David G. Healy Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) ... As for Ruth and Michael Paine, I have no idea in the world how to contact them -- but it seems to me that they, being intellectuals, should be more willing to open up and talk to a sincere journalist about the resigned General Walker. Yet no matter how much I've pleaded with FORUM members to contact them -- to the best of my knowledge, nobody here has yet been able to reach them. This surprises me because there are so many serious authors and journalists in this FORUM that I honestly expected somebody to have the wherewithal to find Ruth and Michael Paine. ... Regards, --Paul Trejo http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12049.0.html Ya might take a peek at the above thread, Paul... Don't expect much, the 'so-called' *interviewer* who saw Ms. Paine recently (on bended knee, evidently) leaves much to be desired. However, her whereabouts are known... Edited August 14, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) ...As for Ruth and Michael Paine, I have no idea in the world how to contact them -- but it seems to me that they, being intellectuals, should be more willing to open up and talk to a sincere journalist about the resigned General Walker. Yet no matter how much I've pleaded with FORUM members to contact them -- to the best of my knowledge, nobody here has yet been able to reach them. This surprises me because there are so many serious authors and journalists in this FORUM that I honestly expected somebody to have the wherewithal to find Ruth and Michael Paine. ... Regards, --Paul Trejo http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12049.0.html Ya might take a peek at the above thread, Paul... Don't expect much, the 'so-called' *interviewer* who saw Ms. Paine recently (on bended knee, evidently) leaves much to be desired. However, her whereabouts are known... Wow, David, that really astounded me -- many thanks for that valuable link! I encourage all EF readers to read the text of that link. I will share only the highlights here. Bill Brown, a super-member of the JFK Assassination Forum actually had a 45-minute meeting with Ruth Paine in California only a few months ago! In that meeting, Ruth Paine suggested that she will only speak with JFK Researchers who agree with her claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the shooting at the resigned Major General Edwin Walker at his Dallas home. Ruth Paine strongly emphasized the handwritten Russian letter to Marina Oswald. In her view, anybody who believes that this letter is bogus has not done enough research. I strongly agree with Ruth Paine on that point. I'm absolutely delighted that somebody has been able to contact her. I gather, however, that the interviewer did not suspect the possibility that General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder (and that the Walker shooting provided Walker's final motive) and so he didn't ask Ruth Paine about it. Please, please, please, won't somebody please ask Ruth Paine for her opinion on this question: was General Walker the man behind the JFK murder? Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Ruth Paine nor any of the others in this scenario have anything to gain, by being forthright. She is putting conditions on what and whom she will address, and under what scenario, I wouldn't even bother to approach her. Total BS!! DR. Caulfield and I approached many witnesses that had nothing to gain by talking to us, but we tried to appeal to them on the level of telling "their" side of the story, for their own and history's sake etc. Most of them never put conditions out front that we would have to dance around, if they had we would have walked away.... see the difference? Bill Edited August 15, 2015 by William O'Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 Funny (interesting) how Ruth has narrowed it down to the "Walker incident"... as the criteria to proclaiming LHO's guilt!? ...Hmm. Wow, that is intriguing in and of itself! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Funny (interesting) how Ruth has narrowed it down to the "Walker incident"... as the criteria to proclaiming LHO's guilt!? ...Hmm. Wow, that is intriguing in and of itself! Bill If Bill Brown can be taken at his word. Has anyone else ever said this about her? Not to my knowledge. But yes - agree if true, it could be very telling. Doesn't matter. I have her and her whole family in my sights. They are gonski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Lets see, now Marina will only talk to researchers about her husband's innocence in the JFK shooting - a position which has changed over time - if they are willing to discuss his attempt to shoot another person, Walker. Not the sort of behavior that would have served Lee well in court.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Google Books is now featuring a preview of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book on resigned Major General Edwin Walker and the JFK assassination. Here's the URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=M7JYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA879&lpg=PA879&dq=dallas+morning+news++general+walker&source=bl&ots=UC4vRKVIkN&sig=rds63kRtt9FvGNpwTvrpE_pSTpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBGoVChMI1N6Nse-oxwIVyheSCh0sBgf5#v=onepage&q=dallas%20morning%20news%20%20general%20walker&f=false Best regards, --Paul Trejo Bumping this. Let me say that I'm finding Caulfield's research into the background of the southern segregationist right well worth considering, and his contention that only the right was involved in the assassination well worth contradicting. I haven't finished the excerpted material yet, but so far this seems a mixed bag worth emptying on the table. Put the onions aside - they're still good. Edited August 15, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Google Books is now featuring a preview of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book on resigned Major General Edwin Walker and the JFK assassination. Here's the URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=M7JYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA879&lpg=PA879&dq=dallas+morning+news++general+walker&source=bl&ots=UC4vRKVIkN&sig=rds63kRtt9FvGNpwTvrpE_pSTpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBGoVChMI1N6Nse-oxwIVyheSCh0sBgf5#v=onepage&q=dallas%20morning%20news%20%20general%20walker&f=false Best regards, --Paul Trejo Bumping this. Let me say that I'm finding Caulfield's research into the background of the southern segregationist right well worth considering, and his contention that only the right was involved in the assassination well worth contradicting. I haven't finished the excerpted material yet, but so far this seems a mixed bag worth emptying on the table. Put the onions aside - they're still good. I'm sure that when all of us have the opportunity to read the entire book, we will find things that we disagree with. 1. Sometimes, one person interprets available evidence differently (such as by giving more emphasis or credence to a particular piece of data or perhaps less credence and weight to something said/written by somebody who supposedly knows something relevant about the matter under scrutiny). 2. Sometimes (including here in EF), statements are presented as indisputably factual when, in reality, they are not. One of the most common problems that one confronts in historical narratives is that all of us come to a specific subject with different levels of understanding and our understanding sometimes can be based upon inferior or biased or questionable sources of information which we do not have the time or resources (or inclination) to verify. One time I was engaged in a debate with someone online and when I challenged something presented by my critic, he told me to google the name of the person whom we were discussing because it produced "hundreds" of "hits" that would confirm what my critic was claiming. That methodology actually was what my critic believed was appropriately reliable in order to discover "the truth"! One of the most famous examples of this phenomenon pertains to Jacob Schiff and the Russian Revolution. In his 1971 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy (page 69), Gary Allen wrote: “According to the New York Journal American of February 3, 1949: ‘Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.' " W. Cleon Skousen presented a virtually identical Schiff "quotation" in his 1970 book, The Naked Capitalist, on pages 40-41, as follows: "One American source gave Trotsky, Lenin and the other Communist leaders around twenty million dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. This was Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. The figure of twenty million dollars is cited by his grandson, John Schiff, in the New York Journal-American for February 3, 1949." And Skousen repeated this claim in his March 1971 article, entitled "Home Grown Subversion" published in Law and Order magazine. This "quotation" was widely circulated in right-wing conspiracy literature for decades. For example: 1950: Robert H. Williams: Know Your Enemy, page 14 [self-published, Santa Ana CA and reprinted by Gerald L.K. Smith's Christian Nationalist Crusade in 1950; and by Conde McGinley's Christian Educational Association in the 1960's and by Edward R. Fields's Thunderbolt newspaper (National States Rights Party), Marietta GA in the 1970's] 1970: W. Cleon Skousen: The Naked Capitalist [The Reviewer, p40-41] 1971: Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy [Concord Press, p69] 1974: Marvin J. Andleman: To Eliminate The Opiate [Zahavia, p26] 1988: James Perloff: Shadows of Power [Western Islands, p39] 1988: Larry Abraham: Call it Conspiracy [Double A Publications, p77-78] 1995: G. Edward Griffin: Creature From Jekyll Island [American Opinion, p265] However, significantly, not one of these publications ever identified the page number of the NY Journal American where this statement was supposedly made and when the FBI fact-checked the Skousen article published in Law and Order magazine, it concluded: "Review of microfilm records of the February 3, 1949 New York Journal American failed to locate any article about Jacob Schiff and possible financing of the Bolsheviks as Skousen alleges." Obviously, what happened is that this "quotation" was passed down from one decade to the next and it was accepted as genuine without anybody actually researching the original source. The reason why the FBI could not “locate any article about Jacob Schiff" in the 2/3/49 issue of the NY Journal American is because it was NOT an article! In reality, the "quotation" appears in that paper's society gossip column ["Smart Set"] which was written by an unidentified society columnist under the pseudonym of "Cholly Knickerbocker"! The actual author was Hearst columnist Igor Cassini! But this is what passed for high-quality "factual evidence" in some circles and this is the quality of "research" which people like Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen foisted upon gullible and ill-informed people. [Oh, BTW -- Gary Allen had a degree in U.S. history from Stanford University!] Edited August 15, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Interestingly, when you open the Google preview on different computers or at different times - the amount of the book viewable varies. I ended on page 65 last night, and now pp. 63-68 are missing. Maybe this is normal and I'm a dope. Edited August 15, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) David,I had the same thing happen, if you click on the icon of book cover ( or "Sample view" under "Get print book.) you may get the whole first chapter ...go figure? This was part of the initial "media package put out by publishers. Bill Edited August 15, 2015 by William O'Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Google Books is now featuring a preview of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book on resigned Major General Edwin Walker and the JFK assassination. Here's the URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=M7JYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA879&lpg=PA879&dq=dallas+morning+news++general+walker&source=bl&ots=UC4vRKVIkN&sig=rds63kRtt9FvGNpwTvrpE_pSTpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBGoVChMI1N6Nse-oxwIVyheSCh0sBgf5#v=onepage&q=dallas%20morning%20news%20%20general%20walker&f=false Best regards, --Paul Trejo Bumping this. Let me say that I'm finding Caulfield's research into the background of the southern segregationist right well worth considering, and his contention that only the right was involved in the assassination well worth contradicting. I haven't finished the excerpted material yet, but so far this seems a mixed bag worth emptying on the table. Put the onions aside - they're still good. I'm sure that when all of us have the opportunity to read the entire book, we will find things that we disagree with. 1. Sometimes, one person interprets available evidence differently (such as by giving more emphasis or credence to a particular piece of data or perhaps less credence and weight to something said/written by somebody who supposedly knows something relevant about the matter under scrutiny). 2. Sometimes (including here in EF), statements are presented as indisputably factual when, in reality, they are not. One of the most common problems that one confronts in historical narratives is that all of us come to a specific subject with different levels of understanding and our understanding sometimes can be based upon inferior or biased or questionable sources of information which we do not have the time or resources (or inclination) to verify. One time I was engaged in a debate with someone online and when I challenged something presented by my critic, he told me to google the name of the person whom we were discussing because it produced "hundreds" of "hits" that would confirm what my critic was claiming. That methodology actually was what my critic believed was appropriately reliable in order to discover "the truth"! One of the most famous examples of this phenomenon pertains to Jacob Schiff and the Russian Revolution. In his 1971 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy (page 69), Gary Allen wrote: “According to the New York Journal American of February 3, 1949: ‘Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.' " W. Cleon Skousen presented a virtually identical Schiff "quotation" in his 1970 book, The Naked Capitalist, on pages 40-41, as follows: "One American source gave Trotsky, Lenin and the other Communist leaders around twenty million dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. This was Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. The figure of twenty million dollars is cited by his grandson, John Schiff, in the New York Journal-American for February 3, 1949." And Skousen repeated this claim in his March 1971 article, entitled "Home Grown Subversion" published in Law and Order magazine. This "quotation" was widely circulated in right-wing conspiracy literature for decades. For example: 1950: Robert H. Williams: Know Your Enemy, page 14 [self-published, Santa Ana CA and reprinted by Gerald L.K. Smith's Christian Nationalist Crusade in 1950; and by Conde McGinley's Christian Educational Association in the 1960's and by Edward R. Fields's Thunderbolt newspaper (National States Rights Party), Marietta GA in the 1970's] 1970: W. Cleon Skousen: The Naked Capitalist [The Reviewer, p40-41] 1971: Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy [Concord Press, p69] 1974: Marvin J. Andleman: To Eliminate The Opiate [Zahavia, p26] 1988: James Perloff: Shadows of Power [Western Islands, p39] 1988: Larry Abraham: Call it Conspiracy [Double A Publications, p77-78] 1995: G. Edward Griffin: Creature From Jekyll Island [American Opinion, p265] However, significantly, not one of these publications ever identified the page number of the NY Journal American where this statement was supposedly made and when the FBI fact-checked the Skousen article published in Law and Order magazine, it concluded: "Review of microfilm records of the February 3, 1949 New York Journal American failed to locate any article about Jacob Schiff and possible financing of the Bolsheviks as Skousen alleges." Obviously, what happened is that this "quotation" was passed down from one decade to the next and it was accepted as genuine without anybody actually researching the original source. The reason why the FBI could not “locate any article about Jacob Schiff" in the 2/3/49 issue of the NY Journal American is because it was NOT an article! In reality, the "quotation" appears in that paper's society gossip column ["Smart Set"] which was written by an unidentified society columnist under the pseudonym of "Cholly Knickerbocker"! The actual author was Hearst columnist Igor Cassini! But this is what passed for high-quality "factual evidence" in some circles and this is the quality of "research" which people like Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen foisted upon gullible and ill-informed people. [Oh, BTW -- Gary Allen had a degree in U.S. history from Stanford University!] For a moment I thought the author was LIZ SMITH but no it was White Russian Cassini. gaal see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4555&p=221164 ============== It is via Cassini's "Cholly Knickerbocker" Hearst syndicated society columns that I found the most information on James K. Cogswell III's second wife, Joan Rice Farish. Here she is at a party at the home of Joseph F Dryer, with her husband, Parker S. Quillen, and her ex in attendance, Ralph Demers. Igor Cassini's first wife, Austine, married William Randolph Hearst, Jr, and Cassini hired Liz Smith, late 1950's to early 1960's, to ghost write his Cholly Knickerbocker column. =========================== Lots of good stuff this old thread noted above = Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:26 PM JIM ROOT http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4555&p=221400 Dgrees of separation:George Demohrenschildt's brother Demitri was closely associated with Whitney Shepardson who was the leader of Special Intelligence during WWII and a close associate of John J. McCloy. From what I can gather SI was controlled by Richard Helms when it was folded into the new CIA....Richard Helms would be monitoring the movements of Lee Harvey Oswald with FBI assets begining....when George Demohrenschildt leaves the Dallas scene shortly after the assassination attempt on Edwin Walker. Remember it was Whitney Shepardson who, in June of 1959, was gathering information for Richard Helms on prior (WWII) assets in Helsinki, Finland for what Wilho Tikander (former Stockholm Station Chief OSS) believed would be an off track intelligence operation going through Helsinki in the next few months (Oswald would be in Helsinki, October, 1959). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Funny (interesting) how Ruth has narrowed it down to the "Walker incident"... as the criteria to proclaiming LHO's guilt!? ...Hmm. Wow, that is intriguing in and of itself! Bill Well, Bill, IMHO Ruth Paine means that she presented the world with Lee Harvey Oswald's "Russian letter" to Marina regarding the Walker shooting -- and she doesn't appreciate people calling her a L-I-A-R. When you turn 82 (like Ruth Paine) would you wish to entertain interviews with people who presumed -- without a stich of evidence -- that you're a L-I-A-R? I don't know anybody who would. Yet this topic has now taken a new dimension, and I'm intrigued about your current position, Bill. Do you believe that the "Russian letter" is bogus? And if so, please say why. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) ... Let me say that I'm finding Caulfield's research into the background of the southern segregationist right well worth considering, and his contention that only the right was involved in the assassination well worth contradicting. I haven't finished the excerpted material yet, but so far this seems a mixed bag worth emptying on the table. Put the onions aside - they're still good. I'm glad, David, that you're enjoying Jeff Caufield's concentration on the resigned General Walker. Your current reading of the bare preview, however, that "only the right was involved in the contradiction," doesn't match my current reading of the bare preview. It seems to me that Jeff Caufield is painting a portrait of America in 1963, and wants to focus on the massive extent of the Rightist influence. One can easily surmise that a massive Rightist subculture in America could also influence individual CIA Officers to become rogue; or individual FBI agents to become rogue; or individual Secret Server agents to become rogue. One could hardly manipulate the City of Dallas to the extent that Jeff Caufield suggests was done by the resigned General Walker without also holding at least a few CIA, FBI and SS agents in one's pocket -- what to speak of Military Intel, DPD officers, City Hall staff and the like. The main difference from the crowd that I see in Caufield's work, is that he proposes that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and that the CIA only supplied a few rogues in a supporting role. Otherwise, I think all the pieces remain in place as proposed by most JFK researchers. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 It strikes me Marina and Ruth have only opinions to offer, not facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Lets see, now Marina will only talk to researchers about her husband's innocence in the JFK shooting - a position which has changed over time - if they are willing to discuss his attempt to shoot another person, Walker. Not the sort of behavior that would have served Lee well in court.... Well, Larry, that seems to be a one-sided approach to Marina Oswald, IMHO. Even to the Warren Commission, Marina Oswald announced that she could only draw conclusions based on the evidence that the Warren Commission allowed her to see. As most of us agree, the Warren Commission allowed the American public to see only a fraction of the available evidence, because they insisted on promoting their "Lone Shooter" theory to the world. After the Warren Commission was put into print (and deliberately withheld Senator Russell's dissenting opinion about the Single-Bullet-Theory) additional evidence was presented by WC Critics, such as Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane -- even yourself -- so naturally that would also influence Marina Oswald's conclusions. That's not a flip-flop -- that's normal under the circumstances. I continue to maintain that Marina Oswald told the truth and nothing but the truth while she was under oath. As for Ruth Paine, she is the one who presented the controversial "Russian letter" to the FBI -- so can anybody blame her for wishing (at 82 years) to restrict the number of people who would shout in her face that she's a L-I-A-R ? Please, Larry, allow me to pose the same question that I posed to Bill O'neill, namely, do you believe that the "Russian letter" is bogus? And if so, please say why. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now