Cory Santos

2 hours ago, Max Good said:

My sarcasm was directed at some of the above posters who have never been able to acknowledge that a single point made about Ruth's deep involvement in this case is worthy of suspicion.  Those people are saying that two plus two does not equal 4, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm no more of an expert on Ruth than many other researchers.  Ruth seems to have been very adamant that she had no idea Oswald could be a suspect until the police showed up.  That's why the wrong address is necessary.  I think the police report, where two officers recounted that she said, "We've been expecting you." when they arrived, is more important than many of us realized.  Ruth, of course, completely denies that she ever said that to them.  The "we both know who is responsible" phone call also points to the Paines being aware of Oswald as a suspect/culprit before the police showed up or it was announced in the media.

Hosty did interview Ruth (and Marina) at her house on 11/1/63.

Thank you.  Well done.  

1 hour ago, Max Good said:

Cory, nothing is suspicious about Ruth Paine.  There is always an explanation for every issue you could bring up.

Even though you have produced a document that states that she told the FBI the correct TSBD address on 11/1/1963, Ruth must really not have known, because there is no possible way she could have been anything less than honest at any point over the last 60 years, no, the last 91 years.

Here is another version of this document that you found, although of course, it is absolutely devoid of evidentiary value because Ruth Paine has never lied.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=225

Max this is your area and you are the expert here on her.  Please continue.   Your thoughts on Shanklin, etc.  

6 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Hi Folks,

Great find Cory, this airtel throws up some interesting stuff...

Here's some things i noticed and raises some questions....

For some reason special agents in Little Rock Arkansas think LHO is in their area in October 63'   why? 

New Orleans special agent Kraak doesn't know LHO whereabouts on 31st October 63' and neither does the bureau head office on October 30th.

The words chosen in shanklins report of the 4TH November 63' implies that Hoover and others know who Ruth Paine is, no explanation describing who the person is offering up the information about LHO is placed in the airtel.

The initials JPH appear underneath the number of copies routed to sections.....therefore logically James P Hosty was the one reporting Ruth's comments to Shanklin.

The way shanklin writes the opening lines of the report implies the Ruth Paine was a previous fbi information source...he is crediting her without explanation for this latest information. 

Do we have any previous verification as to the actual date Hosty called out to Irving and interviewed Ruth and Marina....because if it wasnt the eveñing of October 31st or the morning of November 1st....the information in this airtel would have to have been phoned in by Ruth Paine to James Hosty.

Interesting that this airtel was seen by the National Intelligence Secretary, the Mexico City station and the Russia division of CIA all on or before Tuesday November 19th 1963.

Regards,

A.J

Finally.  Thank you for reading it.  There is a little more meat there too regarding Shanklin but I am so busy I haven’t had a chance to write anything.  I am not sure why it took this long for anyone to notice these things.  

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh Cory...

No, oh David.   

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course the 11/4/63 FBI Airtel isn't forged. But Ruth's explanation is entirely reasonable and is not inconsistent in the slightest way with the Nov. 4 Airtel.

What part of this sentence uttered by Ruth Paine don't you understand, Cory? .....

"I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind but I didn't."

 

Oh David…

Just now, Kirk Gallaway said:

Don't be coy. So you got 4 kids under 4, and one of them is a month old,  and your wife loves to take them to parades?

Well you're not typical.

Kirk.  You and I see things differently.  When I examine a persons credibility one thing I look for is consistency of action considering the person’s background.   Do you not think she knew the parade route?   Did she not read the paper?

You are not walking this back DVP unless you are saying there are forged government documents.  Are you suggesting that?  She knew the address before.   
“The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building."

1 minute ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

? Why can't I just go to Cory?

Check my IMDb page so I get clicks.  

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, of course Ruth Paine knew, weeks prior to the assassination, that Lee Oswald worked at the TSBD. She was made aware of that fact  on the very same day he was hired there (October 15th):

ALBERT JENNER -- "Did you hear from him [Lee Oswald] then either on the 14th or 15th [of October] in respect to his effort to obtaining employment at the Texas School Depository?"
RUTH PAINE -- "He called immediately on Tuesday, the 15th, after he had been accepted and said he would start work the next day."

But until Nov. 22, Ruth was not fully aware that there were two different TSBD buildings in downtown Dallas. And the explanation she gave to the Warren Commission concerning this matter (seen below) is a perfectly logical and reasonable and (IMO) believable explanation. But many conspiracy theorists who have a burning desire to drag Mrs. Paine through the mud and into an assassination plot of some kind obviously don't think this testimony given by Ruth is the slightest bit believable or credible at all:

ALBERT JENNER -- "I heard you mention the Texas School Depository warehouse. Did you think the warehouse was at 411 Elm?"

RUTH PAINE -- "No. I had seen a sign on a building as I went along one of the limited access highways that leads into Dallas, saying "Texas School Book Depository Warehouse" and there was the only building that had registered on my consciousness as being Texas School Book Depository. I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though, I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind but I didn't. The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building."

--------------------------

Repeating something I wrote on July 25, 2022:

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Depository warehouse building on Houston Street that Ruth saw while driving on Stemmons was located very near Elm Street. It was only---what?---two blocks north on Houston. So the two TSBD buildings were, indeed, very close to one another.

Given that fact, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for someone casually driving on Stemmons to think that the "warehouse" building on Houston was located on Elm (or vice versa). Was Ruth supposed to keep track of all Dallas streets at all times and where things were located on those streets? Why would she have cared what street that warehouse she saw was on? And why would she have needed to commit such knowledge to memory? It didn't make any difference to her what street that TSBD warehouse was located on.

The conspiracy theorists who think that Ruth Paine was involved in a scheme to plant Lee Oswald in the TSBD on Elm Street must think otherwise, of course. But I'm not wired with "Conspiracy" circuitry. So it's my view that the "Elm Street" address that Ruth did, indeed, write down in her address book (and see in the phone book) meant very little to her at all. And therefore there was no reason for her to concentrate on that address at all after jotting it down in her address book or seeing it in print in the telephone book. And, in fact, she pretty much told us that very thing in the above testimony.

Lots More:

 

DVP you proved nothing.  You clearly failed to read that which I actually posted.  You also failed to read the document I linked.  She told the location on Elm.  She knew.  Sorry.   Your defense fails and you cannot refute this proof.  You might want to update your little link.  

37 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

You did bring this up before Cory.

Of course, why wasn't everybody in Dallas there?

Cory:  Namely, why she did not go down to the parade with Marina and children?

Do you have kids Cory?  Ruth Paine had 2 kids 4 and 2. Marina had 2 kids, one kid was 1 and a half, and one daughter was one month old!

I assume if you had kids, that question wouldn't be such a mystery.

Lol.  Cliff educate the man.  Kirk all you have to do is go to Google.  

Previously, I brought up how odd Ruth’s actions were.  For example, she chose to shop rather than see the president- interestingly Ruby wanted nothing of Dealey plaza either.   Someone defended her by saying there were two book depositories and it was claimed as a defense that Ruth did not know which one LHO worked at prior to the assassination. I felt this defense stunk and did not comport with my recollection  of the documents.  
For many reasons this is important.  Namely, why she did not go down to the parade with Marina and children?   Well, here is the proof showing the “Ruth didn’t know” defense is garbage.  She knew WEEKS BEFORE the assassination where he worked.  The copies destroyed part was good too👍
https://ncisahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/OSWALD-LEE-H-Verification-of-employment-at-Texas-School-Book-Depository-Nov-4-1963.pdf

11 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

My question would be this then: if they have the ability to travel between dimensions, why would they need a physical flying machine?

 

Duh!   You have to have style.  

Watched this last night.  Great interview.

On 3/27/2024 at 2:22 PM, Ron Ecker said:

I should note that you can see some great stuff with closed captions. For example, the closed captions at CNN refer to Ron DeSantis as Rhonda Santos. (Any relation to Cory?) And Fanni Willis and her lover were said to have gone to a "hate-filled condo." (I eventually found out it was a Hapeville condo.) Closed captions are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

 

 

 

Lol no relation that I know of.  

9 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Apparently unseen by Kevin lol

 

This proves?  What exactly?  I am sure if you can prove anything msnbc will put it on. Do you have any real proof?

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course Postal Inspector Holmes lied for the WC. The government conducted a coverup, and people lie and deceive in coverups. I don't know why some researchers can't accept that.

 

 

Not when it's a government sanctioned coverup, and those who lie are doing it for national security reasons, at the (indirect) request of President LBJ. It was their patriotic duty to help prevent WW3.

 

 

Had the second floor Oswald/Baker encounter happened, Baker would have made a note of it on his first-day statement.

There is too much evidence against the second floor encounter to take it seriously. (Victoria Adams is just the beginning of that.)

It was obviously created in order to place Oswald sufficiently away from his alibied location so that he conceivably could have been on the sixth floor during the shooting.

 

But then by your logic why did they not lie and say he was coming down from the sixth floor?   I mean in golf if you’re going to lie when you’re in the rough you don’t just tap the ball a little.  

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

LOL

I liked your joke. But really, Fox News lies all the time. MSNBC is obviously partisan, but they don't lie much.

I'm really surprised you don't know this.

 

So let me get this straight.  According to Sandy and Ron Ecker, you both feel Fox News lies in its reporting 100 percent of the time?   Yes or no please.  

4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Thanks. I agree that it's no big deal. As I said, he stumbled a bit but was trying to say the same thing he said in the State of the Union Address. But FoxNews made it a big deal by devoting an article to it, wanting people to believe that Biden is so far gone mentally that he thinks he's running for Congress. Yeah, right.

 

I know it’s crazy.  It’s like the whole fake Russia helped Trump news.  Geez.  Those crazy reporters.  

22 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

That looks like the clip. And it's not edited as far as I can tell. Now I don't try to listen to clips on the Internet because of a chronic ear condition - the sound quality is too abrasive. I depend on closed captions for everything I watch. And the closed captions on that clip state what he said: "Send me the Congress...." (emphasis added). It's FoxNews' own captions, right? Oh, but how many people are going to read those, eh?

The cc is incorrect.  He said it.  But people make mistakes when they speak.  No big deal.  My point is Fox didn’t misrepresent what he said.  I do hope your ear issue gets better.  Please stop hanging out with Tyson lol.  He has a thing for ears.  

56 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

CNN as a news network is the closest thing I can think of. I know it's considered leftist, a lot of its commentary may be slanted, but it doesn't tell flat-out lies as news to its viewers. At least I haven't heard one. It certainly hasn't had to fork out millions and millions of dollar for lying like FoxNews has.

Now I’ll give you a good, up-to-date example of FoxNews telling blatant lies as news.

I saw a FoxNews article (not on its website, which I do not visit, the article was republished by Microsoft Start--IOW as click bait, and against my better judgment I clicked on it). The article said that Biden, in campaigning for reelection, told an audience in Philadelphia, “Send me to Congress!” Wow, a prime example of dementia, right? All of the FoxNews faithful would certainly eat it up.

The trouble is, there’s a video and a transcript of what Biden actually said: “Send me the Congress that I — can support this right" (referring to reproductive freedom). He stumbled a bit but was reiterating the same thing that he said in his State of the Union Address: “If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose….”

“Send me to Congress!” That’s real “fair and balanced” news reporting, isn’t it?

 

 

Because here is the transcript of what he said. 
 

•  I MEAN THIS FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AND I THANK VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS FOR LEADING ON THIS ISSUE AND SO MANY OTHERS. YOU KNOW, IN PENNSYLVANIA, I HAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU, SEND ME TO CONGRESS SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS RIGHT

52 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

CNN as a news network is the closest thing I can think of. I know it's considered leftist, a lot of its commentary may be slanted, but it doesn't tell flat-out lies as news to its viewers. At least I haven't heard one. It certainly hasn't had to fork out millions and millions of dollar for lying like FoxNews has.

Now I’ll give you a good, up-to-date example of FoxNews telling blatant lies as news.

I saw a FoxNews article (not on its website, which I do not visit, the article was republished by Microsoft Start--IOW as click bait, and against my better judgment I clicked on it). The article said that Biden, in campaigning for reelection, told an audience in Philadelphia, “Send me to Congress!” Wow, a prime example of dementia, right? All of the FoxNews faithful would certainly eat it up.

The trouble is, there’s a video and a transcript of what Biden actually said: “Send me the Congress that I — can support this right" (referring to reproductive freedom). He stumbled a bit but was reiterating the same thing that he said in his State of the Union Address: “If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose….”

“Send me to Congress!” That’s real “fair and balanced” news reporting, isn’t it?

 

 

Is this the clip Ron?   Was it edited like the Zapruder film?

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6348574710112

59 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Fox lies to their viewers every hour of every day. MSNBC does not. So that is a completely specious, nonsensical comparison.

If you want to live in an alternate reality, have people lie to you and tell you what you want to hear, go enjoy all the America-haters over at Fox.

Me? I like my news to be factual.

Where can I go for real factual news then?

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

That's unfortunate, as Jesse Watters is a giant stain on what passes for "news" on that joke of a network.

He has nice things to say about you. 

David, so your position is:   LHO lied here and other times but told the truth sometimes.  Yes or no. Also, your position is LHO never said he was outside watching the parade when asked where he was.   Thus, Hosty was misinterpreting what Oswald said- in your opinion, lied about- incorrectly?  Yes or no.  
I just want your position to be clear.  

 I am aware of a video copy.