Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

Charles Franklin Klihr was born December 29, 1930

Thanks, Ernie. Therefore, if this Klihr were alive today he'd be 85 years old. Clearly not the man in the picture shared by Andric. It might be his father, though.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 1, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - according to you my theory is 'a wet noodle'. What theory are you referring to?

According to you Caulfield's new book 'debunks all the lame CIA-did-it theories still making money in the lecture circuits out there'. What is your proof? "Bill Simpich conclusively absolves the CIA high command from a JFK plot". You repeat it over and over but when questioned you then claim it is your 'reading' of his book. As you well know Simpich would not agree with your interpretation. He was also quite clear on this board that he was 'agnostic' on the question of whether Oswald was ever in Mexico City. One thing he and others before him, such as Peter Dale Scott (who you love to put down) and John Newman, have proved is that Oswald was impersonated more than once in MC.

Anyone with a brain knows that when dealing with CIA and covert intelligence operations it's a hall of mirrors. Once again I will point out that the mole hunt which Simpich and others have documented, being run by Angleton and his operatives in MC, not only doesn't clear Angleton, it actually makes him more suspicious. It's like the layers of the onion. You just haven't peeled it far enough.

When you put down with such insulting language researchers who focus on CIA/Cuban exile/Mafia operations as the likely source for the assassination it only reveals your own agenda. And since we know by your own words what heroes you think the Dulles brothers were your prejudice is completely obvious. You then go on to praise JFK, and say by way of explaining why you care about his assassination that he was a great president and that his death precipitated the bloody Vietnam escalation. These two things are mutually contradictory. JFK was rightfully angry at A. Dulles for his insubordination, enough so to fire him. And it wasn't just because of the Bay of Pigs. I hope you read Talbot's book. (I am reading Caulfield's, which I wish was available on kindle since it weighs a ton and is very difficult to read because of that).

Then you go on to say that the jury is out on J Edgar Hoover. Really? Any one else reading this agree?

[Paul Brancato]

The point I am trying to make is that you are casting aspersions on researchers who look at Dulles Angleton Helms etc with suspicion not because they lack 'proof' but because you cannot imagine such great Americans could do such an evil deed. I don't see any of the researchers you criticize here being wedded to a theory the way you are. If I kept reading 'CIA' every time I read some researcher posting here I might get annoyed the way I get annoyed at you for taking every possible opportunity to say 'Walker'. In a way you are the worst advocate for the theory you espouse.

One mistake I truly believe you make is dividing the political landscape into too rigid demarcations. An example - why would you believe that Walker was more right wing than say Hoover? Do the public pronouncements or written words of Walker or anyone else necessarily reflect their true viewpoints? Don't actions speak louder than words? If Walker did the deed and Hoover covered it up, why would you interpret that as Hoover saving the nation from civil war? Couldn't it just as well be because there was a shared point of view? Hoover proved his racist bonafides when he tried to destroy MLK and his movement under the guise of anti-communism. That was the same excuse that the Christian racist southern whites used to justify their racism. I prefer to look at Hoover through the same lens as I would look at the white citizens councils. His actions speak very loudly. What's the distinction? Hoover kept his actual racist views to himself. So what?

The reason I don't have a problem with looking at the various possibilities of who may have been aligning with who, and who was ordering what, and who was carrying out what horrific action, is that it is perfectly clear to me that they all shared a common agenda.

[Paul Trejo]

The point I am trying to make is that you are casting aspersions on researchers who look at Dulles Angleton Helms etc with suspicion not because they lack 'proof' but because you cannot imagine such great Americans could do such an evil deed. I don't see any of the researchers you criticize here being wedded to a theory the way you are. If I kept reading 'CIA' every time I read some researcher posting here I might get annoyed the way I get annoyed at you for taking every possible opportunity to say 'Walker'. In a way you are the worst advocate for the theory you espouse.

One mistake I truly believe you make is dividing the political landscape into too rigid demarcations. An example - why would you believe that Walker was more right wing than say Hoover? Do the public pronouncements or written words of Walker or anyone else necessarily reflect their true viewpoints? Don't actions speak louder than words? If Walker did the deed and Hoover covered it up, why would you interpret that as Hoover saving the nation from civil war? Couldn't it just as well be because there was a shared point of view? Hoover proved his racist bonafides when he tried to destroy MLK and his movement under the guise of anti-communism. That was the same excuse that the Christian racist southern whites used to justify their racism. I prefer to look at Hoover through the same lens as I would look at the white citizens councils. His actions speak very loudly. What's the distinction? Hoover kept his actual racist views to himself. So what?

The reason I don't have a problem with looking at the various possibilities of who may have been aligning with who, and who was ordering what, and who was carrying out what horrific action, is that it is perfectly clear to me that they all shared a common agenda.

Well, Paul B., you and your kind want to blame Allen Dulles for the murder of JFK, but all you have to go on are "Deep Politics" and "Deep Structures" and other forms of postmodern literary bias.

You don't have justification for blaming Allen Dulles for the murder of JFK. Why not admit it?

Then, when somebody points this out to you, you react in a self-righteous manner, as if "everybody knows" that Dulles is really guilty.

Well, you haven't got any material evidence to back up your claims.

The quislings of Carol Hewett offer shabby attacks on Ruth Paine that involve Allen Dulles as the lover of Ruth Paine's mother-in-law's childhood friend. On this basis they want to blame Ruth Paine and Allen Dulles both, in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

This is just plain SILLY, as the objective reader can plainly see.

You don't have evidence, Paul B. You have bias against Allen Dulles. I've read Talbot's book, and he is very gentle with Ruth Paine. But this doesn't slow down the bias around here.

I agree solidly with Jon Tidd on this point -- we should proceed only on the basis of PROVABLE FACTS.

But the blamers of Allen Dulles don't care about those. They want to insist that LHO was an Intelligence Agent based only on bias. They want to suppose a conspiracy between Ruth Paine and Allen Dulles based only on bias.

Get over it. You have no EVIDENCE for your theory against Allen Dulles. You only have POLITICAL bias.

I'm committed to the TRUTH about Ruth Paine in this thread. Nothing is going to stop my exposition of weak theories.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Objective readers

[Greg Parker]

I agree solidly with Jon Tidd on this point -- we should proceed only on the basis of PROVABLE FACTS.

That's just rhetoric.

This case will be solved the way most cases are - on the proliferation of circumstantial evidence.

They want to insist that LHO was an Intelligence Agent based only on bias.

Who are "they"? LHO was not an agent - he was an asset/informer.

There is no bias in that assessment - there is plenty of circumstantial evidence - enough to convince a reasonable person, imo.

I'm committed to the TRUTH about Ruth Paine in this thread.

Well, let's test that out. Here's the truth.

Ruth Paine was raised in an intel family. Her and Michael's lifestyle pre-Irving and Bell Helicopter was that of the elites that their names suggested they were. Didn't need to work. Partied when not involved in "charity" and "church" activities. You know - like Est-West Contact and looking after Jewish White Russians. Showed they were class-conscious by looking down their noses at their ferrryman neighbor on Nashuon Island. All of a sudden in Irving, they go on an austerity binge and split up under false pretenses (unless you believe Mike really was treating her cruelly), Mike starts to attend various left and right wing meetings, dragging Oswald to some while Ruth takes in the ragamuffin Marina (who she would not have given the time of day to back East). Then within a week or two of Oswald's arrival in October, Ruth is involved in setting Oswald up as a commie.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, let's test that out. Here's the truth.

Ruth Paine was raised in an intel family. Her and Michael's lifestyle pre-Irving and Bell Helicopter was that of the elites that their names suggested they were. Didn't need to work. Partied when not involved in "charity" and "church" activities. You know - like Est-West Contact and looking after Jewish White Russians. Showed they were class-conscious by looking down their noses at their ferrryman neighbor on Nashuon Island. All of a sudden in Irving, they go on an austerity binge and split up under false pretenses (unless you believe Mike really was treating her cruelly), Mike starts to attend various left and right wing meetings, dragging Oswald to some while Ruth takes in the ragamuffin Marina (who she would not have given the time of day to back East). Then within a week or two of Oswald's arrival in October, Ruth is involved in setting Oswald up as a commie.

You call that the TRUTH, Greg? Why not admit this is just your biased judgment of rich people, and that you don't like rich people?

It is certainly truth that both Ruth and Michael Paine came from money. James DiEugenio calls them "Boston Brahmins." This just signifies envy of rich people.

Based on this envy of rich people, then, it appears that you and James wish to accuse the Paines of "looking down their noses" at the working class, and then "within a week or two of Oswald's arrival in October, Ruth is involved in setting Oswald up as a commie?"

Do you really believe that LHO didn't already set himself up as a Secretary of the FPCC in New Orleans under the supervision of Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street?

Do you really believe that after his FPCC episode, that Ruth Paine needed to do ANYTHING to set-up LHO as a Communist? Or that Guy Banister didn't already have that base covered?

ACTUALLY -- the only reason that people blame Ruth Paine for "setting up" LHO isn't because of anything she said or did -- but only because LHO's personal property was stored in her garage!

Out of bias people refuse to believe that Ruth Paine had no idea what LHO was storing in her garage!

It was LHO's personal property that was eventually used as OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to link LHO with the three shootings at Walker, Tippit and JFK.

Because of this simple fact, those who simply hate rich people feel they have the right to blame Ruth Paine for ignorantly storing this stuff in her garage! That's what's up here.

Now, you and I may agree that LHO didn't shoot at Tippit and JFK -- and that the JFK Conspirators got ahold of LHO's rifle to frame him for the JFK murder. But you and I clearly disagree about the Walker shooting -- the very KEY to the JFK murder.

LHO shot at General Walker in April 1963, and Ruth Paine and Michael Paine had NOTHING to do with it.

But the Backyard Photographs and the Walker photos were found there in Ruth Paine's garage. So you want to accuse Ruth Paine -- the rich lady -- of setting up LHO. After all, it was her garage!

Your case is based only on your bias, Greg. You don't have TRUTH there. You have a THEORY, and your theory has very weak evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 2, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Well, let's test that out. Here's the truth.

Ruth Paine was raised in an intel family. Her and Michael's lifestyle pre-Irving and Bell Helicopter was that of the elites that their names suggested they were. Didn't need to work. Partied when not involved in "charity" and "church" activities. You know - like Est-West Contact and looking after Jewish White Russians. Showed they were class-conscious by looking down their noses at their ferrryman neighbor on Nashuon Island. All of a sudden in Irving, they go on an austerity binge and split up under false pretenses (unless you believe Mike really was treating her cruelly), Mike starts to attend various left and right wing meetings, dragging Oswald to some while Ruth takes in the ragamuffin Marina (who she would not have given the time of day to back East). Then within a week or two of Oswald's arrival in October, Ruth is involved in setting Oswald up as a commie.

You call that the TRUTH, Greg? Why not admit this is just your biased judgment of rich people, and that you don't like rich people?

It is certainly truth that both Ruth and Michael Paine came from money. James DiEugenio calls them "Boston Brahmins." This just signifies envy of rich people.

Based on this envy of rich people, then, it appears that you and James wish to accuse the Paines of "looking down their noses" at the working class, and then "within a week or two of Oswald's arrival in October, Ruth is involved in setting Oswald up as a commie?"

Do you really believe that LHO didn't already set himself up as a Secretary of the FPCC in New Orleans under the supervision of Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street?

Do you really believe that after his FPCC episode, that Ruth Paine needed to do ANYTHING to set-up LHO as a Communist? Or that Guy Banister didn't already have that base covered?

ACTUALLY -- the only reason that people blame Ruth Paine for "setting up" LHO isn't because of anything she said or did -- but only because LHO's personal property was stored in her garage!

Out of bias people refuse to believe that Ruth Paine had no idea what LHO was storing in her garage!

It was LHO's personal property that was eventually used as OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to link LHO with the three shootings at Walker, Tippit and JFK.

Because of this simple fact, those who simply hate rich people feel they have the right to blame Ruth Paine for ignorantly storing this stuff in her garage! That's what's up here.

Now, you and I may agree that LHO didn't shoot at Tippit and JFK -- and that the JFK Conspirators got ahold of LHO's rifle to frame him for the JFK murder. But you and I clearly disagree about the Walker shooting -- the very KEY to the JFK murder.

LHO shot at General Walker in April 1963, and Ruth Paine and Michael Paine had NOTHING to do with it.

But the Backyard Photographs and the Walker photos were found there in Ruth Paine's garage. So you want to accuse Ruth Paine -- the rich lady -- of setting up LHO. After all, it was her garage!

Your case is based only on your bias, Greg. You don't have TRUTH there. You have a THEORY, and your theory has very weak evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1.Yes, I call it the truth. Every word is or will be supported by documentary evidence in one of my books.

2. Why not just admit you make your accusations up on the fly?

3. The term "Boston Brahmins" was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. and is widely used.

3a. You say "Based on this envy of rich people, then, it appears that you and James wish to accuse the Paines of "looking down their noses" at the working class," No. Pay attention. I was paraphrasing what their neighbor on Nashuon said about them. They are NOT my words, or MY thought. They are the words and thoughts of someone who suffered their snubs because of their elitism.

4. My question back at you. Who was calling the shots for Banister?

5. You say "Do you really believe that after his FPCC episode, that Ruth Paine needed to do ANYTHING to set-up LHO as a Communist?" Yep. The FBI admitted in around May of '63 that the FPCC was no longer influenced by commie or socialist groups or parties.

6. You say "ACTUALLY -- the only reason that people blame Ruth Paine for "setting up" LHO isn't because of anything she said or did..." What if I said you're wrong? No. I'll just say it. You're wrong. I have the evidence and will be publishing it. There will be no wiggle room. The only wiggling will be from the discomfort felt by Ruth and her supporters,

7. "Out of bias people refuse to believe that Ruth Paine had no idea what LHO was storing in her garage!" Too funny, The cops repeatedly said the blanket was RIFLE shaped - even empty. Were they liars? Idiots?

8. "Because of this simple fact, those who simply hate rich people feel they have the right to blame Ruth Paine for ignorantly storing this stuff in her garage! That's what's up here." No. What's up here is you struggling to find a way to attack the messenger.

9."It was LHO's personal property that was eventually used as OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to link LHO with the three shootings at Walker, Tippit and JFK." You need to do a bit more case study on what is known these days about the MO of framing an innocent party.

10. You say "Because of this simple fact, those who simply hate rich people feel they have the right to blame Ruth Paine for ignorantly storing this stuff in her garage! That's what's up here." So there it is again "hate rich people.' Repeating it over and over is not going to imbue it with veracity. It is simply not true and if you repeat it again in any future post, I will ask that you be dealt with.

11. Oswald did not own a rifle.

12. Oswald did not shoot at Gen Walker. See above.

13. Do some case study on framing innocent people.

14. Your ATTACK is based on bias. You have no clue about who I hate or why. You are just grasping at straws as you always do.

Best Regards,

--Greg R. Parker

Edited January 2, 2016 by Greg Parker

[David G. Healy]

The point I am trying to make is that you are casting aspersions on researchers who look at Dulles Angleton Helms etc with suspicion not because they lack 'proof' but because you cannot imagine such great Americans could do such an evil deed. I don't see any of the researchers you criticize here being wedded to a theory the way you are. If I kept reading 'CIA' every time I read some researcher posting here I might get annoyed the way I get annoyed at you for taking every possible opportunity to say 'Walker'. In a way you are the worst advocate for the theory you espouse.

One mistake I truly believe you make is dividing the political landscape into too rigid demarcations. An example - why would you believe that Walker was more right wing than say Hoover? Do the public pronouncements or written words of Walker or anyone else necessarily reflect their true viewpoints? Don't actions speak louder than words? If Walker did the deed and Hoover covered it up, why would you interpret that as Hoover saving the nation from civil war? Couldn't it just as well be because there was a shared point of view? Hoover proved his racist bonafides when he tried to destroy MLK and his movement under the guise of anti-communism. That was the same excuse that the Christian racist southern whites used to justify their racism. I prefer to look at Hoover through the same lens as I would look at the white citizens councils. His actions speak very loudly. What's the distinction? Hoover kept his actual racist views to himself. So what?

The reason I don't have a problem with looking at the various possibilities of who may have been aligning with who, and who was ordering what, and who was carrying out what horrific action, is that it is perfectly clear to me that they all shared a common agenda.

[...]

I agree solidly with Jon Tidd on this point -- we should proceed only on the basis of PROVABLE FACTS.

But the blamers of Allen Dulles don't care about those. They want to insist that LHO was an Intelligence Agent based only on bias. They want to suppose a conspiracy between Ruth Paine and Allen Dulles based only on bias.

Get over it. You have no EVIDENCE for your theory against Allen Dulles. You only have POLITICAL bias.

I'm committed to the TRUTH about Ruth Paine in this thread. Nothing is going to stop my exposition of weak theories.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

unfortunately (or fortunately), Jon Tidd isn't a forum content judge, nor a sitting Judicial Judge as far as I know. At present this forum is not accepting nor rejecting evidence these days (that I know of), nor, is this forum a court of law. Your strong feelings concerning RPaines sainthood might find their way into a documentary concerning the subject. Ever thought of doing one? Maybe a RPaine blog?

Dulles made his own mess[es], a free-wheeling blueblood who made his bones during WW2. And did quite a nice job of it, too. And, after all, the NY banks (merchant and otherwise), Sect'y of State, etal. demanded service. Do you concur?

Now your comment: "I'm committed to the TRUTH about Ruth Paine in this thread. Nothing is going to stop my exposition of weak theories." Should read: "I'm committed to the TRUTH in this thread. Nothing is going to stop my exposition of weak theories".

Geeeez, talk about Paine bias. LMAO!

Edited January 2, 2016 by David G. Healy

[Paul Trejo]

...Your case is based only on your bias, Greg. You don't have TRUTH there. You have a THEORY, and your theory has very weak evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1.Yes, I call it the truth. Every word is or will be supported by documentary evidence in one of my books.

2. Why not just admit you make your accusations up on the fly?

3. The term "Boston Brahmins" was coined Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. and is widely used.

3a.You say "Based on this envy of rich people, then, it appears that you and James wish to accuse the Paines of "looking down their noses" at the working class," No. Pay attention. I was paraphrasing what their neighbor on Nashuon said about them. They are NOT my words, or MY thought. They are the words and thoughts of someone who suffered their snubs because of their elitism.

4. My question back at you. You was calling the shots for Banister?

5. You say "Do you really believe that after his FPCC episode, that Ruth Paine needed to do ANYTHING to set-up LHO as a Communist?" Yep. The FBI admitted in around May of '63 that the FPCC was no longer influenced by commie or socialist groups or parties.

6. You say "ACTUALLY -- the only reason that people blame Ruth Paine for "setting up" LHO isn't because of anything she said or did..." What if I said you're wrong? No. I'll just say it. You're wrong. I have the evidence and will be publishing it. There will be no wiggle room. The only wiggling will be from the discomfort felt by Ruth and her supporters,

7. "Out of bias people refuse to believe that Ruth Paine had no idea what LHO was storing in her garage!" Too funny, The cops repeatedly said the blanket was RIFLE shaped - even empty. Were they liars? Idiots?

8. "Because of this simple fact, those who simply hate rich people feel they have the right to blame Ruth Paine for ignorantly storing this stuff in her garage! That's what's up here." MO. What's up here is you struggling to find a way to attack the messenger.

9."It was LHO's personal property that was eventually used as OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to link LHO with the three shootings at Walker, Tippit and JFK." You need to do a bit more case study on what is known these days about the MO of framing an innocent party.

10. You say "Because of this simple fact, those who simply hate rich people feel they have the right to blame Ruth Paine for ignorantly storing this stuff in her garage! That's what's up here." So there it is again "hate rich people.' Repeating it over and over is not going to imbue it with veracity. It is simply not true and if you repeat it again in any future post, I will ask that you be dealt with.

11. Oswald did not own a rifle.

12. Oswald did not shoot at Gen Walker. See above.

13. Do some case study on framing innocent people.

14. Your ATTACK is based on bias. You have no clue about who I hate or why. You are just grasping at straws as you always do.

Best Regards,

--Greg R. Parker

1. You keep saying your words WILL BE supported when you get around to writing your book. Sure, pal.

2. My criticisms of the attacks on Ruth Paine are carefully reasoned and logical.

3. Though the term "Boston Brahmins" was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. and is widely used, it is used as an insult when applied to the Paines in the context of the the JFK murder, and it shows class bias on the part of the user.

4. As for Guy Banister, Jim Garrison did one thing very well, namely, isolating Guy Banister for history. We now know that LHO was working for Guy Banister's Fake FPCC in NOLA. That is the most important clue coming out of NOLA for the JFK murder. It is PROOF that LHO was never a "Lone Nut." It is also PROOF that LHO was always a Fake Commie, but also that LHO was sheep-dipped as a Commie by those trying to make him a Patsy since April 1963, namely, Walker-Banister.

5. It just doesn't matter what the FBI said about the FPCC -- people who were inside it, like Harry Dean -- know that it was riddled with Communists, and that they funneled tons of money to Fidel Castro from 1961-1963. The CIA was out to stomp on it, and so was Guy Banister. Jim Garrison provided the PROOF.

6. I repeat: ACTUALLY -- the only reason that people blame Ruth Paine for "setting up" LHO isn't because of anything she said or did, but because of the plethora of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE found in Ruth's garage. Period. You say you will prove this wrong --- IN THE FUTURE. Yeah, sure pal.

7. The DPD were incompetent. This is proved by the death of JFK and LHO on their turf. Some of the DPD were rogues working for Walker-Banister. They also tried to frame LHO as a Commie. The blanket held LHO's rifle -- as Marina honestly said. Period.

8. You have NOTHING on Ruth Paine. I've scoured every word written by James DiEugenio and Carol Hewett on Ruth Paine and it amounts to a bunch of RUMORS and CLASS BIAS. There's not one stitch of material evidence in the entire body of work. It lacks substance and logic, and is full of errors, as I've shown. If your work is based on theirs, Greg, then you're skating on thin ice.

9. I repeat: It was LHO's personal property that was eventually used as OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to link LHO with the three shootings at Walker, Tippit and JFK. Ruth Paine had no idea what LHO kept in her garage, because she was a naive and trusting person. She paid a high price for her naivete.

10. I have no doubt, after reading all of the articles in PROBE from Carol Hewett, Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, and their imitator, James DiEugenio, that CLASS BIAS is the root of their argumentation. They were rich! They had lots of money! They were "Boston Brahmins!" They were too well-connected! On this shallow basis these writers try to forge a CIA or FBI agent out of Ruth Paine's charity to Marina Oswald, who, in March 1963, begged to be saved from LHO. It's the TRUTH.

11. YOU SAY Oswald did not own a rifle. That's a minority opinion. I guess you propose to prove that IN THE FUTURE along with all your other proofs. Sure, pal.

12. Oswald DID shoot at General Walker, as Marina testified, and as George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt testified, and as Volkmar Schmidt admitted, and as evidenced in the Backyard Photograph FAKES that LHO himself made, and by the photographs of General Walker's home, taken with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, and especially the WALKER LETTER. The solid evidence is clear to the unbiased.

13. As for framing LHO, that was done by Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier in NOLA, and by David Morales in Mexico City. You should read the Lopez-Hardway Report (2003) as well as Bill Simpich's "State Secret" (2014).

14. Your BIAS against Ruth Paine is as clear as a sky of deepest azure.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 2, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

8. You have NOTHING on Ruth Paine. I've scoured every word written by James DiEugenio and Carol Hewett on Ruth Paine and it amounts to a bunch of RUMORS and CLASS BIAS. There's not one stitch of material evidence in the entire body of work. It lacks substance and logic, and is full of errors, as I've shown. If your work is based on theirs, Greg, then you'll need lots of luck.

This particular item is in the volumes, with additional material found in various other scholarly records. You are gonna freak. And I want to be here to see it.

[Paul Brancato]

Guy Banister was no lone nut.

I never said Dulles did it - that is a straw man argument.

I have no prejudice against rich people, and doubt that others here do either. Making reference to class does not equal prejudice. Class is very real Paul, as you well know.

[Paul Trejo]

8. You have NOTHING on Ruth Paine. I've scoured every word written by James DiEugenio and Carol Hewett on Ruth Paine and it amounts to a bunch of RUMORS and CLASS BIAS. There's not one stitch of material evidence in the entire body of work. It lacks substance and logic, and is full of errors, as I've shown. If your work is based on theirs, Greg, then you'll need lots of luck.

This particular item is in the volumes, with additional material found in various other scholarly records. You are gonna freak. And I want to be here to see it.

Well, Greg, you keep saying that, but nothing ever comes forth!

I'M STILL WAITING !

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

James, you keep putting off a confrontation. You (and your protégé) keep saying that you're going to answer all these charges soon...

...Let's make this easy by pinpointing one ISSUE in particular. Carol Hewett says that Michael Paine was the source of the Houston Post article dated Sat23Nov1963, suggesting that LHO was probably Walker's Wed10Apr1963 shooter,

That's a very serious charge, James, and Carol Hewett doesn't document that serious charge. What do you say about that?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'm bumping this post because it highlights the evasiveness of both James and Greg on the urgent question of attacks on Michael and Ruth Paine.

James has said that backtracking a clerical mistake in JFK research this is equivalent to getting "caught with your pants down."

Greg has said that "making stuff up" and posting statements without support is "disgraceful."

Therefore, I ask both James and Greg about this lack of support by Carol Hewett in her article,The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998, p. 11). I quote her in full here:

In fact, one of the first published comments raising a possible association between Oswald and the Walker shooting came from none other than Michael Paine, who was quoted in the Saturday November 23rd issue of the Houston Post as suggesting that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker affair. (Hewett, Probe, 1988)

However, Ruth doesn't provide any way to confirm this important claim. NO FOOTNOTE WAS SUPPLIED. The Houston Post doesn't name Michael Paine as the source

Surely, if Michael Paine rushed to the Houston Post on the day of the JFK murder and said that LHO was also Walker's shooter, then we have a fact of historical importance. We would have a historical source for this claim which later appears in the Warren Commission as simply the "guess" of a German newspaper editor.

So, this is a serious charge. Can Carol Hewett support this claim? Or is she making stuff up?

Are James and Greg implying that Carol Hewett has been disgracefully caught with her pants down? I hope not. Anybody can make a mistake. But let's get to the truth, and let's tell the truth about Carol Hewett's relentless attacks on Michael and Ruth Paine.

Now is the time to respond to these charges.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 2, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

James, you keep putting off a confrontation. You (and your protégé) keep saying that you're going to answer all these charges soon...

...Let's make this easy by pinpointing one ISSUE in particular. Carol Hewett says that Michael Paine was the source of the Houston Post article dated Sat23Nov1963, suggesting that LHO was probably Walker's Wed10Apr1963 shooter,

That's a very serious charge, James, and Carol Hewett doesn't document that serious charge. What do you say about that?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'm bumping this post because it highlights the evasiveness of both James and Greg on the urgent question of attacks on Michael and Ruth Paine.

James has said that backtracking a clerical mistake in JFK research this is equivalent to getting "caught with your pants down."

Greg has said that "making stuff up" and posting statements without support is "disgraceful."

Therefore, I ask both James and Greg about this lack of support by Carol Hewett in her article,The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998, p. 11). I quote her in full here:

In fact, one of the first published comments raising a possible association between Oswald and the Walker shooting came from none other than Michael Paine, who was quoted in the Saturday November 23rd issue of the Houston Post as suggesting that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker affair. (Hewett, Probe, 1988)

However, Ruth doesn't provide any way to confirm this important claim. Surely, if Michael Paine rushed to the Houston Post on the day of the JFK murder and said that LHO was also Walker's shooter, then we have a historical source for this claim which later appears in the Warren Commission as simply the "guess" of a German newspaper editor.

The Houston Post doesn't name Michael Paine as their source. So, this is a serious charge. Can Carol Hewett support this claim? Or is she making stuff up?

Are James and Greg implying that Carol Hewett has been disgracefully caught with her pants down? I hope not. Anybody can make a mistake. But let's get to the truth, and let's tell the truth about Carol Hewett's relentless attacks on Michael and Ruth Paine.

Now is the time to respond to these charges.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Let's get this straight - I speak for myself and myself only. I read some of Carol's work a long time ago and found it impressive, but I was not a subscriber to Probe. Any issue you have with her has nothing to do with me. As for your charge that I keep making promises that I never make good on. That's just you blowing smoke.

I promised I would solve the Gaitan assassination. I did,

I promised I would show a connection between Youth House and CIA - and went two better by showing a connection also to the Paines and Rosenbergs,

I promised I would provide more information about Edwin Ekdahl than had ever been published before. And I did.

I promised I would show who recruited Oswald into intel and I did.

I promised I would show the most likely starting point for a false defector program and I did.

I promised I would reveal exactly what Sylvia Hoke did for the CIA and I did.

Those were the promises made and kept for the first 2 volumes.

So when I say I will show that Ruth Paine was involved in trying to set Oswald up as a commie starting from around mid-October '63, ( a ) it has nothing to do with anyone else's work on this case and ( b ) I will make good on the promise.

I will also show you what a close relative of Mike Paine did during the war because it shows what this family was really all about.

Oh.And I promise I will name the principle behind the assassination backed by extremely powerful circumstantial evidence.

This will be done pas tout de suite because all good things take time.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Stephen Roy, whom I think is more wrong than right, has written here about groupthink. I believe everyone here has a common definition of groupthink.

Paul Trejo, whose conclusions I reject, attacks groupthink. And is in turn attacked.

This place is like highschool. The most popular male becomes the homecoming king.

Good for the homecoming king.

I say the truth about the JFK assassination is far too bitter to swallow. Either today or in 1963-64. And that goes for LNers and CTers.