Ruth Paine

[David Andrews]

Does nobody have a nuance about Ruth Paine?

Please, please, please -- if you have SPECIFIC DATA about Ruth Paine's errors or other wrongs -- PLEASE SHARE THEM.

So far, I'm getting generic suspicion -- WITH NO DATA AT ALL.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As I suggested in a since-deleted post, it is time for all good men to research past Forum threads - as early as 2006 - and refute this Ruth Paine Innocence Project.

[Paul Trejo]

Does nobody have a nuance about Ruth Paine?

Please, please, please -- if you have SPECIFIC DATA about Ruth Paine's errors or other wrongs -- PLEASE SHARE THEM.

So far, I'm getting generic suspicion -- WITH NO DATA AT ALL.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As I suggested in a since-deleted post, it is time for all good men to research past Forum threads - as early as 2006 - and refute this Ruth Paine Innocence Project.

Thank you, David -- I sincerely hope that somebody steps up to your challenge.

I suspect that the hesitation to respond to you arises because when people review their files, they find RUMORS and INNUENDO and NAKED SPECULATION -- and that they are still madly searching for SPECIFIC DATA.

The only solid challenge I've heard about so far comes from James DiEugenio, who cited two pages from his second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) about Ruth Paine, which he claims are carefully researched.

I'm still waiting on delivery from Amazon.com for my copy -- and when I get it, you can be certain that within the hour those two pages will be shared with all of you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Facts do not come naturally to doctrinaire Christians of any stripe. Faith is their creed.

I'm glad that Paul T made it clear (again) that he judges veracity through his Christian lens. I suppose atheists, or undecideds like myself are just misled folks who are missing an essential piece of life's puzzle. its ironic that the 'true' church (btw Paul which one is that?) criticized as Hubris the propensity of Jewish and early Christian sects to question authority. And they ended up creating the most authoritarian organization in the history of man. One thing I learned early on - you can't really argue with 'Christians' of faith, since to them you are full of hubris if you use anything but faith to define your beliefs. And keep in mind Paul, that your namesake and mine, the man responsible for modern Christianity and the apostolic ordination you refer to, never met Jesus, and moreover was in conflict with the Jewish followers of Jesus including his brother James, on this very issue of faith. James insisted that good works were more important, Paul insisted that faith alone was the key to the kingdom.

Why the lecture? To make the point, in a round about way, that ascribing Ruth's kind actions towards Marina to her Christian beliefs suggests that only real Christians are capable of such charity. If you wish to see her as a charitable person that's fine - to claim the her Quaker beliefs prove her charity is another.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[Cliff Varnell]

A friend of mine whose interest in the subject far exceeds my own suggested I post this:

Marina Oswald told the Orleans Parish Grand Jury:

<quote on>

Juror: Do you still see Ruth Paine?

Mrs Porter: No, I like her and appreciate what she did. I was advised by
the Secret Service not to be connected with her, seems like she was...
not connected... she was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters

over there and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away.

Juror: The Secret Service told you this?

Mrs Porter: Yes

Mr Alcock: What did they say?

Mrs Porter: They didn't say anything personal about her, but they said
it's better for me to stay away from her for a while, it seemed like she
was sympathizing with CIA.

Mr Garrison: Couldn't they say she was connected to the Central
Intelligence Agency, because that's our conclusion about Ruth Paine.

Mrs Porter: I don't know if she was connected with CIA, but they told me
to stay away... Seems like she had friends over there and it would be
bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA.

Mr. Sciambra: In other words, you were left with the distinct impression
that she in some way was connected with the CIA?

Mrs Porter: Yes.

<quote off>

http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy

Edited October 23, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Glenn Nall]

Facts do not come naturally to doctrinaire Christians of any stripe. Faith is their creed.

I'm glad that Paul T made it clear (again) that he judges veracity through his Christian lens. I suppose atheists, or undecideds like myself are just misled folks who are missing an essential piece of life's puzzle. its ironic that the 'true' church (btw Paul which one is that?)

learned Christians believe that there is just one Church, which defines the body of human beings who really Believe that the empty grave is spiritual in nature and that the main problem facing human beings (death) was thereby defeated.

criticized as Hubris the propensity of Jewish and early Christian sects to question authority.

not certain to what you're referring as the True church, since to my education i don't think that it can be defined in human standards - I sincerely believe that God knows his church, and that I know I am part of it.

In any case, in many of our eyes the propensity to challenge authority is a redeemable characteristic. Remember, it was the Authorities, both Roman and Jewish, who crucified the man who promised to restore Jerusalem.

And they ended up creating the most authoritarian organization in the history of man.

what Organization is that? please understand that organized religion today is nothing like the early Christians of 65 to 160AD created. it consisted of human beings, who, to the chagrin of many, behaved like humans.

One thing I learned early on - you can't really argue with 'Christians' of faith, since to them you are full of hubris if you use anything but faith to define your beliefs.

Utterly unfair statement. I am a Christian of Faith, my faith being brought about by REAL history and REAL experience. I do not consider anyone full of hubris; in fact, i welcome a scientific and intellectual debate on the validity of Intelligent Design of our planet and of the man Jesus and whether something fantastically spiritual was at play. My Faith is mine. My intellect and education is anyone's for the taking.

And keep in mind Paul, that your namesake and mine, the man responsible for modern Christianity? WHAT? and the apostolic ordination you refer to, never met Jesus,

Paul, in fact, states otherwise.

and moreover was in conflict with the Jewish followers of Jesus including his brother James, on this very issue of faith. James insisted that good works were more important, Paul insisted that faith alone was the key to the kingdom.

Are you speaking of the 6th and 7th chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans? That's not what he says.

Why the lecture? To make the point, in a round about way, that ascribing Ruth's kind actions towards Marina to her Christian beliefs suggests that only real Christians are capable of such charity.

Sorry. No, it doesn't. It suggests that because of her spiritual stance, she would have, perhaps, more of a tendency to exhibit charity. Just like if he'd said Ruth's kind actions were because of her Muslim belief, or Hindi belief. It only suggests tendency. Nothing exclusive.

that's some pretty personal ground you tread on, Paul, for not being in any way personally invested.

[Paul Trejo]

...Why the lecture? To make the point, in a round about way, that ascribing Ruth's kind actions towards Marina to her Christian beliefs suggests that only real Christians are capable of such charity. If you wish to see her as a charitable person that's fine - to claim the her Quaker beliefs prove her charity is another.

This is ridiculous, Paul B., because you're putting screwy words into my mouth. I never said, nor would I ever say, that "only real Christians are capable of such charity."

As a Charity volunteer among the homeless myself, I work with many sects of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. When any person truly believes in God, the act of Charity naturally follows.

It doesn't matter what sect.

However, when a person is willing to QUESTION the motives of a Charity Worker, and impute Evil Intentions, or CIA murder plots, or the like, WITHOUT ANY SOLID EVIDENCE, then I am willing to consider the position suggested by Jessamyn West of Redbook, who wrote about Ruth Paine in 1964, that people who impute evil to Ruth Paine for her Charity tend to be jealous and mean-spirited, who never do Charity for others, and always suspect the motives of Charitable people.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

A friend of mine whose interest in the subject far exceeds my own suggested I post this:

Marina Oswald told the Orleans Parish Grand Jury:

Juror: Do you still see Ruth Paine?

Mrs Porter: No, I like her and appreciate what she did. I was advised by the Secret Service not to be connected with her, seems like she was...not connected... she was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away.

Juror: The Secret Service told you this?

Mrs Porter: Yes

Mr Alcock: What did they say?

Mrs Porter: They didn't say anything personal about her, but they said it's better for me to stay away from her for a while, it seemed like she was sympathizing with CIA.

Mr Garrison: Couldn't they say she was connected to the Central Intelligence Agency, because that's our conclusion about Ruth Paine.

Mrs Porter: I don't know if she was connected with CIA, but they told me to stay away... Seems like she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA.

Mr. Sciambra: In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she in some way was connected with the CIA?

Mrs Porter: Yes.

http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy

Thanks, Cliff, for the interesting bit of gossip about Ruth Paine from Jim Garrison.

Yes, the FBI and the Secret Service *both* advised Marina Oswald *continually* to stay away from Ruth Paine.

They might have even foolishly told Marina -- the young foreigner -- that Ruth Paine was "in sympathy with the CIA" in order to spook her.

Does anybody really believe that the Secret Service was *afraid* of the CIA, or afraid that anybody would be "in sympathy with the CIA"? How stupid! (I wish I could find another word for it, but I can't.)

Clearly (presuming that Marina Oswald was telling the truth), the Secret Service was playing with Marina Oswald's mind.

Most likely, because JFK had just been killed under the watch of the fumbling Secret Service, and they were now on the hook, they merely chose to reduce the "footprint" of the people they were responsible for.

It made their work much easier to just keep Marina and Ruth apart. Marina was basically under house-arrest, and that's they way the Secret Service liked it.

(Also, Marina's business managers liked it that way -- they didn't want Ruth to share in their big profits for their big movie about Marina Oswald. Also, Robert Oswald liked it that way -- since he was having a love affair with Marina Oswald at the time. What a mess.)

Jim Garrison, for his part, was hot to pin a CIA connection on *anybody*. Notice how Garrison tried to get Marina to say that Ruth Paine was CONNECTED to the CIA, but Marina refused to go there.

The benign explanation for this trivial exchange is intuitively obvious to the objective observer.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks, Cliff, for the interesting bit of gossip about Ruth Paine from Jim Garrison.

No prob.

My take on the Oswald Assassination vs. the Kennedy Assassination is that both were pulled off by discrete factions within the national security state.

I don't see those who pulled off the Oswald Assassination as being the same folks who pulled off the murder of JFK -- except at the very top.

Connections to Oswald made certain CIA types (MEXI, the CIA station in Mexico City, for instance) potential fall guys for the killing of Jack Kennedy -- while other guys with CIA connections (the OSS-Burma "old China hands," for instance) got away with murder, untouchable.

Or so I'd speculate...

[Paul Trejo]

My take on the Oswald Assassination vs. the Kennedy Assassination is that both were pulled off by discrete factions within the national security state.

I don't see those who pulled off the Oswald Assassination as being the same folks who pulled off the murder of JFK -- except at the very top.

Connections to Oswald made certain CIA types (MEXI, the CIA station in Mexico City, for instance) potential fall guys for the killing of Jack Kennedy -- while other guys with CIA connections (the OSS-Burma "old China hands," for instance) got away with murder, untouchable.

Or so I'd speculate...

Well, Cliff, your speculations are in line with the majority of CTers worldwide, IMHO.

Yet these are high-level abstractions (or Deep Structures) that never get down to the Ground Crew.

Tracking the Ground Crew (e.g. like Jeffrey Caufield in his new book on Walker and JFK) is the more likely method of actually identifying the JFK Kill Team.

As for the LHO murder -- it seems to me it was planned along with the JFK murder. It seems to me that precisely because LHO tried to kill General Walker -- he had to become the Patsy in General Walker's plot.

Joseph Milteer was also involved -- as was Robert Allen Surrey -- both connected to Nazi, Anti-Semite movements in the USA, and they worked to blame Jews for both sides of the murder: Bernard Weissman for the "Black Bordered Ad" for JFK, and Jack Ruby for the hit on LHO.

As Joseph Milteer told Willie Somersett as soon as LHO was murdered, "That makes everything perfect now! The Jews killed Kennedy and the Jews killed Oswald! Now we have no worry!"

In this way, Jeff Caufield's fresh, new CT gets down to the GROUND CREW.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, Cliff, your speculations are in line with the majority of CTers worldwide, IMHO.

I don't see it that way at all.

Most people who study the Oswald Assassination think they're studying the JFK assassination.

Just ask Jim DiEugenio...and many many others...

[Paul Brancato]

Robert Oswald was having an affair with Marina while she was in secret service custody? News to me...

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I honor and accept what it means to you to be a Christian, and doing good works as you do is wonderful charity. Sorry you felt personally attacked. However the fact that Ruth is a Quaker isn't meaningful in the context of this discussion. If you were to say simply that you would find it hard to imagine any Quaker being involved in so heinous a crime I could sympathize. But of course you go too far and state with authority that she was good through and through and was only practicing Christian charity.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I honor and accept what it means to you to be a Christian, and doing good works as you do is wonderful charity. Sorry you felt personally attacked. However the fact that Ruth is a Quaker isn't meaningful in the context of this discussion. If you were to say simply that you would find it hard to imagine any Quaker being involved in so heinous a crime I could sympathize. But of course you go too far and state with authority that she was good through and through and was only practicing Christian charity.

All I'm saying, Paul B., is that if you want to accuse Ruth Paine the Quaker Charity Lady of something evil -- then you should bring some truly solid evidence to the table. Otherwise, it looks morally backward to me.

Why are actual crimes -- real specific evidence -- continually evaded by contributors here? Why are generic suspicions considered enough to convince all readers?

Giving contributors here the benefit of the doubt, I can only surmise that they believe strongly in their "authorities" and that their "authorities" have been telling them for years that they have "solid evidence" against Ruth Paine. So, the contributors here probably keep expecting that sooner or later somebody will present this "solid evidence" in this thread, and then Paul Trejo will see the light.

But I keep waiting and waiting.

I can hardly wait for James DiEugenio's 2012 edition of Destiny Betrayed to arrive, so that I can finally see this "carefully researched" case against Ruth Paine. Maybe everybody else here is expecting that, too. Yet again -- my criterion will remain the same -- I expect some truly solid evidence on the table...Otherwise...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Robert Oswald was having an affair with Marina while she was in secret service custody? News to me...

I first read this in the 2002 book by Thomas Mallon, entitled, Mrs. Paine's Garage.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Paul Brancato, on 23 Oct 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

Robert Oswald was having an affair with Marina while she was in secret service custody? News to me...

I first read this in the 2002 book by Thomas Mallon, entitled, Mrs. Paine's Garage.

Which probably says a lot for that book and Mrs. "Holier than Thou" Paine's endorsement of the same.

The rumor seems to have been started by Judyth V.B. and then Martin, Marina's jilted business manager, piled on. All this despite the fact that Robert was seemingly happily married at the time. Vada, Robert's wife described in detail how Marina ended the relationship with Martin to the FBI in April 1964, and no mention of her husband's supposed dalliance.

Show me the "facts".