David G. Healy

you can't win for losing these days, eh Davey?

let's see, we have Dulles the CIA guy JFK canned whom went on to be the de facto head of the 1963-64 WC investigative team. Now Briggs, the liaison between the 6th-floor mausoleum and the CIA. The BEFORE and AFTER... That pretty well covers (pardon the pun) this mess up, eh?

AMEN!

nice...

ahhhh, I hate to state the obvious, the Warren Commission was indeed led by this country's (next to Donovan of course) most publicized "premiere" OSS/CIA spook, Dulles (a guy JFK fired for chrissakes), I'm sure there are plenty more hiding in the corners. The rest is academic my dear Watson. Everything the WC did (and didn't do) was focused on nailing Oswald for the crime of the century. As far as case evidence (newly discovered and old rehashes)? We know Oswald was setup, now it's general housekeeping, sweeping up WC support nonsense, undoing what the commission felt was best (and that's being overly generous to most of the commissioners)...

I'm glad you're open to new facts, David. The CIA-did-it theorists are far from conclusive -- after 50 long years. As for Allen Dulles -- one may hate him or love him -- but one should not use one's emotions to guide one's opinion of the Warren Commission. As I see it, the Warren Commission had one great mission -- National Security. Its strategy was rigid -- LHO must be a "Lone Nut." LHO could never be allowed to be portrayed as the "Communist FPCC leader" as promoted by General Walker, Guy Banister, Joseph Milteer, the JBS, the Minutemen, the DPD and rogue elements in official places. LHO could never, furthermore, be allowed to be portrayed as the "Radical Rightwing provocateur" that he actually was -- and that the FBI and CIA knew that he was. Both of those scenarios would have ignited riots in the streets, perhaps a Civil War, and perhaps World War Three. Therefore -- the "Lone Nut" fiction became a US Government mission -- for over 50 years. Allen Dulles was not alone in pursuing that mission. General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder. Not the CIA or Ruth Paine. The CIA and the FBI did cooperate, however, in the Great Cover-up known as the Warren Commission, including the Bethesda autopsy forgeries. But that was for National Security. (Ruth Paine never had a clue what had happened under her nose.) Regards, --Paul Trejo Without a doubt Paul those participating in this thread are interested in "new facts." Where ever they may lay... I'm glad you laid out the above scenario, now I know some of your reasoning regarding defense of R. Paine. One thing escapes me, Ruth is/was very close to some of major players in and around the periphery re the murder of JFK. Having said that, a quick question: when did Ruth Paine move to Dallas? How the hell did she wind up in the middle of and in a pivotal position re the guilt/innocence of the alleged murderer LHO... innocence, marriage, associates, friends, naivete? What? What's bubbling to the surface are her doings, her associates, and of course, her testimony is being challenged. That's not going away.

David G. Healy Super Member Members 3,055 posts Gender:Male Posted Today, 04:49 PM can't get a decent thread started on that dunc the button man, advertised saturated, cookie-riddled forum of yours? tsk-tsk. And in English? trim the hair studley, works wonders with hearing and seeing... that work for dunc the button man, advertised saturated, cookie-riddled forum owner?

... It's a spy-drama fiction breakthrough, but it stinks to high heaven as any sort of factual account. ... Regards, --Paul Trejo what with new publications and books appearing, more "facts" are on the horizon. And this Dulles thing, his associations, his flings, and this guy virtually ran the WC? WOW! Frankly, whack job-racist Walker is nothing more than a footnote, if that... now Ruth and a "factual account," that jury hasn't deliberated yet...

So, David, let's review your logic. (1) Richard Nixon was a Quaker and his politics were catastrophic; (2) Ruth Paine was a Quaker; and (3) therefore her politics were catastrophic. Does that pretty much summarize your logic, David? ... Regards, --Paul Trejo I'm going to comment only on the above question, Paul. And what I know re the above. Richard Milhous Nixon and Ruth Paine, to the best of my knowledge, have never commented on their charitable acts as "professed" Quakers. They never made a case for themselves as "Quakers" and all that means... You've now painted Ruth Paine into a category she may not appreciate, nor like. Summary: this should suffice, Nixon was a lxxr (fact), now about Ruth...

Bzzzt!. Wrong again, Paul B. I'm open and honest. This thread about Ruth Paine is to catalog objections to her story as given to the WC and consistently for the past 50 years to every interviewer afterward. The attacks and smears on Ruth Paine are plentiful and pitiful. . All your CIA-did-it nonsense is backing up in your brain. Your team is letting the Real Killers go scot free -- and attacking Quaker Charity Ladies with WILD theories because you have nothing better to offer. Regards, --Paul Trejo LMAO! WOW! Ya know Paul T., it might be better if you simply asked Ruth Paine for a contract to write the book that you think she may be seeking, hmm? And what's this pandering nonsense, "Quaker Charity Ladies"? Capital letters and all, like it's a formal group? No such animal that I can find.

That's the problem. It's not a fact. You've done this over and over. You make a statement based on a "feeling" and state that it is a fact. I can refute part of your statement directly through the testimony of Michael Paine: You will note M. Paine does not say "party" he says "parties" - plural details, details, DETAILS!

Yes, I noticed, and without a capital "C" You diverted thread topic by attempting to draw DVP in to a discussion about Tan Jacket Man, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. As you diverted the topic, I decided to go along with it and post an irrelevant to the thread topic video on Lee Odom.for those who may be interested in discussing a possible match between Odom and TJM. can't get a decent thread started on that dunc the button man, advertised saturated, cookie-riddled forum of yours? tsk-tsk.

thank you Barry Keane!

my but your dancing again, David... Sandy's question is relevant, well?

... It boggles my mind why anybody would want to impute Evil Intentions to this Christian heart. Regards, --Paul Trejo well Paul T., let's just say it's an easy assumption when you take into consideration that Richard Milhous Nixon was a "Quaker." Not a big stretch. Doesn't boggle the mind at all. Well, David, you're simply being ABSTRACT about this. My example was CONCRETE, that is, the FIRM EVIDENCE that we have for Ruth Paine shows nothing else but Quaker Charity toward Marina Oswald who was 8 months pregnant when Lee Oswald had no job. So, Ruth Paine took her into her own home out of Christian Charity. It boggles my mind why -- given only this evidence -- anybody would want to insinuate that she was a CIA Agent plotting JFK's murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo Vietnam was not abstract Paul. Nor was Watergate.... Nor was Bebe Rebozo... Nixon smelled, still does... Ruth Paine needs a supporting cast of characters to go on the record supporting her (and your evidently) contentions regarding her alleged Christian charity. She may well be caught up in the broad brush cast of characters associated with the alleged assassin approach, (becoming) tainted if you will. Way too many skeletons as I'm sure some see it. But this Christian charity angle, that's simply laughable especially with what we now know of Dallas and its characters circa. 1960-64, not to mention LHO.

... It boggles my mind why anybody would want to impute Evil Intentions to this Christian heart. Regards, --Paul Trejo well Paul T., let's just say it's an easy assumption when you take into consideration that Richard Milhous Nixon was a "Quaker." Not a big stretch. Doesn't boggle the mind at all. From: Piers Anthony (who was himself a Quaker), Bio of an Ogre, Berkley Publishing Group: New York, NY (1988), page 63: As [George Bernard] Shaw... said: "What a man believes may be ascertained, not from his creed, but from the assumptions on which he habitually acts." So I endorse much of Quakerism, but have no formal participation. Richard Nixon, whom I regard as our nation's first criminal president, professed to be a Quaker; obviously he was something else.

You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the above nonsense, Sandy. ... Now, to get back on topic.... ... well hells-bells, here you go and say that, "get back on topic stuff," yet you run from the truth and facts on AMAZON... Ya need to get that old act together... Very curious?

excuse me for butting in, because George DM wrote anything, that means it's true? ... That certainly doesn't prove that George DM never lied. Yet I will say this about George DM's book, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (1978), namely, that soon after he wrote this book he (officially) committed suicide. So I can ask, what would be the point of lying in book when the writer planned to kill himself afterwards? ... Regards, --Paul Trejo well, lying in a book is infinitely easier to defend for example: "you simply misunderstand/stood what I'm saying -- I mis-remembered, etc..." Now sitting down with an investigator answering probing and sometimes very pointed questions that may or may not lead to guilt, or, guilt by association is quite another thing. It's quite curious. Especially when the investigator is scheduled to sit down with you 24 hours after the alleged suicide... Mighty fishy... Fishy considering what George DeM knew of and about Oswald and Marina at the time. His (George's) own personal/work past and present associates. So yeah Paul, with everything we now know, murder, as opposed to suicide sounds reasonable.

... I have come fairly well along with that project already -- and all the evidence points in one direction: Quaker Charity Lady. Here's what I know about Ruth Paine today: (i) She never changed her story about LHO at any time in 50 years. (ii) She always remained open to interviewers, worldwide, for 50 years, just to prevent wild rumors from spreading. (iii) She has enough dignity to shut her door in the faces of strangers who scream L-I-A-R in her face -- and to slam her door to those who have never read her WC testimony. It should embarrass anybody to demand Ruth Paine to "come clean" when they have never even read her WC testimony! ... Regards, --Paul Trejo interesting... when you look at the above 3 points I think of Dulles.. too many Dulles connections, too many Texas connections to the assassination, Paul. Come clean? With what we now know happened to some WCR testimony. With what we now know about Dulles? Do you figure she's hiding something, perhaps tradecraft?

excuse me for butting in, because George DM wrote anything, that means it's true?

... But I don't see any deception with respect to the thing that counts the most -- the slow motion footage showing the melon ("Melon 2") falling toward the person who fired the bullet into it. That is one continuous, unbroken piece of videotape (or film). wow! I was wondering why you've been absent at AMAZON? Thought it was Holmes kickin' your rearend daily that you disappeared. And Holmes has been doing the job royally at AMAZON! But here you are resurrecting that old canard the "jet effect." You're a hoot son (quoting old Steve Keating one of your old mentors).... Trust me when I tell you, you're going to feel a whole lot better when you finally conclude a conspiracy murdered JFK. Cleanse the soul...

tell you what, Paul, old Ruthie is becoming a focus. Appears folks now want to know a bit more about just who this lady is. If that lone nut Brown from McCrae's forum could find her for what he called an interview, I suspect you could too, blindfolded. Post if you decide to do so.

He's flinching his shoulders, David. That's kinda the whole point. (Duh.) Governor Connally is involuntarily reacting to having just been shot. Connally involuntarily flinching his shoulders? JFK hasn't done that, wait, that's right, same magic bullet, right?

well, he and the rest in the clip are rotating around the film plane's *y axis for starters. Can you explain that? And Connely's left shoulder, why has it grown over 3-4 frames? If not shoulder growth perhaps a shadow? If so, what is creating that shadow that appears cast on Jackie.

I think Paul, you have your work cut out. Ruth Paine isn't looking so good!