Denny Zartman

I'll try to re-create my post here in more detail. I also have never heard of this second phone conversation between Ruth and Michael Paine that was allegedly overheard by an operator and the details released only after the operator's passing. It seems strange to me if it were faked to implicate the Paines. For success, this fake conversation would rely on the operator overhearing the conversation and then doing something about it. Basically relying on hope alone to do the job. It just doesn't ring true. And even if reported, the plan then relies on the authorities to continue on down the line, and for what? To motivate the Paines to cooperate lest they be falsely implicated in JFK's murder? It just seems 1. there would be more direct ways to do such a thing and with physical manufactured evidence like a letter or a recording of the conversation, 2. I don't see the Paine's acting very reluctant to join in the cover up, 3. By getting Oswald his job at the TSBD and having his family and alleged weapon at their home, the Paine's are already kinda sorta mixed up and would be primary subjects of interest if and when any authorities suspected a conspiracy and proceeded to investigate. Time was of the essence and the participation of the Paine's would be vital to the conspirators. To try and influence the Paine's by faking an incriminating phone conversation and then just hoping that it would somehow be overheard and acted on by both the operator and the authorities seems odd. It might have taken days or weeks, if it was acted on at all. We have numerous examples of the authorities actively discouraging witnesses from saying anything that conflicts with the lone nut theory. Why would we expect them to suddenly change course and act on this overheard conversation?

That was a good review that made for interesting reading. Thanks, James. I am curious as to why Martin believes the anterior neck wound was an exit wound, though. I was under the impression that the back wound was probed at Bethesda and found to be shallow, and that all the doctors and nurses who saw the wound at Parkland before the tracheostomy said it appeared to be an entrance wound.

In Josiah Thompson's 2021 book "Last Second In Dallas" pg. 24, Thompson reports that Parkland hospital Security Director O.P. Wright described the bullet later identified as CE 399 as a bullet with a pointed tip. Is there anything about the weapon that can be deduced from that bullet shape? Would that type of ammunition have fit in the 6.5 Carcano? Would it have fit in a 7.65 Mauser? What kinds of hulls would have been ejected from that type of pointed tip ammunition? Would hulls from a pointed bullet or from whatever ammunition would fit a 7.65 Mauser be recognizably different in appearance from the hulls found near the sixth-floor window?

Who could ever possibly confuse the ACLU with the CIA? What's next? Mixing up the FBI with the Fraternal Order of Police? If Marina twice agreed with the characterization that it was the CIA, logic suggests she meant what she said. Where is the logic in proceeding with the assumption that she made a mistake? We already know Ruth's sister worked for the CIA. Ruth also knew George de Mohrenschildt, another person connected with the CIA that just happened to be the fellow that brought the Paines and the Oswalds together. That's two clear connections between the CIA and Ruth Paine, one of those connections going to the Oswalds themselves, and we're expected to ignore that and go with a mistake? (Technically two mistakes, since she was was invited to clarify her answer a second time and for the second time confirmed that she indeed meant CIA.) How do you know what the Secret Service knew and what they didn't, or what they would or would not have told Marina at that time?

It's difficult for me to understand why any self-described conspiracy theorist would feel this compelled to defend Ruth Paine in the first place. Ruth undoubtedly got Oswald his job at the TSBD. That in and of itself should be a red flag imho. People really believe that there was a conspiracy, yet they also believe that the most vital elements of that conspiracy fell into place by random chance, coincidence, and luck? I support the concept of having dedicated Devil's Advocates giving even small assumptions the most rigorous of tests. I think this case is important enough for that kind of close examination. But in my view arguing that the Paines were not involved is like standing outside at noon on a cloudless day and insisting that it's midnight.

But it seems to me that at some point very soon after the assassination Ruth must have known she was part of framing Oswald. She and her hand-picked Russian translator sat in on Marina's police interrogation, didn't they?

That's an interesting theory, @Sandy Larsen. There's such an incongruity between the conspirators setting it up for Cuba and the USSR to take the blame and those that engineered the cover-up to blame it on a lone nut with no motive. Have you factored in the Odio and the Parrot Jungle incidents? I'd be curious how they fit into your theory and what what you think they reveal about the mechanics of the plot.

Looks fake to me.

I agree.

I personally believe a Mauser was first found on the sixth floor and was perhaps meant to be found. Whether or not that means another patsy was considered or that somehow the original plan to link the Mauser to Oswald fell through, I do not know. I also believe the dent in the chrome trim of the limo was a direct hit. I believe there were at least two conspirators on the sixth floor, neither of them Oswald. Whether they were firing live rounds of not, I can't say. It seems it would be a waste not to have another shooter in the mix. Two riflemen on the sixth floor seems dubious. It seems more logical to have one shooter and one spotter, three teams of two, not including Umbrella Man and Dark Complexioned Man (or maybe even including them, based on how one feels about the possibility of an umbrella gun.) I've always found it very suspicious that a whole vehicle load of press going north on Houston were all looking straight ahead at the TSBD, at least one reporter having the time to point out a shooter in the window, yet apparently not one was quick enough to snap a picture. I don't know enough about what evidence there is for a South Knoll shooter, to be honest. I believe there is a documentary where that theory emerged from the analysis of the skull fractures, suggesting the blowout in the rear of the skull was actually a tangential wound. I'm not a doctor, but from what I know it seems more likely to me that it was a shot from in front. I've always felt there was something wrong about the v shaped incision we see in that one autopsy photo and I suspect that v was the result of covering up an entrance would. I definitely don't think Hickey or anyone else in the motorcade did it. I'm really skeptical of any shooters from a storm drain, but as I understand it, the possibility of the drains being used as escape routes might be plausible. I'm guessing Connelly was hit twice, though there times is a possibility. I do believe the doctors that said the bullet was still in his thigh at the time of their press briefing, and that that particular bullet in Connally's leg conveniently disappeared from the record.

Greg has made up his mind on this issue and will never deviate from his belief that Paine is innocent.

This is excellent news long overdue. I'm very happy for Mr. Bolden.

And what do we have to affix the time of the call, other than Ruth Paine's word? I don't view the "we both know who's responsible" phone call in a vacuum as Greg seems to want us to do. I personally believe there was a government led conspiracy to kill JFK and that Ruth and Michael Paine played roles in the mechanics of the plot both before and after the assassination. This has been demonstrated to my personal satisfaction independent of the phone call in question. Therefore I am of the opinion that, regardless of the time of the phone call, the statement "we both know who's responsible" was not just idle speculation from uninvolved observers but rather from persons who were in close proximity to the plot.

So when they heard the news of the JFK assassination, the Paines slapped their foreheads and said it was obvious that rabid right wingers who hated JFK and had clear motives to kill him were responsible. And then minutes later when they heard that Oswald was arrested, the Paines again slapped their foreheads and said it was obvious that the left winger who had expressed no antipathy toward JFK and had no motive to kill him was responsible. How can anyone say the Paines arrived at two diametrically opposed conclusions within minutes and call both of those conclusions obvious?

It seems to me that the difference between yourself and millions just like you assuming it was some rabid right winger was the fact that the Paines were in a position to know, since they were in such close contact with the accused assassin and allegedly had the accused assassins rifle under their roof. If the Paines genuinely suspected some right winger with an easily comprehensible motive was responsible, then why didn't they help Oswald get a lawyer? They knew Oswald was no right winger and had expressed no antipathy towards JFK.

I look forward to reading it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Attached is the only picture of Oswald with a weapon that I could find in Weberman's book "The Oswald Code." 2015 edition, Pg 12.

They developed the film in order to verify the images had been destroyed? Seems to me tossing the exposed film in the fireplace or cutting it into paper dolls would have been an effective way of ensuring whatever images that may have remained were eliminated. Oh, but they wouldn't do that, would they? Taking it out and trying to destroy the images by exposing it to light was fine, but then throwing that exposed film in the fireplace or the shredder, well gee, that would have been against the rules.

Mark Lane was a pioneer and we owe him a great debt. All of these witnesses had such courage to go on camera with their stories, especially Aquilla Clemons. The pressure on her must have been extraordinary, and there's a good chance she was hounded into hiding or paid an even heavier price.

That always makes me think about Nixon's quote regarding "the whole Bay of Pigs thing." https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_The_Bay_of_Pigs_Thing.html

@James DiEugenio In the film I seem to recall a reference to "new" Air Force One tapes. Could you elaborate on that? I'd love a reference alternative to Max Holland's book, which itself has imho lots of suspicious and intriguing statements as it is.

Interesting. I wonder if my copy will be worth money now? 😊 It's not a bad book. There always seem to be interesting tidbits that I pick up from almost any JFK book, so in my opinion it wasn't a total waste of time. I was disappointed that it was so short.

Good review, James. It sounds like an interesting book. Regarding the location of the southwest corner for a shooter: When discussing the case online I often run across a person who thinks Oswald was trying to kill Connally. Ignoring the illogic of trying to kill a Governor in a situation of maximum security (therefore maximum risk) when an potential assassin could literally choose any other day, the same question arises as it would for JFK - why not fire as the car was going north on Houston? It would have been much easier in all respects and a certain kill. Why would Oswald, assuming he really was in that window and wanted either or both dead, wait until the car had turned the corner? In order for him not to be seen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a whole vehicle load of press going north on Houston at the time of the shooting. I seem to recall that one of the reporters shouted out that they saw a rifleperson in the sixth floor window. It's a shame that out of all those reporters, none were able to take what would have been the photo of the century.

And this will probably change soon, so grab it while you can, the two hour streaming "Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" on Amazon is currently $20 to own and the four hour "Destiny Betrayed" is $10.