Jon G. Tidd Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Tommy, You are a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think I might be "dangle"? I don't believe in the term. "Dangle" means "bait". Tell me, Tommy, what sort of intel organization uses bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Tommy, You are a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think I might be "dangle"? I don't believe in the term. "Dangle" means "bait". Tell me, Tommy, what sort of intel organization uses bait. Well, Jon, you should know. You're a conspiracy theorist, aren't you? BTW, Please tell us again when it was that the bad guys decided to frame "Odd Duck Oswald" (Harvey's wife's husband, if you prefer) because he was so ... well, ... conveniently situated for them, and because he was, after all, such ... an ... "Odd Duck," just begging to be "framed" (but not "set up", mind you). Five minutes before the assassination, or five minutes after? --Tommy Edited November 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Tommy, You are a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think I might be "dangle"? I don't believe in the term. "Dangle" means "bait". Tell me, Tommy, what sort of intel organization uses bait. Well, Jon, you should know. You're a conspiracy theorist, aren't you? BTW, Please tell us again when it was that the bad guys decided to frame "Odd Duck Oswald" (Harvey's wife's husband, if you prefer) because he was so ... well, ... conveniently situated for them, and because he was, after all, such ... an ... "Odd Duck," just begging to be "framed" (but not "set up", mind you). Five minutes before the assassination, or five minutes after? --Tommy When Victor Marchetti said LHO was a "dangle" while he was in the USSR, Marchetti meant something very specific -- he did not mean, "bait." A "dangle," in Marchetti's long explanation, was part of a large operation of several "dangles" who would report as team to merely track the coming and going of key individuals over a given geographic area -- but not necessarily interact with them. Just pinpointing their locations at specific times was valuable to the ONI program leaders. The "dangles" did not need to be geniuses -- only obedient. Also, the "dangle" operation could take years, as I recall. One had to make a commitment. (LHO admitted he remained in continual contact with the USA Embassy during his USSR period.) It seems to me that LHO broke his ONI commitment when he got Marina pregnant and brought her back to the USA on a hasty basis. (Thus his downgraded Marine discharge status.) Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 8, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 It seems to me that aside from James DiEugenio's guesswork to accuse Ruth Paine of being a CIA Agent, that nobody else here has anything resembling solid evidence to accuse Ruth Paine of framing LHO for the murder of JFK. Right? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) It seems to me that aside from James DiEugenio's guesswork to accuse Ruth Paine of being a CIA Agent, that nobody else here has anything resembling solid evidence to accuse Ruth Paine of framing LHO for the murder of JFK. Right? Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Whether you're right or wrong about that, why don't you just declare yourself "The Winner"? --Tommy Edited November 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) It seems to me that aside from James DiEugenio's guesswork to accuse Ruth Paine of being a CIA Agent, that nobody else here has anything resembling solid evidence to accuse Ruth Paine of framing LHO for the murder of JFK. Right? Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Whether you're right or wrong about that, why don't you just declare yourself "The Winner"? --Tommy No, that wouldn't be satisfactory. I want to hear what SOLID EVIDENCE that people have genuinely claimed to have against Ruth Paine after 50 years of nagging. Without the flimsy guesswork of DiEugenio/Hewett, there appear to be crickets -- only the sound of crickets. Come on, people. Surely there was more to your rancorous complaining than THAT. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 It seems to me that aside from James DiEugenio's guesswork to accuse Ruth Paine of being a CIA Agent, that nobody else here has anything resembling solid evidence to accuse Ruth Paine of framing LHO for the murder of JFK. Right? Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Whether you're right or wrong about that, why don't you just declare yourself "The Winner"? --Tommy No, that wouldn't be satisfactory. I want to hear what SOLID EVIDENCE that people have genuinely claimed to have against Ruth Paine after 50 years of nagging. Without the flimsy guesswork of DiEugenio/Hewett, there appear to be crickets -- only the sound of crickets. Come on, people. Surely there was more to your rancorous complaining than THAT. Regards, --Paul Trejo I hereby declare Paul Trejo "The Winner." --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 I hereby declare Paul Trejo "The Winner." --Tommy As usual, Tommy, it's difficult for me to tell when you're being sarcastic or not. Are you saying that you, yourself, have no solid evidence against Ruth Paine to make us believe she was part of a CIA plot to murder JFK and frame LHO for the murder? Is that your opinion? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I hereby declare Paul Trejo "The Winner." --Tommy As usual, Tommy, it's difficult for me to tell when you're being sarcastic or not. Are you saying that you, yourself, have no solid evidence against Ruth Paine to make us believe she was part of a CIA plot to murder JFK and frame LHO for the murder? Is that your opinion? Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Paul, Twist it any old way you want to. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I'm not really interested in cleverness and wise-cracks. I'm really interested in what SOLID EVIDENCE people have considered over the past 50 years to suspect Ruth Paine, the Quaker Charity Lady, of conspiring to murder JFK and frame LHO for the crime. As it turns out, everybody who has chimed into this thread has merely repeated the accusations of James DiEugenio, who bases his screed on 1990's PROBE magazine articles by Carol Hewett. I carefully showed in the past week that these accusations were so full of holes, that not one single accusation relied on one single bit of SOLID EVIDENCE. It was all guesswork, "what if" and "must have been." Very disappointing. Honestly -- is there any other source accusing Ruth Paine? I know that Jim Garrison subpoenaed Ruth Paine -- and she voluntarily responded to Jim Garrison -- even though Dallas City Hall advised her that she didn't need to go, and actually advised her not to go. But as Ruth Paine testified -- it's better to go on the record than to let people guess. Ruth Paine did that consistently over the past 50 years. At the end of Jim Garrison's hours of grilling -- he found nothing whatsoever with which to charge Ruth Paine. Well -- if that's it, then I think we should finally conclude that the slander against Ruth Paine was nothing more than slander; mere REACHING in order to try to justify one CIA-did-it fantasy with another CIA-did-it fantasy. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I'm not really interested in cleverness and wise-cracks. I'm really interested in what SOLID EVIDENCE people have considered over the past 50 years to suspect Ruth Paine, the Quaker Charity Lady, of conspiring to murder JFK and frame LHO for the crime. As it turns out, everybody who has chimed into this thread has merely repeated the accusations of James DiEugenio, who bases his screed on 1990's PROBE magazine articles by Carol Hewett. I carefully showed in the past week that these accusations were so full of holes, that not one single accusation relied on one single bit of SOLID EVIDENCE. It was all guesswork, "what if" and "must have been." Very disappointing. Honestly -- is there any other source accusing Ruth Paine? I know that Jim Garrison subpoenaed Ruth Paine -- and she voluntarily responded to Jim Garrison -- even though Dallas City Hall advised her that she didn't need to go, and actually advised her not to go. But as Ruth Paine testified -- it's better to go on the record than to let people guess. Ruth Paine did that consistently over the past 50 years. At the end of Jim Garrison's hours of grilling -- he found nothing whatsoever with which to charge Ruth Paine. Well -- if that's it, then I think we should finally conclude that the slander against Ruth Paine was nothing more than slander; mere REACHING in order to try to justify one CIA-did-it fantasy with another CIA-did-it fantasy. Regards, --Paul Trejo Well, why do you think Dallas City Hall advised her not to go? Because they were afraid she might say something that would implicate their buddy, Edwin Walker? --Tommy Edited November 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) ...I know that Jim Garrison subpoenaed Ruth Paine -- and she voluntarily responded to Jim Garrison -- even though Dallas City Hall advised her that she didn't need to go, and actually advised her not to go... Regards, --Paul Trejo Well, why do you think Dallas City Hall advised her not to go? Because they were afraid she might say something that would implicate their buddy, Edwin Walker? --Tommy Well, Tommy, IMHO Dallas City Hall was on the inside of the JFK murder. Several Dallas City employees were directly involved -- not as a City plot, but as a ROGUE plot. Still, I believe there was a creeping suspicion in the hearts of many Dallas City employees that their own people killed JFK. The last time I visited the Sixth Floor Museum they displayed a wall poster for sale, with a complex listing of more than a hundred possible suspects in the JFK murder -- but no Dallas Police were never on that list. I think that Dallas -- like most cities -- has a blind spot when it comes to self-criticism. I think that Dallas would be crushed to learn that their blame in the JFK murder goes beyond mere incompetence in the murder of JFK, the murder of JD Tippit and the murder of LHO in that two-day tragic period. I think that Dallas City Hall was just afraid of Jim Garrison, that's all. They were afraid of what he might turn up in his raging inferno. But most of Jim Garrison's "case" was bluster. Jim was really hoping that somebody on the inside would finally step out and confess. They didn't. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 James DiEugenio says that Carol Hewett is the ultimate source for his attacks on the character of Ruth Paine. Her work was seen only in PROBE magazine in the 1990's. The back issues of PROBE can all be obtained today in a CD set from CTKA online. So, I now propose to scrutinize Carol Hewett's work under a microscope. It's only fair. I just purchased the CTKA Probe magazine CD. Once it arrives, I will -- on this thread -- analyze every sentence of Carol Hewett's attacks on Ruth Paine, just as I analyzed every sentence of James' attacks on Ruth Paine. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) James DiEugenio says that Carol Hewett is the ultimate source for his attacks on the character of Ruth Paine. Her work was seen only in PROBE magazine in the 1990's. The back issues of PROBE can all be obtained today in a CD set from CTKA online. So, I now propose to scrutinize Carol Hewett's work under a microscope. It's only fair. I just purchased the CTKA Probe magazine CD. Once it arrives, I will -- on this thread -- analyze every sentence of Carol Hewett's attacks on Ruth Paine, just as I analyzed every sentence of James' attacks on Ruth Paine. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Knock yourself out. --Tommy Edited November 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 Paul, Knock yourself out. --Tommy Well, Tommy, it's ironic, actually, to hear nothing at all from anybody else against Ruth Paine, after my recent criticism of James DiEugenio's attacks on her. All the bluster gave the impression that there was "all this evidence" against Ruth Paine -- and it turns out that it's only James DiEugenio? Then, when James DiEugenio refuses to defend his screen on this thread, he starts his own thread and blames the whole thing on Carol Hewett, whom he now puts on a pedestal? Is this the final hurrah of the anti-Ruth-Paine crowd? We'll soon see. In about five days or so CKTA online will deliver my CD of all back-issues of PROBE magazine, which James DiEugenio values so highly. Then we'll see -- sentence by sentence -- the sort of alleged SOLID EVIDENCE was really being published by Carol Hewett and her quislings back in the 1990's, accusing Ruth Paine of being a CIA Agent plotting to kill JFK and to frame LHO for the crime. Regards, --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