Max Good

A lot of Ruth defenders on here seem to think the suspicions around her are "simply ridiculous" or "utterly mad." I guess the fact that she was raised in a liberal/socialist family that had a "general hostility to communism," and that her father worked for a CIA cover agency, USAID, and was "considered for use" by the agency in Vietnam, and that her sister actually did work for the CIA, is not enough to convince these people that the suspicions are anything beyond paranoid delusion. It's a curious attitude. Not one I would engage with.

Yes, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen spoke at one of the conferences in Dallas in 2019. He has been working along with Jefferson Morley. Hopefully some good things come out of this. I think he hasn't received much attention in the research community because people don't trust him. Here's some background on him. https://jfkfacts.org/cia-tradecraft-jfks-assassination-a-veteran-officer-analyzes-the-death-of-of-a-president/ From Jeff Morley: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-nuclear-war-threat-intelligence-matters/ https://www.belfercenter.org/person/rolf-mowatt-larssen https://www.belfercenter.org/event/marked-assassination-who-killed-jfk-rolf-mowatt-larssen For someone this prominent and involved in intelligence circles, you have to ask what is his motivation for pushing the conspiracy side. What is his vision for how the "truth" could come out and what would be the implications? As a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center, which was headed by Obama's Secretary of Defense Ash Carter up until his death a few days ago, can he genuinely be promoting a perspective that would implicate the national security state, military industrial complex, corporate media, academia, etc.?

Here's the transcript of when I asked Ruth about the TSBD job location: Q: I read something about that there was confusion about there being two book depository buildings? A: Well I was confused. When Roy Truly answered the phone, he said, "Warehouse." Or something like that and I thought oh, I don't know where that is. Uh. Anyway, apparently there was another building off of Elm, further away uh, and, cause that's where Truly had answered, that's where I thought the job might be, but that's all I knew. I also asked about the other job offer, which I never thought was a particularly convincing point, but I had to ask anyway: Interviewer: He could have taken a job somewhere else. This is something that they bring up, that there was supposedly another better paid job that you didn't tell him about? What was that? Ruth: I never heard of that. Interviewer: No? Ruth: No. Interviewer: It was just something I saw online. Ruth: There's a lot out there that's not right.

Ruth's answer to the questions about the "We both know who is responsible" phone call is that she and Michael were speaking generally about "right-wingers." Ruth has thus acknowledged that the phone call did happen; the wiretap report is not something just made up out of thin air. The question remains about the timing of the phone call and if it was before LHO was announced publicly as a suspect. The wiretap says that the Paines named LHO as the person who had killed JFK. The FBI report admits that the phone call appears to have been at about 1pm on 11/22, not on 11/23 as the original informant allegedly stated. Michael Paine was also only asked about conversations on 11/23 in his WC testimony. Also, why would they have thought that Oswald was part of a right-wing plot? They always maintained that he was a socialist loner.

I simply remarked that some would call Alesi Ruth's "handler" because some people I've spoken to have called him just that. Joe says he had no beef with me before he read that statement, but below is what he wrote months ago about my "lies, innuendoes, and bullshit." Joe was very open and helpful as I was making the film, and I thank him for that. I'm fine with the film being interpreted in different ways. Obviously, our paradigms usually define our perspectives. I do not support the demonization of Ruth Paine. People arguing that she is completely innocent because there was no conspiracy are in a different category than those who believe she was used unwittingly (or those who believe there was a conspiracy but that she was not used or placed in position even unwittingly). Here are six main categories (maybe there are more): 1. Ruth Paine wittingly participated in a conspiracy to kill JFK. 2. Ruth was used wittingly in some intelligence capacity but with no knowledge of the plot to kill JFK. 3. Ruth was used unwittingly but became aware of her role after the assassination and has lied about this since. 4. Ruth was used completely unwittingly (she had no knowledge, before or after, that she had been put in a position as part of the plot). 5. There was no conspiracy in the assassination and therefore Ruth Paine could not have been part of any plot. 6. There was a conspiracy but Ruth Paine came to befriend the Oswalds by pure chance and had no role in it, before or after.

For those who want to learn more about the suspicions surrounding the Paines, I recommend Bill Simpich's work: The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_12.html

@Vince Palamara You wrote, "**thanks to Max Good - watch his amazing new documentary!**" in the description of the above video after I complained about you not giving any attribution. How about mentioning what the movie is or actually including a link to it?? But I see a pattern here. You have also stolen my content without attribution two other times recently. Please cease from posting my content on your YouTube channel. 1. You posted an actual ripped scene from my film that I never released online before (maybe you ripped this from someone else, but you should know that scene came from my film). 2. You took this video that someone else had created with my recording of Vincent Salandria's statement, "The Role of the Paines in History." At least they had the consideration to link to the original source at ratical.org. You provide no attribution. The original is below. Your copy is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f26ygeqm76M

I think it was Ruth's son who was especially upset how Michael was shown in the trailer for the film. I believe they saw the trailer at the time Michael was in hospice and were understandably sensitive. Ruth mentioned that her son had power of attorney for Michael and she said that I shouldn't think that I have the right to use his likeness in the film. Michael had signed a release 2-3 years before and there was no mention that he was unable to make decisions for himself at that point, so my lawyer agreed that it was alright to go ahead. Michael maybe looked a little bewildered in that old trailer, which could have been offensive to them at that point. It wasn't intentional. I spoke to Ruth's daughter on the phone and she laughed this story off as a concoction of the conspiracy theorists. I don't remember if I asked Ruth about it, but if I did, she probably said something similar. I tried very hard to get an interview with the person who first got this impression from Ruth (that the estrangement was over the assassination) but they never responded to me.

As I said in the film, I was surprised to find Michael living in the same retirement home. My understanding of the situation has been described above: that Michael was living nearby with their son until his health declined. It doesn't necessarily seem suspicious to me, but I know people who have speculated that it was some kind of CIA-approved retirement home! Ruth had a boyfriend who is visible in some of the shots in the film. He passed away the same year as Michael, 2018. I got the sense that Ruth and Michael were on friendly but not especially close terms at that point. That's just my impression from very limited observation. Joe Alesi could probably tell us more.

This is interesting. Last I heard, was this post below from Joe Alesi that someone re-posted on another forum a while back. From what I understand, the Facebook group "JFK Truth Be Told" is a private group mostly dominated by official story supporters. Ruth made it clear to me that she didn't want to be involved in the project anymore in 2019. Since then, I have left her alone, out of respect. Alesi seems to be Ruth's main ambassador to the JFK community at this point (some would, no doubt, use the term "handler"). You may remember him from my film--he was the one who got one of those infamous filing cabinets from Ruth after striking up a friendship with her. He also had binders full of autographed photos from the Paines, and a box full of FOIA documents that Ruth gave to him after requesting all of her files from the FBI. Alesi is a JFK memorabilia collector and a former employee of the Defense Investigative Service, where he worked on validating people for security clearances. He was quite open with me about this when I interviewed him. He even held up his placard for the camera. Joe Alesi escorted Ruth to Dallas when she made a couple appearances there in 2019 and it looks from his message like he plans to do the same in 2023. It's not a bad endorsement: "Well done, but powerfully awful." I thought Ruth might actually appreciate the film if she gave it a chance.

Hi Paul. Yes, I know him quite well. In fact, I made a video with him not long ago. Good to know we have a local friend in common. -- I did correspond with a couple people who Vox Swift named or referred me too. One person was unwilling to go on the record, but they did confirm Swift's story that the Pronica projects in Nicaragua could not be found. Another person, who Swift was also suspicious of, told me that they had heard of the accusations around Ruth and Pronica, but didn't give them any credence. When I asked them if they could give me references to others who could speak on the matter, they didn't have any names. I was contacted by some interesting characters while making the movie and I was skeptical of everyone, at first. One person setup a conversation on an anonymous phone line just to tell me that they knew the identity of the "dark complexioned man" who was seen driving "Ruth Paine's station wagon." He claimed to have inside information that it was one of Fidel Castro's agents. I don't know what to think about Vox Swift or his story, but I'm putting it out there in the hopes that someone can get to the bottom of it.

Yes, he lived in St. Petersburg, FL and was part of the same Friends Meeting as Ruth. He did charity work in Latin America and had a house in Nicaragua.

Here are just a few highlights from my 2016 interview with a new witness who says he worked with Ruth Paine and Pronica. He claims that Pronica actually wasn't doing the charity work they said they were doing in Nicaragua and he suspected others in the group of corruption and possibly being intelligence agents. I could not find anyone else to go on the record to backup his explosive allegations, so I didn't include it in the movie. The full interview with much more detail is on my Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/vox-charles-his-70668932 I'm happy to provide additional details to anyone who wants to follow up on this. When I asked Ruth Paine if she knew who this guy was, she said she did not. I don't claim know the veracity of his claims. I support anyone who wants to get to the bottom of it honestly. Unfortunately, Vox Charles Swift passed away a few months ago: https://www.snyderfuneralhome.com/obituary/vox-charles-pete-swift/

Hey Vince, It looks like you are taking some videos off my YouTube channel and posting them on your channel without any attribution. I shot and edited this video. You could at least give me or my film a shout out. Here is that video from my YT channel, posted about two months ago. Thanks, Max

I didn't realize Mamet had become an arch-conservative. https://www.hoover.org/research/david-mamet-conservatism His book: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Knowledge-Dismantling-American-Culture/dp/1595230971 Check out some of these quotes: https://thenewamerican.com/david-mamet-how-a-liberal-playwright-became-a-conservative/

Here's the link to the screening in San Antonio. It's Saturday, August 6th @7pm at: Radius Center 106 Auditorium Circle #120 San Antonio, TX https://safilm.com/schedule#event=72546061;instance=20220806150000?popup=1 I just did a little interview with someone from the San Antonio Express-News yesterday. Hopefully we can drum up some press for this screening. Big thanks to Joe Green for helping to make this happen! Thanks, Ron. I'm coming from the Bay Area where 75 degrees is a hot day. I might have to find some water to jump into down there. Hope to see anyone in that region of TX at the screening in two weeks...

Thanks, Jim! More exciting news: the film will be playing at the San Antonio Film Festival next month. The festival is August 2-7 and I'm planning to be there. https://safilm.com/

Thanks, Stephanie! I'm so glad you and your husband appreciated the film. My aim was to reach an audience beyond those of us who are already steeped in the research, so I'm especially happy that your husband found it interesting enough to stay engaged. Your conclusion that the film is fair and factual seems to be shared by the vast majority of viewers. And you are right, when I asked Ruth, "Do you see why people take these connections as being suspicious?" her response was, "Sure. Yeah." One can argue that the suspicious facts around Ruth don't amount to a convincing case against her forthrightness, but to say that there are no suspicious facts surrounding the Paines or that every one can easily be "debunked" is "beyond the pale," as Peter Jennings would say. I would also venture to say that giving a full airing of these suspicions and allowing Ruth to respond is a more respectful tribute to the complexity of her experience with the assassination than to ignore them or laugh them off as the paranoid delusions of a few wacky conspiracy theorists.

Thanks, @Denny Zartmanand @Joseph McBride for the kind words. I saw early on that the issue of the Paines seemed to hit a nerve with certain people. The fact that Ruth has documented links to the CIA through her immediate family is very inconvenient for people who have an agenda to direct attention away from CIA. Ruth is a public figure and a figure of historical significance. She has chosen to continue doing interviews for nearly 60 years. She is well aware of the suspicions and she is strong enough to handle it all. Many people have remarked that the film treats Ruth with respect and allows her to respond effectively to the allegations. I have even received excellent responses from thoughtful and honest people in the lone nut camp. Some people would like to spread the idea my film is baseless, irresponsible character assassination. Honest and rational people can tell that is not the case.

After seven years of work, the film is finally being released to the public on June 14. It's available for pre-order now on iTunes and any sales will really help the film rise up the charts and give it better exposure. If you're excited to see it, please consider pre-ordering and spreading the word. Anyone in the Bay Area is also invited to the local premiere at the Roxie Theater next Tuesday, June 7 at 6:30pm as part of the SF Docfest Film Festival. There will be a Q&A after the show. UPDATE The film is now available to rent or buy on: iTunes Amazon Vimeo Google Play Much thanks to many of you here who have participated and supported the project over the years. It has been a thoroughly independent production and a labor of love. Anyone accusing me of doing this for the money doesn't understand the economics of independent documentary film. I get the impression that the film will be sparking many heated discussions!

Here are the records of the FBI's investigation into this phone call. The records of the Southwestern States Telephone company show only one call between Michael's work and the Paine home between November 22-26. Ruth stated that call was at about 1:00pm on the 22nd. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=111186#relPageId=124&search=investigation_regarding alleged telephone call

I've spent some time trying to figure this out. The whole story is so convoluted that I decided not to include it my film. There doesn't appear to be a Minox camera in this photo, but if you zoom in close you will notice that the Minox camera case could be sitting on top of the camera. You can see the chain coming out of a hole. From other photos online, it appears the chain attaches directly to the camera and runs through a hole in the case. Even if there is no Minox camera in the photo, it doesn't prove one wasn't taken into evidence by Gus Rose. Attached is a Dallas Morning News article from 1978 about the Minox and photos from it. Even if the camera was Michael's, isn't it still suspicious?

This appears to directly contradict Ruth's story. Here's what she told me about the Life magazine photographer (Allan Grant) who came to the Paine house:

A friend spent some time looking into this to see if we could use it in my film about Ruth Paine. I don't remember all the details, but there is a researcher named Michael Levy who claims to have the document...but he would not provide it to us. Until we see this document, it might as well be made up out of thin air.

Cavett actually did make some jokes about Priscilla being CIA.