David G. Healy

ya know Paul, this new book by Talbot just may deposit Ruth Paine on the garbage heap... I suspect she knows much more than she's telling us.

If Ruth knows more, David, it will be about General Walker, and not about the CIA.

The rumors about Ruth Paine and the CIA I've read so far go like this: Ruth's mother-in-law had a childhood friend named Mary Bancroft who had a love affair with Allen Dulles in the 1940's. THEREFORE, Ruth Paine must be a CIA Agent

Gimme a friggin' break.

I sure hope that David Talbot has a better argument than that. I sort of doubt it though.

Ruth Paine was a devoted Quaker and Charity worker. That's it.

If you find something of real interest about Ruth Paine though David, I warmly welcome you to share it here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Perhaps the below points can be commented on, Paul? To be sure, they should be put to rest if NOT true or possible.

Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles were still seeing each other and going out in 1963 (not way back in the forties). Mary Bancroft and Dulles went to a 63 summer lunch at the home of Gaspard D'Andelot Belin (head lawyer Treasury Department (which controlled the Secret Service, whose wife was sister of McGeorge Bundy ) also at the lunch was James Jesus Angleton.

Ruth's sister CIA and Ruth's dad connected to CIA connected AID.

James DiEugenio, review of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked (March, 2008)

Another interesting part of the book is how it deals with the experiences of the late Dallas detective Buddy Walthers. This is based on a rare manuscript about the man by author Eric Tagg. Walthers was part of at least three major evidentiary finds in Dallas. Through his wife, he discovered the meetings at the house on Harlendale Avenue by Alpha 66 in the fall of 1963. Second, he was with FBI agent Robert Barrett when he picked up what appears to be a bullet slug in the grass at Dealey Plaza. And third, something I was unaware of until the work of John Armstrong and is also in this book, Walthers was at the house of Ruth and Michael Paine when the Dallas Police searched it on Friday afternoon. Walthers told Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers." (Hancock places this statement in his footnotes on p. 552.) This is absolutely startling of course since, combined with the work of Carol Hewett, Steve Jones, and Barbara La Monica, it essentially cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism. (Hancock notes how the Warren Commission and Wesley Liebeler forced Walthers to backtrack on this point and then made it disappear in the "Speculation and Rumors" part of the report.)

(17) James DiEugenio, review of James W. Douglass', JFK and the Unspeakable (April, 2008)

Michael Paine did not just work at Bell Helicopter. He did not just have a security clearance there. His stepfather, Arthur Young, invented the Bell helicopter. His mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was descended from the Boston Brahmin Forbes family -- one of the oldest in America. She was a close friend of Mary Bancroft. Mary Bancroft worked with Allen Dulles as a spy during World War II in Switzerland. This is where Dulles got many of his ideas on espionage, which he would incorporate as CIA Director under Eisenhower. Bancroft also became Dulles' friend and lover. She herself called Ruth Forbes, "a very good friend of mine." (p. 169) This may explain why, according to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission.

Ruth Paine's father was William Avery Hyde. Ruth described him before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. (p. 170) But there was more to it than that. Just one month after the Warren Report was issued, Mr. Hyde received a three-year government contract from the Agency for International Development (AID). He became their regional adviser for all of Latin America. As was revealed in the seventies, AID was riddled with CIA operatives. To the point that some called it an extension of the Agency. Hyde's reports were forwarded both to the State Department and the CIA. (Ibid)

Ruth Paine's older sister was Sylvia Hyde Hoke. Sylvia was living in Falls Church, Virginia in 1963. Ruth stayed with Sylvia in September of 1963 while traveling across country. (p. 170) Falls Church adjoins Langley, which was then the new headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, a prized project of Allen Dulles. It was from Falls Church that Ruth Paine journeyed to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald, who she had been introduced to by George DeMohrenschildt. After she picked Marina up, she deposited her in her home in Irving, Texas. Thereby separating Marina from Lee at the time of the assassination.

Some later discoveries made Ruth's itinerary in September quite interesting. It turned out that John Hoke, Sylvia's husband, also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. By the time of Ruth's visit, Sylvia had been employed by the Agency for eight years. In regards to this interestingly timed visit to her sister, Jim Garrison asked Ruth some pointed questions when she appeared before a grand jury in 1968. He first asked her if she knew her sister had a file that was classified at that time in the National Archives. Ruth replied she did not. In fact, she was not aware of any classification matter at all. When the DA asked her if she had any idea why it was being kept secret, Ruth replied that she didn't. Then Garrison asked Ruth if she knew which government agency Sylvia worked for. The uninquiring Ruth said she did not know. (p. 171) This is the same woman who was seen at the National Archives pouring through her files in 1976, when the House Select Committee was gearing up.

When Marina Oswald was called before the same grand jury, a citizen asked her if she still associated with Ruth Paine. Marina replied that she didn't. When asked why not, Marina stated that it was upon the advice of the Secret Service. She then elaborated on this by explaining that they had told her it would look bad if the public found out the "connection between me and Ruth and CIA." An assistant DA then asked, "In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected with the CIA?" Marina replied simply, "Yes." (p. 173)

Douglass interpolates the above with the why and how of Oswald ending up on the motorcade route on 11/22/63. Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission testified to having called the Paine household at about the time Oswald was referred by Ruth -- via a neighbor-- to the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) for a position. He called and was told Oswald was not there. He left a message for Oswald to come down and see him since he had a position available as a cargo handler at a regional cargo airline. Interestingly, this job paid about 1/3 more than the job Oswald ended up with at the TSBD. He called again the next day to inquire about Oswald and the position again. He was now told that Lee had already taken a job. Ruth was questioned about the Adams call by the Warren Commission's Albert Jenner. At first she denied ever hearing of such a job offer. She said, "I do not recall that." (p. 172) She then backtracked, in a tactical way. She now said that she may have heard of the offer from Lee. This, of course, would seem to contradict both the Adams testimony and common sense. If Oswald was cognizant of the better offer, why would he take the lower paying job?

Her and George DeM... what an interesting pair, for sure!

In 2002 Thomas Mallon published a book entitled Mrs. Paine's Garage which Ruth Paine herself approves.

Aside from this book, the theories and rumors that have circulated about her have always intrigued me. She is sometimes regarded as a CIA agent -- a conspirator to kill JFK -- a member of a Quaker-Unitarian conspiracy within the CIA (George Michael Evica) and even a lesbian who drove LHO to kill JFK out of insane jealousy (William Manchester).

So much nonsense has been written about Ruth Hyde Paine, that I want to start a catalog of all the rumors. At the same time, I want to -- gently -- propose my own theory of Ruth Paine, as follows:

IMHO, Ruth Paine was an innocent bystander in the JFK murder. She was a Quaker who believed in the USA and in Christian Charity. She truly felt pity for Marina Oswald's plight in 1963, since Marina was pregnant and Lee could not hold down a steady job.

Worse, as Marina complained to her, Lee Oswald began ordering Marina Oswald to return to the USSR without him. Whether he was teasing her or harassing her we don't know, but Ruth Paine thought this was abuse. Ruth wanted to make it possible for Marina Oswald to live in the USA as an independent woman with her children -- if (and only if) that's what Marina wanted.

Aside from that involvement, Ruth Paine offered to the Warren Commission two critically important letters written by Lee Harvey Oswald:

(1) The Walker Letter (written 10 April 1963)

(2) The Mexico City Letter (written 09 November 1963)

My CT claims that the letters are genuine, written by Lee Harvey Oswald on the dates indicated, and that they prove two facts:

(I) That Lee Harvey Oswald truly did try to assassinate General Walker

(II) That Lee Harvey Oswald truly did try to enter Cuba through Mexico City in September 1963, using the "credentials" list revealed by the Lopez Report.

The Mexico City Letter which Ruth Paine found in her home on 09 November 1963, and copied by hand, matches the original received by the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC. More importantly, the Mexico City Letter matches the form and substance of the "credentials" list revealed by the Lopez Report.

I therefore maintain -- on the basis of this empirical evidence -- that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) tried to kill Walker on behalf of George De Mohrenschildt; and (2) tried to enter Cuba through Mexico on behalf of Guy Banister.

I propose, further, that Michael Paine was aware of (1) but ignorant of (2), while Ruth Paine was ignorant of both (1) and (2).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

ya know Paul, this new book by Talbot just may deposit Ruth Paine on the garbage heap... I suspect she knows much more than she's telling us.

My review:

JFKcountercoup: The Devil's Chessboard and the New Political Landscape

great job, Bill....

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked[?] Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"[?]

That would have been virtually impossible, Ray. And that's because the photos exist in stereo pairs. ....

• "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. [...]

And Dr. Mantik reviewed these "stereo pairs?"

Also, lest you forget that same HSCA determined a "conspiracy" murdered the president of the United States.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Where's the occipital located?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Occipital" is in the back of the head....as I already said several days ago. (Didn't you pay attention, or even notice the chart/diagram I posted which shows the occipital?)

[...]

not going to work hon... You've been found wanting... A PR campaign everywhere except AMAZON is worthless... but the looney, nutter fringe have a tenuous hold on reality these days...

I have come to believe today that the choices of Humes, Boswell and Finck were planned. It might have been short range, but they wanted three guys who they could control and who were not at all at the top of their game.

More pure B.S. from DiEugenio.

The reason why Humes and Boswell did the autopsy is merely because they were the doctors who were available at that time at Bethesda Naval Hospital, a location that was selected (primarily) by Jackie Kennedy during the flight from Dallas to Washington. (Do you really think Jackie was going about the task of choosing which doctors she wanted to perform the autopsy on her husband, Jim?)

And it was Dr. Humes himself who requested the services of Dr. Finck at the autopsy. I suppose conspiracy theorists must think that Humes was merely reading from a script when he told the Warren Commission the following in 1964, eh Jim?....

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "When I ascertained the nature of the President's wounds, having had the facilities of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology offered to me by General Blumberg, the commanding officer of that institution, I felt it advisable and would be of help to me to have the services of an expert in the field of wound ballistics and for that reason I requested Colonel Finck to appear."

LOL.... the image you've left at AMAZON says a lot about who has the BS factor going for them. You and the nutter contingent are getting clobbered there (JFK Assassination III forum)! When I think overwhelm bs factor I think DVP's 15 (JFK assassination-related only) websites , 19 blogs (JFK assassination-related only), 5 YouTube channels (JFK assassination-related only), 235,000 (est.) posts to forum/boards (JFK assassination-related only) over the past 12 years, etal.

And not 1 (one ) personal appearance, anywhere.... the ghost of Vinnie...

Talk about BS... You're a grand composite, son!

I understand that part Ramon.

​But my stance on this has always been that it will take a very, very long time to get the general public to understand what Z film alteration is about, let alone to prove it to them. This is one of the reasons why I am not so enamored of it.

Jim:

What we have is a win-win-win situation. That is the really cool thing about being on the side of the truth.

The violent back snap is completely real:

"What are the laws of physics that apply to the Kennedy assassination? Because Kennedy's head

recoils backward at the moment of impact of the final shot, as shown in the Zapruder film, and

because the bullet has both mass (weight) and velocity (speed) prior to impact, the applicable

physical principle is known as the conservation of momentum. This backward motion of the head

is also captured on the Nix and Muchmore films, as well as on the Mary Moorman Polaroid photo,

taken within moments of the final fatal shot"

http://www.amazon.com/Head-Shot-Science-Behind-Assassination-ebook/dp/B00C4B2FQK/ref=sr_1_3

... not to mention seen by all visual witnesses. Oliver Stone -who knows more than his share about film- says "it was slightly modified".

Per Dino Bruggioni, most likely they erased some spray of white brain matter and added an extra rare steak in the entry hole area.

Even decades later (say, in the 80s-90s) it would have been quite a challenge to dramatically alter the Z-film in a short period of time.

They could selectively apply some touch up here and there but there is no way they could "cut" Kennedy and "paste" him in another spot. Hence the 12 year lock-up in the TIME-LIFE safe.

-Ramon

<sigh> here we go again..... stick with the medical evidence, if ya want justice? The Z-film is a quagmire and nutters love to go there!

Mike Crane posted this recently:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22322&hl=

I started reading it last night.

He begins the book with a really well chosen, nicely sketched description of a meeting that takes place between Dulles in Switzerland during the war and a German Baron representing Himmler, who is trying to get a deal for a truce. This is after FDR had announced a policy of unconditional surrender. Dulles was willing to try and get a deal through which would preserve many of the Nazi leaders and power structure, without HItler. This is because he and his brother had made so much money off of German interested from about the 20's all the way through the late thirties, and actually beyond, especially through IG Farben.

Talbot actually calls Dulles a double agent in Bern.

This is a very apropos way to start, because you have Dulles conducting his own foreign policy, which differs radically from the president's as he is dealing with people who are that president's enemies behind his back. The underlying irony is that his president is a democratically elected leader of the people, while his enemies--HImmler in this case--are not elected at all and are actually fascists.

This is a nice teaser for what will happen in 1963.

Very nice and auspicious beginning.

I will not give out anything more in fairness to the author until I print my review at CTKA. Lisa Pease will be reviewing for Consortium.

Looking to read this book very soon. I appreciate this teaser and look forward to the complete (as always) review.

So you think there were MULTIPLE gunmen on the Knoll, eh Martin?

We'll call that one -- Fantasy times Two.

what with the drubbing you're taking at AMAZON, it's amazing you find time to xxxxx the 6th floor mausoleum DP camera. I guess a change of subject to anything other than the JFK autopsy report is good fornow, eh Davey me-boy? lol!

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf

More interesting comments and some new information concerning those very fishy photos.

This time by David Josephs.

Read it until the end, even the HSCA did not buy the chin business.

yes.... excellent work, great article!

Am I getting confused or are there two films in production on LBJ?

no Jim, just one (Ithink)... and that is more than enough... There is some hope for the production though and that's Rob Reiner is doing this gig...

What I find interesting is all the pre-production emphasis on Jackie? Huh? Like there's not enough to script for the a boisterous, pissin' by the side of the road, ya want your war-ya got it, Lyndie?

"Screamin' Jim" DiEugenio has a nice ring to it.

Peter Scott is speaking at a Dallas Conference sponsored by Trine Day, hosted by Fetzer, and with Baker as a speaker?

At the very bottom of the page I noted this:

FOUNDED BY: Judyth Vary Baker PRODUCED BY: TrineDay Publishing & Conscious Community Events. Copyright 2014, 2015.

http://jfkconference.com

So Judyth is more than just a speaker FYI

also co-producer...

Until/unless we get a clearer copy/scan/whatever, it isn't "proven" whether Prayer Man is a man or a woman.

Until such time, we're sounding like a drunken Harry Caray in the broadcast booth: "It might be...it could be...IT IS!"

I'll reserve judgement until such a time as there is a clearer image. In the interim, I'll state that I believe that there is a better-than-even chance that the person in question is male, again using clues such as those pointed out by Mr. Davidson and by Mr. Varnell.

some are sounding off with, as you say Mark, "It might be...it could be...IT IS!"... Frankly utter foolishness.

Until I read the following thread here: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13249659-fun-with-pictures?page=last

There appears a breath of sanity concerning the what is it: PM/PW issue... and possibly a reason for the issue in the first place.

As the above ROKC poster mentions: "But the real arguments for Oswald being Prayer Man are not the images. They are all the witness statements... ."

Makes one wonder why the great "bender of light" Craig Lampoon Lamson hasn't jumped on this with both feet.

Who'd a thunk Craig the lone nut version of Jack White...strangely silent, wonder why?

The witness statements perhaps?

goodnight Irene...

[...]

Interesting, about Huffaker, Greg! Just the other day i read, i think in an old Wiesberg doc. Huffaker watched the original Zapruder film with Dan Rather! I made note of that! Someone needs to question him about that and pin him down about Dan Rather's lie that JFK's head "fell forward".

It's long been my thought, that those that saw the Zapruder film in Dallas, say, within the first 48 hours of the assassination, they only had one thought in mind concerning the Z-film, that of Kennedy's head exploding!

Not which direction the shot(s) came from or other details that soon became points of interest. Including the likes of Dan Rather too. They were dumbfounded, stunned beyond belief...

I doubt any of those early Dallas viewers of the film recall anything other than the head shot. The president has been murdered, his head blew up, right in front of me, I saw it on the film.

If there's any question that those early viewers had or pondered, it was a simple, WHY?

Or, they were gloating.

She looks like she's saying "hello sailor, wink wink." to Lovelady.

I don't think she has a prayer.

perhaps an Epistle? Dunc's Epistle...

Prayer Woman Cracked: Credit Patrick Jackson

oh-brother... Lamson let this go through?

Continued...grrrrrrrr....

[...]

As of today I believe the very petite "Scarf Girl" in front of Carolyn Arnold in the Truly Group, on Elm in Wiegman, is is JUDY JOHNSON, who was a very petite brunette (she's coming up)! But that is a little tentative. However, she said she was in a 3/4 length light green coat (with orange gloves) and so far the "Scarf Girl" is the only one i spot wearing a 3/4 length coat and she's also a very petite woman. So i'm 99.9999999% certain.

very nice work...

PM is a woman wearing a long buttoned coat...........end of!

...

run it past Lampoon bender-of-light Lamson and see how far it gets.... Gawd lmao!

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, if you check forums like McAdams and Duncan Macrae where there are quite a few LNs, they care very little about Armstrong and pay scant attention to him and his theory, at least in recent years. I have received the most reaction with my critical pieces at forums such as this where CTs predominate.

of course those lone nut board members/participants care, they simply do not have the wherewithal to counter in-depth research nor the resources such as Armstrong had? Time will tell what Greg's team and you, for that matter, turn up! Why the effort concerning the 2 Oswald's continues to puzzles me.

Re Greg and his investigative team, they have made their intentions clear (as well as published their findings), clean up case evidence and get the JFK's murder into a court of law.

Your intentions re H&L, please?

There is a huge vacuum on the lone nut side of the equation these days. The best lone nuts can come up with these days can be found at the AMAZON forum:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_jump?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=2&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#CustomerDiscussionsLPIT

And it isn't pretty. It's clear on that forum, lone nuts have much to do to support the 1964 WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome and its findings.... simply follow Ben Holmes and his CT friends...

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, I don't blame you for reaching to the stars. Just imagine, nutters now looking through the "looking glass." After 50 years of defending the undefendable, 'the 1964 WCR,' you guys certainly need a change of scenery... Tis the last generation of LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd, right? But ya still need to make 'no conspiracy here, ma' hay somewhere, somehow, right... lmao!

Dear Mr. Healey,

I'm obviously not speaking for Tracy Parnell here, but do you think everyone who is a CTer and happens to disagree with Armstrong's premises, interpretations, and/or conclusions, is a "Lone Nutter"?

--Tommy

thank you for assuming this post was not directed to you, it wasn't. Let me fill you in on something most who have been at this for a while KNOW. Without DOUBT! Those that claim CT status need go no further than the claim, they will not be chastised for what they know or don't know. If some professed CT's need further convincing about anything, so be it, feel free to do whatever toots their boot! I could care less.

For me, reading the entire 1964 WC 26 volumes and the WC abridged report did not make me a CT, concluding the Zapruder film may have been altered did not make me a CT. It's was a visceral gut reaction that made me a CT. And I'm still not convinced LHO of whatever stripe was NOT involved in the assassination (knowingly or unknowingly). Shorthand, the WCR did not convince of his guilt.

You are what you are Tom, but if you can't spell my last name right and I suspect you've had trouble with that spelling for a long while, years in fact. And that of course, has nothing to do with H&L!

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, I don't blame you for reaching to the stars. Just imagine, nutters now looking through the "looking glass." After 50 years of defending the undefendable, 'the 1964 WCR,' you guys certainly need a change of scenery... Tis the last generation of LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd, right? But ya still need to make 'no conspiracy here, ma' hay somewhere, somehow, right... lmao!

[...]

Recognizing he was being doubled is all you can take from a first pass at the evidence. You are on safe and sane ground.

Not that I necessarily agree with the breadth of it that you might be suggesting. Most have rational, non-conspiratorial explanations - one being that some in this community have a tendency to over-reach on the evidence they allude to.

And positing a lifelong CIA program involving doppelganger boys and mothers is borderline lunacy.

Lunacy?

We should be amazed as to what "other amateur researchers" determine is a "CIA program, lifelong, or momentarily?"

Most who have read H&L, remain agnostic, they wouldn't be surprised if its true but, eh? Been that way for 15 years that I'm aware of. Especially after careful reading and analysis of the 1964 WCR. So I doubt your lunacy gambit, Greg...

As for Dr. Renatus Hartogs, he seems to be an opportunist of the worst kind.

Hartogs was a serious scumbag.

In 1975 a jury found him guilty of malpractice because he had been convincing his female patients to have sex with him as part of their "therapy".

No intellectually honest person would take anything said by such a man seriously.

and the above is relevant with what he told the FBI 12/3/1963, 12 years earlier? Intellectually honest person, any suggestions as to whom you might mean? John Armstrong for example?