Jon G. Tidd

Is anyone here certain that he or she knows all the persons with whom Ruth and Michael Paine communicated in 1963? I ask because if Ruth (or Ruth and Michael) helped frame Oswald pre-assassination, she or Michael must have gotten instructions from some party. I say this because I don't believe Ruth (or Ruth and Michael) acted all by themselves, unconnected to third parties, to frame Oswald. In 1963, there were only a few forms of inter-personal communication: writing (secret notes, newspaper ads, letters, etc.); speaking (face-to-face, telephone, etc.); body language; and pictures (e.g., a symbolic drawing, photograph, television). George DeM. appears to me to have stopped communication with Ruth (or Michael) after he departed Dallas. If someone was guiding and controlling Ruth in the spring, summer, and fall of 1963, who was it? Some have argued that there must have been a connection, a communication link of some sort, between Allen Dulles and Ruth Paine. Fine. What facts establish this communication link? BTW, a wink and a nod count as body language. I'm open-minded. I dislike Ruth and Michael because I think they are not forthcoming. Basically, I want verifiable facts.

It appears to me the knot has slipped. I wear suits and ties all the time. It's not unusual for my tie knot to slip. When a mirror is available, I always check my tie knot. FWIW, I wear custom-made Brooks Brothers suits and also Brooks Brothers ties and tie my tie the same way as shown in the photo.

Paul Trejo, Please don't believe what Hemming says. You're too good for that. Why do I trash Hemming? He purports to provide inside information. I say, let him produce facts. Facts meaningful to the JFK assassination. Why am I so harsh? I spent part of 1971 monitoring III Corps in Viet Nam. So what, one might ask. I am familiar with individuals who tell untruths. And with individuals who tell truths. Paul, most individuals tell untruths if they think they will profit from it.

Jim D., What persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK? FWIW, I believe the kill and the framing of Oswald was the work of an intelligence organization experienced in such matters. I press you: what persuades you AWD had a hand in killing JFK.

Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead, clothed. It appeared she died reading a book she had already read. The bed on which she was found was not her regular bed. Dorothy had been prescribed certain sedative medicine. Additional sedative drugs were found in her. Paul Trejo, I like very much your style and approach here. I like your advocacy. You are a good advocate, IMO. You stick to facts. But I observe you are a conspirator-lite. You accept some conspiracy theory but reject other conspiracy theory. Which is selective. My view, FWIW, is that the perps stopped at nothing and the cover-up masters stopped at nothing to pin the deed on LHO.

Tom Neal, My "amateur" comment is based on the quality of questions the interviewer makes. The interviewer clearly, in my opinion, lacks the knowledge and skill necessary to pin Helms against the ropes. Helms easily laughs as he shrugs off the questions. As to the most up-to-date information about AWD, let me see if I can encapsulate that information. AWD helped certain Nazis and Nazi clients; he played against not only JFK but also the United States; on balance, he served private interests, not the public interest. If I've missed anything important not previously known about AWD, please let me know. I have no doubt AWD should have been excluded from the Warren Commission; no doubt he early-on favored the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself conclusion; and no doubt he's a stain on U.S. history. If I've missed here anything important about AWD, please let me know. Do I believe he could have planned JFK's murder? No. Murdering JFK, IMO, was treason pure and simple if it was meant to remove him from office and pave the way for his successor. I don't think AWD, self-interested as he was, was capable of such overt treason. Sure, he played ball with Nazis. Who didn't on our side of the Atlantic. Even Roosevelt, upon McCloy's advice, failed to order bombing of the rail lines leading to the death camps. Truman and Eisenhower welcomed Nazis such as Gehlen and Von Braun into the United States. AWD was in very good company.

Brian, One can read anything into Helms's remarks in the video. I am not a fan of the CIA. I believe it has failed in its mission to protect the U.S. From Korea to 9-11 to today. I am not a fan of Richard Helms. I'm a conservative who believes Richard Nixon did the best job possible; and who believes Helms wanted to take Nixon down. Just my opinions. So, I have no brief for Helms. None. But I believe your vid clip shows Helms standing up without hesitation to adverse questioning. Sure, the questioner was an amateur, and Helms was a professional. I'd like to have seen Mark Lane examining Helms. The questioner in this clip is incompetent.

It's the summer of 1963. Certain individuals who believe JFK needs to be removed forcibly from office come together on a plan that has been simmering for over two years. These individuals believe JFK is dangerous because of what they hold dear. They hold different things dear; some of those things are political, some are financial. JFK is going to Dallas. This is the opportunity for which they have been waiting. Dallas is perfect. A hard-core conservative city having powerful citizens who have reason to hate JFK; having a low-life ex-marine who defected to the Soviet Union who is an incredibly perfect patsy; having a good crime syndicate and a corrupt police force. Who could want more? But there was more. The certain individuals in question are aware the CIA has been monitoring the low-life; the FBI too. All's that is necessary is to finger the low-life; to rely on the American people and press to grasp a simple solution; and to back the CIA and FBI into a corner. Fiction? Yes. Speculation? Yes. Are you a better plotter or plot detector?

Ron, Everyone here hates Allen Dulles and Richard Nixon. Some here, like I, loathe LBJ. I loathe LBJ so much I call him the worst U.S. President. I cheered and went out drinking in college when he announced he wouldn't run for re-election. And I was and am a political conservative. I didn't despise LBJ because of the Civil Rights Act. I supported Black Equality, and still do. I despised LBJ because of the Viet Nam war. A war I joined voluntarily. Yes I despise LBJ. And I'm a fan of Richard Nixon. LBJ had no hand in killing JFK. Neither did Nixon.

Kathleen, I've read that J.D. Tippit's body was substituted for JFK's. Let's suppose it was. That means a high degree of pre-planning and cooperation. Which leads to, who killed JFK?

Michael, I'm rooting for Greg, too. My job is to press him and the other experts here to nail down facts. Nail them down so the f***s at CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on can't ignore the JFK assassination. Nailing down facts is the only way to grab the throat of the MSM.

I've noticed there is a special fraternity composed of current and former U.S. presidents. They never, or almost never, criticize one another. They are alike in incompetencies; different in competencies. The opposite of what Tolstoi wrote about families. Nixon, I'm sure, once he was president if not before, studied his predecessors' decisions on cold-war, civil rights, and governmental matters. Nixon did break new ground as to OSHA and EPA.

Tom Neal @ #288: When Mason objected to the assumption of facts not in evidence, he was making an argument of law to the judge. What he was arguing was that if the prosecution wanted to get certain facts before the jury, the facts had to be admitted into evidence according to the Rules of Evidence. Here's an example of what I mean. Jon is on trial for arson (setting fire to a building). It's a fact that Jon was charged criminally with arson on five prior occasions and was convicted of arson on two of those occasions. Can these facts be presented to the jury in the current trial for arson? No. They're inadmissible, meaning they can't be introduced into evidence, and therefore can't be presented to the jury and can't be assumed to be true by the prosecution. This is technical stuff. What I was getting at, Tom, is that none of the "stuff" in the JFK matter has ever been admitted into evidence by a trial court. Admitting into evidence is done by a trial judge according to a dense body of rules. In the JFK arena, there may be facts; I mean hard, provable facts, not judgments, interpretations, or opinions; hard facts. There may be such hard facts. There is no evidence in the legal sense. Therefore, as Mason would say, any facts in the JFK case are (assumed) facts not in evidence. Q.E.D.

Thanks, Greg. I don't know how I'd construct an argument, much less a proof, from the verifiable facts you present that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but what you write is interesting. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a still frame that determines conclusively the gender of PP.

Brian, The reason I cling to the idea that Dulles took no part in JFK's murder is that although he had reasons to dislike and oppose JFK, so did many other individuals, both foreign and domestic. Dulles just doesn't stand out to me as a candidate for planning the assassination. He stood to gain nothing from JFK's murder. Just my opinion.

Many here trash Nixon. As a young person, I liked Nixon. It's easy to trash Nixon. He did not end the Vietnam war as Bobby Kennedy would have. Bobby would have ended the war immediately. So, why wasn't I a Bobby fan? I was broken when RFK was killed. Killed. For me, the issue was Viet Nam.

Tom, Tell me this: The author portrays Allen Dulles as a scumbag, right? The author says Allen Dulles wanted JFK dead, right?

Greg, Please present 10 verifiable facts about the JFK assassination. I'll present one: JFK was killed in Dallas on 11-22-63. I ask you to present nine other such verifiable facts. Not opinions. Verifiable facts. Thanks.

Tom Neal, According to Perry Mason, the whole of JFK research is bunk. The whole is assumption of facts not in evidence. That's not a joke. The greatest failure of the Warren Commission was to not allow Mark Lane to cross-examine Commission witnesses. The failure to allow, the failure to invite, cross-examination of witnesses such as Marina and Ruth meant they could tell the Commission what it wanted to hear. Marina and Ruth surely knew what the Commission wanted to hear. Mason was correct. The whole of the so-called evidentiary record is inadmissible as evidence; is untrustworthy; is bunk.

Darren, I think Duncan wants to believe PP is a woman. Just as I want to believe, and therefore do believe, there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and to frame Oswald for the murder. Can I prove there was such a conspiracy? No. Can anyone? IMO, no. Can Duncan prove PP is a woman? No. Opinion vs. Opinion

If anything, the CIA undermined the case for Oswald's being in Mexico City. Hoover was clearly confused about Oswald's allegedly being in Mexico City. As for Dulles's lobbying to get appointed to the Warren Commission, he surely had an interest in protecting the CIA, which had a lot of dirty laundry. I'm sure Dulles felt it was better to take the offered patsy than to open up who knew what cans of worms. Only if the CIA could be portrayed in 1964 as having a hand in the assassination does Dulles's place on the Warren Commission become suspicious to me. Even today, despite lots of information on CIA misdeeds and machinations, I find nothing in the record, nothing that holds up rock solid under scrutiny, that convinces me the CIA or any of its employees were involved in the plot to kill JFK. I'll buy post-assassination cover-up, dirty dealing, lies, and obfuscation on CIA's part. Those things are to be expected of any intelligence service in the world.

Sandy, Keeping with your puzzle analogy, I've observed many of the battles are over the pieces -- their existence and shape. For example, Duncan maintains PP is a woman. That's his opinion. Others maintain PP is a man. That's their opinion.

Kafka, Greg? Kafka had a vivid imagination. I'm a mere observer.

Greg, Jim, and Paul: Let's imagine a forum in which Ruth Paine can be examined (by her representative, Paul Trejo) and cross-examined (by Greg and Jim). Paul, what would you want to elicit from Ruth? Greg and Jim, what would be your questions on cross? These are serious questions. You guys are the experts. Please let onlookers like I know how to focus our thinking about Ruth Paine. I believe she's a lying sack of ****. But I'm willing to put that belief aside in considering the examination and cross-examination I propose.

James, The debates on this forum are, as I view them, mainly opinion contests. Given that, I don't how debate could be elevated except in matters of respect for opposing opinion. I've looked at a lot of JFK research. Mainly what I've found are temples of dead-end conclusions. I believe, as I've written here, that there are few verifiable facts pertaining to the JFK assassination. We don't, for example, know with certainty the nature, extent, or location of JFK's injuries. Given this, I think research threads are doomed to failure. All they're going to produce is a battle of opinions.