the Cold War, when there were Peace delegations going to Russia, and people on the left were making attempts to bridge the gap between the US and USSR. There was a lot of talk of peaceful  co-existence, and the Quakers were very much a part of that. My parents were classic liberals, and my brother, who had just started to take Russian in school, had  subscribed to a Soviet magazine in English called Soviet Life (which came every month in a brown wrapper that had been opened and obviously searched). There was a lot of this at the time, these mutual friendship organizations (and Benny Goodman went to Russia in 1962), though I am not, once again, arguing that Ruth wasn’t involved in the JFK thing, only that her actions we’re not the least bit peculiar. Even if she was teaching Russian, a chance to live with a native speaker would certainly be a plausible temptation.