Greg Doudna

Joseph M., what you say regarding the films makes sense, and I know this is your field so you do know these things. I can tell just from seeing Max Good's film that he is an excellent filmmaker, has the technical skills and art, and from his prior work plus the low-budget context otherwise has my sympathies and liking. It is the treatment of Ruth Paine in the present film which overrides these other things for me; otherwise I would be a fan of Max Good. 

2 hours ago, Ed LeDoux said:

Of course the problem with Lee waiting on the hill to be able to run down and grab a ride with the negro would require luck or planning that isnt possible.

Lee as noted was stopped and is atop Revill's list.

Its shakey ground for Lee to know when or if he could go out and meet a ride. 

Did he call before lunch, and just happened to be on the knoll when Rambler Man rolls by.... 

Bus is far more reliable even with the parade traffic. 

I believe Lee took the Beckley bus as its the most logical.

Makes sense for a bus rider to take a bus. Bus going closest to the Texas Theater....Beckley Bus.

Beckley bus stops at the Daltex on corner across from TSBD.

Seems a logical lead... especially seeing McWatters recants any ID of Lee and was instead IDing Roy Milton Jones. 

Jones doesnt answer his phone and wont return calls.

Add to this the bus drivers and cabbies are all in one garage at Dallas Transit and easy to interview. So its odd as hell no one in any law enforcement capacity ever spoke to the Beckley route driver.

Him/Her being directly behind the Marsalis bus on Elm.

Him/Her driving Lee to and from work twice a day during the weeks leading up to the assassinstion.

Rumors or report of Man carring long carton on the bus.

Rumors of where Lee lived or didnt.

Yet no interest in a witness that could possibly clear up questions.

Ask why was there a Beckley Bus Blackout!? Who was this driver and what did they see or not see to cause such a gapping maw in the evidence. 

Timing of the bus and its route would be an anchor for Warren Omission Commission. 

Ed this is interesting. First a couple of points that could support what you say. First, one of the black employees of TSBD, I think James Jarman, in testimony I think to HSCA said Oswald left on a bus from the front door of the TSBD. That would agree with your reconstruction.

And second, your comments on why was the Beckley bus that Oswald took every day, etc. not called before the Warren Commission, nor (to my knowledge) is there any FBI interview of that bus driver--excellent point. 

But--on the other hand are the problems I see in the specific reconstruction. How do you interpret Earlene Roberts who said she saw Oswald enter the rooming house? She said so same day, and strikes me as an average person being honest. And what about the reports of Oswald's interrogations in which he said he changed clothes there, in agreement with what Earlene Robert said she saw? Furthermore, I have written up an argument that supports a change of shirt and jacket at the Beckley St. rooming house: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/.

I agree on the need to find a way in which Oswald got to the Texas Theatre "early" (earlier than what I regard as the non-Oswald killer of Tippit and intended killer of Oswald who went past Brewer's store and into the Texas Theatre up into the balcony, after Oswald was already in the main seating area). That "early" arrival of Oswald to the Texas Theatre can be accounted for by (a) the Whaley cab ride, for which his trip records have a trip consistent with Oswald going to the neighborhood of the rooming house, and (b) Oswald after his quick stop to change shirt and jacket, took a bus south on Beckley to the Texas Theatre. 

What do you think of this alternative explanation of the logistics, compared to your own, in terms of pros and cons? Anyway, thanks for your original thinking.

Just now, Allen Lowe said:

The difference is that there were no witches; but there are assets and informants.

Yes there are assets and informants, but there is no more evidence that Ruth was one than that Ruth was a literal witch.

And although there is no evidence she was an informant, what if she was? That is no crime nor would it account for the venom against her in this community. But again, there is no evidence that she was. Where is the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty in this community with respect to Ruth Paine.

On 6/3/2022 at 7:02 AM, Joe Bauer said:

There are many main characters in the Lee and Marina Oswald story that leave one unsure about their involvement with them in nefarious ways more than simple good will intentioned ones.

Regards Ruth Paine. 

No matter how much is reported about her possible asset work, travel and other odd activities one has to admit how much Ruth did for and gave to Marina and her babies at a time when they truly needed someone to step in like Ruth did, especially right up to, during and right after Marina just gave birth.

No one else was stepping forward on the total help giving commitment level Ruth was.

Robert Oswald and his wife? Other White Russians? Social services?

Ruth took Marina and her children into her own fairly small home where she had two children of her own. She paid for most all of Marina and her babie's basic needs.

Shelter and utilities, food, transportation especially in setting Marina up with pre-natal medical care. She allowed Lee to come and visit and even spend the night.

Whether there was something more nefarious going on with RP, or even if she had developed a kind of crush on Marina ... one still has to acknowledge her doing more for Marina and her children than 98% of society ever would. Taking them into her own small home and providing 95% of their basic needs. I don't think Ruth ever asked Marina, or even Lee, for a penny of shared costs expenses did she?

Ruth's background and her family's background certainly may be open to some curious scrutiny. Her sister's employment for one. Same with Michael Paine.

Where that leads is where it leads I guess.

I know a little about the Quakers. Love their active involvement humanitarianism and non-violent commitment to peace.

I am not convinced that Ruth wasn't sincere in her involvement with others and her motivations in helping them.

Even on the grand scale of improving relations between cold war adversaries and the very real threat of devastating conflict.

Also, the woman sang in choirs, folk danced, listened to Peter, Paul And Mary and Kingston Trio records, watched Lawrence Welk on TV, her husband bowled and she actively participated in trying to desegregate Dallas area libraries and other facilities and sympathized with the civil rights movement. A true liberal. 

Her uncanny Carol Burnett resemblance ( another super liberal ) even adds to my unsureness about her true possible nefarious motivation suspicion.

Maybe I'm just totally naive about how well assets can be set up to look so every day normal and innocently humanitarian minded nice and kind?

Well said Joe.

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

All this frantic, overwrought attention to Ruth Paine on the forum

attempting to whitewash her, with twisting

and ignoring of evidence and smears

against her accusors, clearly was

intended as a preemptive strike against Max

Good's film. We saw some of this pattern of

preemptive strikes by MSM apologists for

the government before Oliver Stone's JFK

was released -- and after. You have to wonder

for whom the parties were/are working in

putting out their disinformation and propaganda.

In other words, anyone who defends the accused witch becomes themselves accused of being a witch. McCarthyism. 

I am not working for anyone. I knew Ruth Paine and am utterly horrified at what is done to her by this community.

Are you trying to drive me off this forum? What "smears against her accusers"?

Do you see no smears of Ruth Paine occurring in this community? Really?

For the love of God, open your eyes.

What crime has she been accused of that would get a conviction by any jury in America. There isn't any, because there is no evidence she ever did any crime, no matter how many suspicions chase tails in circles.

I see the piling on is escalating. 

This community is absolutely smearing an innocent person in Ruth Paine, who never did anything to you, never did anything to Marina or Lee. "No good deed goes unpunished". Supportive of Marina, tried to do the right thing for America by testifying truthfully to what she knew within her realm of knowledge.  

The exact wording of the claim at the end of "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine":

“In October 2021, President Biden chose to continue blocking the release of the files.”

“Dozens of files related to the Paines remain classified.”

Note the claim: "dozens of files related to the Paines remain classified" after Oct 2021. Not dozens of records, but dozens of files.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A reviewer in San Francisco of the film:

"Berkeley-based director Max Good's film doesn't draw any firm conclusions, but it also doesn't shy away from confronting Mrs. Paine with difficult questions--which she bats away with impressive equanimity. CIA agent, Quaker peace activist, or both? Until the federal government finally releases all the relevant classified documents--and Trump and Biden both flinched when presented with the opportunity--we're unlikely to find out." (https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/06/03/sf-docfest-the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-we-were-hyphy-i-get-knocked-down)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No one, not Max Good, nor Jim DiEugenio, nor anyone, has still, to this moment, offered one whisper of evidence or source of knowledge for that powerful closing claim of the film, presented as if it is a known fact. Nobody is saying. 

So persuasive and effective rhetorically. 

Why stop at claiming "dozens" of Paine files remain classified? Why not claim "tens of thousands" of files of the Paines remain classified? Or millions, or billions, of Ruth Paine Paine files still classified? Why not?

If a central closing claim in a documentary film can be made without source or evidence, in a film which does not claim any evidence Ruth Paine was involved with the CIA or the assassination, why not?

000

deleted

deleted

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is almost funny.

GD is saying that one of the worst parts of the Commission, the Rumors and Speculations section is correct?

And he is questioning why Jeff would agree with it? 

Oh don't be ridiculous. It is correct that the metal boxes were not found in Oswald's room in Oak Cliff on N. Beckley. You don't claim or believe that yourself. That was my only point there.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I guess I should reply for Max.

I do not think he will answer GD directly for kind of obvious reasons.

This is not acceptable. The request is for a source, a footnote, to a published claim. There is no "obvious reason" why you should be advising Max Good to refuse to identify a source for a published erroneous claim that has not been retracted. Unless that source was you. Was it? 

Your declaration that a questioner has a bias is irrelevant and has nothing to do with ethical responsibility of an author to provide a source or footnote for a published claim.

I do not accept your standing to speak for Max Good on this unless Max Good has specifically said so which he has not. 

(https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27802-an-inquiry-to-max-good-concerning-an-allegation-published-by-max-good-concerning-ruth-paine/. )

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

By accident?  

GD lives here.

I guess I should reply for Max.

I do not think he will answer GD directly for kind of obvious reasons.

There is no point in arguing with someone who had their mind made up on the subject before the film came out.  Or was even finished.

Its why I stopped replying to Steve Roe.

Also, if the query was already posted what was the point of positing it here?

 

The point was to inform that I did not know this was posted, when I posted mine, so that it would not be thought to be an intentional ambush on his announcement of his film. It was an accident. I discovered it only after I posted mine. If I had known he was announcing his film at this moment, I would have delayed on the timing of mine. 

Max, I posted my separate one one minute after yours here, by accident, unaware of this one. Would it be possible to address my question? I tried to reach you by email but received no response.

I have received no response to the below polite, legitimate private inquiry to Max Good, producer of the film "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine". This followed an earlier polite attempt from me similarly worded of a private message via the Education Forum, unanswered. I also earlier discussed the claim and made two requests asking Max Good to disclose his source in that discussion, here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27750-are-any-records-being-held-back-on-ruth-paine/.

Is it ethical for a journalist to refuse to answer a question of this nature concerning an allegation made by that journalist and published by that journalist? 

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

On top of this, the Warren Report’s brief discussion falsely attributes the file cabinet to Oswald’s rooming house. 

That is not correct. The Warren Report debunks that provenance of the metal file boxes as a false rumor. That false rumor has nothing to do with anything here. I believe you knew that and that this was just throwing more smoke on what is not complicated: that the seven metal boxes were Ruth Paine's and that the contents were Ruth Paine's phonograph records and personal papers, not Castro sympathizer surveillance records.

Pat Speer, what a story about the record industry from your view from the inside!

My father's closest friend in the final years of his life was a retired federal U.S. marshal, African-American, who had a lifetime of colorful and hilarious law enforcement experiences and knew the pulse of things. He told me once: "in every town in America there are a few families who run everything." I said, "every town?" He said, "I've never seen an exception."

19 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

This is simply investigative journalism or reporting. The types of questions you have reacted to are asked on programs like 60 Minutes all the time. Ruth Paine is given a platform to respond, and she does and her response appears in the film.

There is no equivalence. That is nonsense. 60 Minutes would not air in prime time a highly damaging allegation against someone based on an unsubstantiated claim of a single source who it turned out never saw the thing himself, without identification of even that source's claim of origin for his hearsay, i.e. no production or naming of anyone who anyone even said ever claimed to have seen or had personal knowledge of the thing alleged. That is not something 60 Minutes would run with for a prime time story.

Mr. Liebeler. I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them?

Mr. Walthers. Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it. 

And 60 Minutes also would not fail to disclose the above--from the sole origin of the allegation to begin with--if 60 Minutes did run the story. 

Do you not see the risk that innocent people could be falsely smeared and damaged by the kind of journalistic tactic you are defending--to air a totally uncorroborated and refuted allegation, and fail to disclose the above exculpatory testimony from the only teller of the allegation who ever did exist in the entire universe?

No, I don't think you do see that. 

The original allegation of Walthers concerning the contents of those metal file boxes was refuted in the evidence that came forth later as to the contents of those metal file boxes, showing the original of Walthers was uncorroborated and mistaken, no different from a thousand other law enforcement human errors that first weekend.

It is so unbelievable that you and others defend the continuation of a smearing allegation of this nature while claiming to be interested in truth. 

There just does not seem to be any concern if Ruth Paine is accused of something on a nonexistent basis. Just does not seem to bother many people here. Just doesn't matter.  

How do people, who just have no problem with this, expect to be taken seriously by the sector of the thinking American public to whom the phenomenon of making unsubstantiated damaging allegations does matter and is offensive because of some old-fashioned idea that that practice is simply wrong?  

16 minutes ago, John Butler said:

 

 

John, in my first contribution ever to better understanding on the Education Forum, I figured out what was going on in the photo above. There is neither missing teeth in Oswald nor a blemish or alteration of the photograph. Lee is holding the cap of a pen in his teeth.

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

I don't know about John Butler, but Jim Hargrove and John Armstrong do not use photos to prove that there were two Oswalds. The fact that some LHO photos look like the one killed by Ruby, and other LHO photos don't, merely give support to the two-Oswald theory that has been proven in other ways.

OK on your first sentence. But not OK on your second sentence that those photos "give support to" the two-Oswald theory for they don't. That is a wholly unjustified claim to draw from what really are nothing other than those two misidentifications of photo captions and labeling.

32 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Your argument relies on stripping Michael Paine's name from the quotes you use, which creates a stricter allegation , at least in your formulation, than what is in fact being inferred.

No my argument does not require that at all. The allegation of DiEugenio, relayed by Max Good to Ruth Paine, that Ruth Paine surveilled Castro sympathizers is a subset of the allegation that Michael and Ruth surveilled Castro sympathizers, which DiEugenio derived, as he said he did, from Walthers' first-day claim which Walthers said was mistaken. Instead of continuing to throw up this smoke which is simply gaslighting, you should ask why DiEugenio not only refuses to retract his baseless allegation against Ruth Paine, but has responded to me in nasty ways.

Of the hundreds of mistakes and confusions in reporting in the first hours and days of that weekend of the assassination by both police and reporters, for DiEugenio to fixate upon one single such that the author himself explained was mistaken, and just rely and rely and rely and insist and insist on police inerrancy in that one case and reject the officer's own correction of the error . . . as the basis for accusation of Ruth Paine on this point . . . and to wilfully refuse to retract or apologize but respond instead with nastiness and abuse. . . that is the moral wrong here. Toward Ruth Paine (and Michael Paine too).  

Further on Oswald's movements following the assassination, with Prayer Man as Oswald

In the Darnell film which shows Prayer Man (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMwkPa295I), an officer--Baker--is seen running east and the camera pans away just as that officer reaches the bottom of the steps of the front entrance of the TSBD. "Prayer Man" is seen in the left rear at the top of the steps in shadow in a position in which that officer would have gone past him through the doors, although the film does not show that. What the film does show is that Oswald is still standing in his position when the officer (Baker) is ca. 3 seconds away from passing him going in that doorway, after the shots were fired of the assassination. Prayer Man is still there. 

Truly caught up with Baker and led Baker to the elevator at the north wall of the first floor where there was some delay as Truly punched for an elevator that never came and shouted up trying to get an answer to release the elevator to come down. After realizing the elevator was inoperable Truly and Baker ran up the northwest stairs where Baker was diverted on the second floor by catching a glimpse of Oswald behind a door window about to come out to the stairway landing, reversing direction and moving away from that door window from the inside. 

The reconstruction is: following Baker and Truly initially going past an unnoticed Oswald in one corner of the top landing at the front steps of the TSBD, Oswald also went inside and went up the southeast stairs. His intent was to cross the second floor, go down the northwest stairs, go to the domino room to get his gray jacket and maybe a final restroom stop, then out the rear door.

(That Oswald wore his medium-gray jacket to work that morning, not his heavier blue one, and was wearing that medium-gray jacket when he left the TSBD, is separately established: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/.) 

At the second-floor lunchroom encounter with Baker, assume that Oswald has his shirttails out of his maroon shirt, as seems to be the case in the Payer Man photo on the front steps of the first floor. Baker's physical description of Oswald wearing a "light brown jacket" would be a slight error in both color and description of what actually was a maroon (reddish-brown) shirt with tails out. The shirttails out could give an illusory impression that Lee could weigh a little more than he did, since his slimness would not be as evident as it would be if his shirt was tucked in. In the tense rush and adrenalin of the moment Baker after the fact might remember a "light brown jacket". Baker's overestimation of Oswald's weight as 165 instead of accurate ca. 135 perhaps was also influenced by an earlier broadcast mistaken police report that Oswald weighed 165.

Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.
Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side.
Mr. BELIN - Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came. I wouldn't be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there.
Mr. BELIN - What about when you saw him in the School Book Depository Building, does this look familiar as anything he was wearing, if you know?
Mr. BAKER - I couldn't say whether that was--it seemed to me it was a light-colored brown but I couldn't say it was that or not.
Mr. DULLES - Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn't quite hear.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.
Mr. BELIN - Are you referring to this Exhibit 150 as being similar to the jacket or similar to the shirt that you saw or, if not, similar to either one?
Mr. BAKER - Well, it would be similar in color to it--I assume it was a jacket, it was hanging out. Now, I was looking at his face and I wasn't really paying any attention. After Mr. Truly said he knew him, so I didn't pay any attention to him, so I just turned and went on.
Mr. BELIN - Now, you did see him later at the police station, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he wearing anything that looked like Exhibit 150 at the police station?
Mr. BAKER - He did have a brown-type shirt on that was out.
Mr. BELIN - Did it appear to be similar to any clothing you had seen when you saw him at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. BAKER - I could have mistaken it for a jacket, but to my recollection it was a little colored jacket, that is all I can say.

Since the rest of Oswald's movements until his arrival to the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff were evasive and involved a series of acts designed to disguise directions of movement such that he could not be quickly tracked or located--the changes of shirt and pants, the putting on of a different jacket at the rooming house, the standing at a northbound bus stop feinting headed in the wrong direction for Earlene Roberts to see, before unknown to Earlene Roberts going south by bus to the Texas Theatre--perhaps suppose one additional act in keeping with this series of known ones, on the second floor: after his encounter with Baker, Lee not only bought a (second) coke but took off his maroon shirt leaving him wearing only his white T-shirt, stuffed the maroon shirt underneath the white T-shirt or down his pants, then crossed past Mrs. Reid at her desk on the second floor. Mrs. Reid said when Oswald went past her he was wearing a white T-shirt.

Reconstruct then that Oswald (in white T-shirt?) descended to the first floor by the southeast stairs, went to the Domino room, into a restroom, put the maroon shirt back on and his gray jacket over the maroon shirt, then walked out the TSBD front entrance and exited the building.

In this reconstruction, the timing requires Oswald and Baker/Truly--those two separate parties--each to leave the TSBD front door area at about the same time, and then to meet at the northwest area of the second floor at the same time. The length traversed by the two parties is the same for each--in each case crossing one floor of the building to the opposite corner plus up one flight of stairs. Although Baker and Truly were running, they were delayed for an interval of time by the futile attempt to catch an elevator to take them up. Oswald would have been walking, not moving as quickly as Baker/Truly but he also had no delay waiting for an inoperable elevator. Those two factors canceled each other out such that the two parties ended up at the opposite northwest end on the second floor at the same time. The reconstruction is the respective timings of the two parties equaled each other such that Oswald ended up in the lunchroom area on the second floor at the northwest, and Baker at the same place, at the same time.

Then following the Baker encounter Oswald went back the way he came, back down the southeast stairs to the first floor, retrieved his gray jacket from the domino room in the northeast corner of the first floor, and walked out the front entrance of the TSBD, just before the building was sealed by officers.  

Jeff Carter, this is beginning to sound like gaslighting, in which first Ron, and now you, claim the title of this thread is imagined. I do not know why you are doing this. You say

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

There is a difference between saying “Ruth Paine surveilled Cuban sympathizers” versus “Ruth Paine surveilled the American left”. Your complaint alleges the film proposes the former construct, but this is not supported by the pertinent excerpts provided. That is, an “allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers” is your wording and your construct. 

DiEugenio, in the Max Good film:

DiEugenio: When the Dallas police went to the Paine household, one of the detectives wrote a report about taking out several filing cabinets of notations and cards and maps etcetera of Castro sympathizers. This makes a very good case, I believe, that Michael and Ruth were involved in surveillance activities of the American left. These cabinets existed until the Warren Commission. Because there are several exhibit numbers in the Warren Commission that refer to them. But the big difference is when the Warren Commission went through them, they only found something like one letter from Ruth to one of her relatives. So in other words, if the original report is accurate, somebody fiddled with the contents of those cabinets.

The closing allegation of the Max Good film, referring to 1963:

Good: Their thing is that you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. 

Ruth (look of disbelief): What?

Good: That you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. Uh, and that—

Ruth: Who would be the radical left? 

Good: Cuban sympathizers.

Ruth: Oh.

Two non-photos of Lee Harvey Oswald that should be removed from the database

Actually my comment above should have been directed more at Jim Hargrove and John Butler: you frequently cite two photos allegedly of Lee Harvey Oswald that look different from other photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, as evidence for a doppelganger second Oswald who however looks very different. When those two photos prove nothing of the kind, and in both cases appear to be simple mistakes in photo identifications that ended up in print.

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[T]he one on the right of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th row (all the same photo) I am certain is not Oswald. That photo has no known date or location or identity of photographer, nor verification that it was Oswald other than an appearance one time illustrating a Fort Worth newspaper article about Oswald. It is not Oswald from looking at it. Since there is no information on where the newspaper got that photo and the photo obviously is not Oswald it is meaningless as evidence of anything and should not be cited in Oswald photos.

Separately, I think the photo on the left of the 3rd and 4th row also is not Oswald. That photo was published in a book by Robert Oswald, Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother (1967), in photos between pp. 96 and 97 of that book. Everyone has thought that to be a photo of Oswald but it does not look like Oswald to me and the caption does not claim that is a photo of Oswald. The caption reads: "Lee and I went squirrel hunting with Vada's brother on the Mercers' farm in February, 1958, when Lee was at home on leave from the Marines. That's my .22 rifle."

I would almost bet the farm that is a photo of Robert Oswald's wife Vada's brother, not Lee. 

In the text of the book, p. 83, Robert writes: "That same weekend, we went hunting for squirrels--Lee and I and Vada's brother."

The argument that the photo is of Lee is it is among other photos featuring Lee in a book about Lee. But what if the caption identification came from Robert (asked to go through old photos and identify them, which he did), and someone else who edited or prepared the book chose or prepared those photos, and mistakenly thought that one was a photo of Lee and included it, quoting Robert's accurate comment on the photo which does not actually claim that it is Lee in the photo? 

Neither of those two photos have anything to do with any Harvey and Lee argument.

On 5/25/2022 at 7:01 PM, Ron Bulman said:

There is no topic here.  No one has alluded to Ruth doing surveillance on Cuban sympathizers but you.  Her job was 

Ron I know you see that Ruth never did surveillance on Cuban sympathizers, but Max Good's new film has that as one of its most central accusations against Ruth Paine in that film, that she was surveilling the American left, which he got from Jim DiEugenio saying that in the film. (See the opening post of this thread for the quotes.) And neither of them are willing to acknowledge error no matter how plain the facts may be on this matter. So even though you may know there is nothing to it, get used to the notion being around for ever and ever and ever and ever in the JFK assassination research community.

Incidentally, on the size of Ruth Paine's phonograph records issue that you mentioned earlier, I have found that according to Ruth Paine they were the old 78s from the 1950s, not 45s or 33s.

"While I went to get a baby-sitter, they filled the trunks of two cars with things out of my house. Every scrap of paper the Oswalds had, and my filing cases of old correspondence and 78 rpm phonograph records." (17 H 194)

78s were 10 inches in diameter. From the filming of two of Ruth's metal file boxes in the Max Good film, those metal file boxes were 12" wide and look over 10" deep. 

8 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Greg: I'm not denying LHO said this ("I want an office job, downtown," but can you provide a source (and/or citation)?  Regardless of what you post here, could you please respond to me directly, at  dlifton@gmai.com       Thanks.  DSL

Hi David, I thought I did provide a source and citation. Pages 33-34 of the Laura Kittrell manuscript, "Sightings of LHO, Oct. 1963". So far as I know that manuscript is available at only one place and that is the link below. If you are unable to find or verify the pages of the Laura Kittrell mss with the quote let me know.

On 5/3/2022 at 5:18 PM, Greg Doudna said:

(The typed version of the Kittrell manuscript is available at the John Armstrong Collection site at https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/poage-collections/john-armstrong-collection. Because I found it difficult to access at that site, to save others the same difficulty here is how: Hit "Search Collections". Search for "Kittrell". Click on first search listing, "Sightings of LHO, Oct. 1963--Laura Kittrell" (187 images). Click on "Download" button to lower left. A popup screen will give you three choices and ask what you want; click the choice, "Full Asset". Click "Download". It should now be on your computer.)