Denny Zartman

David Von Pein was using this forum to mine content for his own private website. David would take posts from his exchanges with other Education Forum members and he would then copy and paste excerpts of those exchanges onto his own private website. He did not ask for permission to do this. He did not notify the members here that he was taking their posts and their names from this forum and posting them on his own private website. He did not notify the Education Forum moderators of his intent to use this forum as his own personal content farm. On his own private website, David was then free to edit to his heart's content whatever someone else had originally written for the Education Forum. David was also free to modify his own responses, giving the impression that whomever he was debating was simply ignoring arguments that, in actuality, were not in his original forum posts but something he had added later.

https://deadline.com/2022/06/david-mamet-direct-2-days-1963-movie-sam-giancana-jfk-assassination-mobster-grandnephew-nicholas-celozzi-script-1235050605/

Roe v Wade couldn't have been overturned. This must be the "Fake News" I hear so much about, because I was repeatedly assured by the fine political pundits on this forum that the left-wing Trump-hating, all-powerful Deep State was running everything.

I'd like to read that piece by Bill Simpich. I respect his work. I'm always curious to learn more about these Oswald encounters. The barber shop story certainly is mysterious. I don't really know what to make of it other than that it was one of a series of impersonations or schemes to implicate Oswald ahead of time. In some aspects the barber shop story resembles the Odio incident. One of the many things that caught my eye in the articles @James DiEugenio posted was the theory that the backyard photos might have been originally created to implicate Oswald in the Walker attempted shooting. Do you or James have an opinion on that? I can't help but wonder if that might be a clue to the Mauser/Carcano mystery.

Thanks for compiling and sharing this. It's excellent work. I'm learning a lot from it.

If Oswald was engaging in rifle practice prior to the assassination, why was there no ammunition or rifle cleaning equipment found among his possessions? How does that "make sense?" If someone was trying to tell me that Oswald was practicing painting yet he had no paints, brushes, canvases, ect. among his possessions I would be equally skeptical. Especially if Oswald was also on record as strenuously denying owning any art materials at all.

How can anyone possibly consider Ruth Paine as being exactly the same as millions of people who had zero personal connections to the accused assassin and the investigation?

@Sandy Larsen you do good work on the forum. Except millions of people didn't know Oswald personally, and millions of people didn't know first hand that Oswald expressed no antipathy toward JFK, and millions of people didn't know Oswald denied all the crimes, and millions of people didn't know Oswald never had one single second of legal representation after being accused of double murder, and millions of people aren't being held up as saints because of their Quaker religion, and millions of people don't have defenders 59 years after the fact who are claiming that they were so devoted to the ACLU that they could be considered dangerous despite doing nothing to help Oswald get a lawyer even after specifically being asked... ...but Ruth Paine did.

That certainly looks different. While I will try not to judge the film before I see it, in theory I'm not very enthusiastic about mixing fact with fiction in this case.

The letter story doesn't add up, imho. Oswald tried to hide the half-written content from her view by blocking the paper with his arms, but then he simply left the letter in an easily accessible place in her home?

You were great in the film @James DiEugenio, it was good to see you and hear your expertise. In my opinion your commentary always adds to our overall understanding of the case. Please let us know when we can hear your interview with Max and Aaron. I'd be interested to hear it.

I just watched "The Assassination and Mrs. Paine." I look forward to seeing it again, taking notes, and discussing it after viewing it with others. My first impression is that it's an exceptional piece of work. I was astounded to see Michael Paine. That was a jaw-dropping surprise. It was also very cool to hear from Vincent Salandria, a true first-generation pioneer. The film is very well put together and plays like a fascinating mystery. There's lots of excellent footage. I'm not exactly sure what the Ruth Paine defenders are truly bellyaching about. It's not like she ever cracks under pressure at any point. If people still want to believe LHO acted alone, they are free to do so. But it seems to me there will always be an incongruity between belief in a conspiracy and disbelief in the Paine's involvement.

It appears the reference at the end of the film doesn't make a distinction. The statement still remains true, as proven by Greg and his researcher. It's funny that the only way people can make the statement false is by rewriting it.

Interesting. While it is possible Nixon might have been referring to the JFK assassination using a double meaning as discussed above, in my opinion it's just not unambiguous enough to draw a firm conclusion

Excellent question. I would also generally ask: who here is making the distinction between tax records and any other kind of files? I do not see where the qualifier of tax records comes into play. When and who made this a qualifier and why should we, conceptually, treat tax records as something separate from other documents? Furthermore, if any files relating to Ruth Paine, whether they are about taxes or not, are still so sensitive as to not be able to be released 59 years later and counting, why wouldn't that, in and of itself, be circumstantially incriminating? Eh. What do I know? I'm just a dumb kid.

Sorry Denis. Tracy got a correct answer - The National Archives. And that is the correct address of their headquarters. You can go to THAT ADDRESS and you ask them for the exact location of the records. I am well aware that the National Archives is not all in one building. Many major organizations and federal entities that deal with mass storage often use multiple buildings. You want the floor and room number too? If it was the wrong exact building, sorry, but the answer was correct in that the records are in the possession the National Archives. Tracy and Cory were the ones that didn't know where the building was and if there even were any unreleased records. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it sure seems I have some company.

The author claimed there were dozens of records withheld. Greg confirmed it. Max Good's statement is true. Where in Max Good's statement does it make an exception for tax records? @Cory Santos?

Don't tell me, I wasn't the one asking where they were and if they existed at all.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27750-are-any-records-being-held-back-on-ruth-paine/

An article by Jefferson Morley from his upcoming book "Scorpions’ Dance: The President, the Spymaster and Watergate", spotlighting a taped conversation from 1971 between Richard Nixon and Richard Helms. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/05/nixon-helms-cia-jfk-assassination-00037232

Tracy, There's nothing wrong with doing the right thing and getting something in return for it. It's nice when that happens. Everyone wins, and that's wonderful. But expecting something in return should not be the motivation for doing the right thing. That's the difference between an act of charity and a transaction. Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do is generally encouraged by the church, whereas doing the right thing because you're expecting sexual favors in return is generally discouraged by churches. At times in my life I have helped people and animals and it did not make me feel good or came at an expense I couldn't afford. But I did it anyway because it was the right thing to do and it needed to be done. I have known other people who have done similar things. I disagree with your assertion that truly selfless acts don't exist. If part of the reason Ruth wanted to help Marina because Ruth had a serious case of love at first sight and wanted to jump her bones, that's fine. I don't believe it, but if it's true I am not in a position to judge. All I would ask is that we please stop holding up Ruth's religion and wholesome lifestyle as if it were some sort of character reference useful in evaluating her honesty. Please remember, she's 1. coveting her neighbor's wife, 2. violating her marriage vows, and 3. hoping Marina would violate her own marriage vows.

So it was news to you guys. It was a simple question. You didn't know 14,000 documents were still being kept secret and you didn't even know who holds those documents. Amazing. We don't know how many documents are regarding Ruth Paine, because the documents haven't been released yet. It's been said multiple times now. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

Reading these threads for the past month and a half has been like peeking into an alternate dimension. It truly is a case of "doth protest too much" and makes me anticipate the film more, not less. With this kind of reaction to his film, it seems Max must really be onto something.

The National Archives. 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20408 I know about them because they were mentioned in the most recent release of JFK documents. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-15/read-full-documents-jfk-papers-release-reveal-more-on-assassination Is this really news to you guys?

Forgive me, @Joe Bauer, you're one of my favorite people in the forum. I always enjoy reading your posts, but I must respectfully disagree with you on this particular issue. In your earlier post you wrote: And you go on to describe her alleged altruistic Quaker nature. But then you follow that with your next post where you write: Which suggests she was motivated primarily or solely by what she would personally get out of helping Marina and not because of the satisfaction gained from a doing a truly selfless act of charity. That's not sincere, that's selfish. if the foreign exchange student story is true, then she was either defying or ignoring what was specifically being encouraged by her church and practiced by her fellow Quakers. In my opinion this would further undercut any claims of her sincerity because of her specific religion. It seems Ruth had an interest in other cultures as evidenced by her knowledge of the Russian language. Why then would a foreign exchange student not satisfy her interest? And I sincerely doubt that Quaker teachings encourage Quakers to help individuals in order to satisfy their own carnal desires. When you and your wife so generously took in a young mother, I hope neither of you did so because of what either of you wanted to gain out of it, but because she was a human being in need of help. I believe Ruth's involvement with the Oswald family did not happen by chance and was not primarily or even secondarily driven by what the young people refer to as a "girl crush." Ruth needed to be in Lee's life to such a level where it gets Lee in Dallas, anchors him there, and where it would not be suspicious if Ruth "helped" Lee get a job downtown at what just happened to be the pre-selected kill zone. I personally believe the "crush" story is overblown, exaggerated to discourage further speculation about Ruth's motives. I think the Paine's involvement with the Oswald's was primarily as a result of needing to place the patsy at the specific location and secondarily to have a convenient source of incriminating physical evidence few would question. After all, she's just a nice Quaker lady.