Ruth Paine

[Tom Wilson]

Paul

Thanks for accepting my apology. I, like most are passionate about the assassination and sometimes get wound up and I will do better.

I have read most everything you have posted about General Walker and your theory. You may well be right. I just have another opinion. I believe that the murder was committed by CIA folks and that the motive was Vietnam.

I just don't believe the cover-up than ensued could have or would have been carried out to cover up a right wing hit.

I think generally that when you look at everything, the finger prints of Dulles, Angleton, Helms, Hunt and Phillips touch every facet of the case.

Having said that, I am open to any information that will give us the truth. I just remember at 14 watching TV that weekend with my dad and we just kept saying something wasn't right.

Best wishes

Tom

[Greg Parker]

Paul T

I never post on the forum anymore, at least since I complemented James D on Destiny Betrayed but you are not listening. No one agrees with you on the Paines, just give it up will you!

You made your point months ago.

If you love Ruth Paine then we get it.

Enough is enough!!!!

------

Paul T

After thinking about this more, I apologize. Your opinion is as valuable as is those of others.

Thanks, Tom, for taking back your original harsh words.

I realize I haven't got many fans on this thread -- but I do have 20,000 hits, so I'm confident that some people are reading it.

It's not that I love Ruth Paine, it's just that I hate to see anybody get trashed on such weak evidence as Carol Hewett and her followers have published.

Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who was the lover of Allen Dulles -- therefore Ruth Paine must be a CIA Agent who plotted to kill JFK and blame LHO for it?! It's offensive to common sense to see that sort of pseudo-reasoning!

The only reason people would push such nonsense so hard is because their minds are made up that the CIA killed JFK, and so they try to "prove" it by making stuff up, and any little tidbit sets them off.

Well, I believe in a JFK conspiracy, Tom, but I don't believe the CIA did it. So, I'm free from the nonsense that it spawns. I can back away from the Carol Hewett baloney -- which is obvious baloney when you review it objectively -- and I can begin a real focus on General Walker and Robert Allen Surrey, on Roscoe White and Joseph Milteer.

The Carol Hewett nonsense is a DISTRACTION from the real culprits, IMHO. I'm a CTer. But I realize I disagree with 95% of CTers.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Can you tell me who these "followers" of Carol Hewett are please? I do recall reading some of hers (and Steve Jones') articles years ago and thinking they were pretty good - but I wouldn't know her if I fell over her, probably only read a fraction of her total output and would need reminding of the exact contents.

Your attempts to turn someone's name into a pejorative term that can be used to smear by assumed or fake association are a hallmark of your posting and debating style.

regards

~Greg

[Paul Brancato]

Tom - you articulated precisely what I believe. I've made many of those exact points in objecting to Trejo's theory. I'm sure he will chime in soon and explain how it was that Hoover, Dulles et al and company saved the country from civil war. I agree with you - the idea that our leaders covered up the conspiracy on the right because they were worried about a new civil war is so much less believable than your idea. Btw, we share the same thoughts about that first weekend with its horrific punctuation point.

[James DiEugenio]

I am glad you noticed the following Greg:

and you tell me who these "followers" of Carol Hewett are please? I do recall reading some of hers (and Steve Jones') articles years ago and thinking they were pretty good - but I wouldn't know her if I fell over her, probably only read a fraction of her total output and would need reminding of the exact contents.

Your attempts to turn someone's name into a pejorative term that can be used to smear by assumed or fake association are a hallmark of your posting and debating style.

Trejo has made this into an art form. Its not going to work.

[Greg Parker]

I am glad you noticed the following Greg:

and you tell me who these "followers" of Carol Hewett are please? I do recall reading some of hers (and Steve Jones') articles years ago and thinking they were pretty good - but I wouldn't know her if I fell over her, probably only read a fraction of her total output and would need reminding of the exact contents.

Your attempts to turn someone's name into a pejorative term that can be used to smear by assumed or fake association are a hallmark of your posting and debating style.

Trejo has made this into an art form. Its not going to work.

The only good to come out of it is you revealing some of the Carol Hewett story.

If he continues down this track, I believe he needs to be dealt with. And one way or another, he will be.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

Paul

Thanks for accepting my apology. I, like most are passionate about the assassination and sometimes get wound up and I will do better.

I have read most everything you have posted about General Walker and your theory. You may well be right. I just have another opinion. I believe that the murder was committed by CIA folks and that the motive was Vietnam.

I just don't believe the cover-up than ensued could have or would have been carried out to cover up a right wing hit.

I think generally that when you look at everything, the finger prints of Dulles, Angleton, Helms, Hunt and Phillips touch every facet of the case.

Having said that, I am open to any information that will give us the truth. I just remember at 14 watching TV that weekend with my dad and we just kept saying something wasn't right.

Best wishes

Tom

Tom,

Like perhaps most CTers after Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK, I also connected the murder of JFK to the Vietnam War and the "Military-Industrial Complex". But that wasn't enough -- because the "Military Industrial Complex" can survive a lot of Washington politics, thank you.

So, we needed to add the element of the CIA, because of their great secrecy, and also because of their expertise in assassinations, as personified in David Morales. If we add all this together, the theory seems pat.

But it's a little too pat, I've come to believe. It's very easy to stand on this theory, or even double-down as many are doing in the 21st century -- but the evidence doesn't support it. Of course, one can always fall back on the great secrecy of the CIA.

What's unsatisfying to me is that the Lone Nut LHO gained ascendancy over the Communist LHO. Now, IMHO, if the CIA had killed JFK, they would have promoted a Communist LHO, just like Guy Banister, who spent months sheep-dipping LHO. And just like David Morales, whose crew *impersonated* LHO in the Mexico City Cuban Consulate on October 1, 1963 (after LHO had already left town).

Also, FBI Agent Don Adams swore that Willie Somersett had the best clues, starting with Joseph Milteer. Now, Milteer wasn't with the CIA.

Also, the folks that Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen have identified as CIA people, were mostly *not* with the CIA, and that includes David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Tom Beckham, as well as Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, John Martino and that lot.

Yes, they sometimes worked for the CIA in short-term contracts to try to assassinate Fidel Castro -- but they weren't really CIA agents. They were mercenaries who would work for ANYBODY on the Right Wing, with enough cash to cover their expenses. Including General Walker, the JBS and the Minutemen and that lot.

Also, the folks who eventually confessed to some role in the JFK assassination tended to be the folks identified by Jim Garrison -- not the CIA, with two important exceptions, David Morales and Howard Hunt. Yet Howard Hunt told his son that he was "on the sidelines". David Morales was more boastful about it -- but then we got a special delivery in 2014 by the brilliant CT researcher, Bill Simpich.

Bill Simpich's free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) proves beyond any doubt that I can see, that there was a CIA Mole Hunt to try to discover what MOLE inside the CIA had impersonated LHO in Mexico City over the most wire-tapped phone in the world at the time.

The obvious conclusion, IMHO (not shared by many, to my surprise) is that the CIA high-command started this Mole Hunt because they had no idea who this MOLE truly was. I think Bill Simpich is correct when he guesses it was David Morales. But, IMHO, that would mean that Morales was off the reservation, and acting as a ROGUE. This, then, points to a Civilian Plot, and not a CIA plot.

So, in gathering up the available evidence against General Walker and his Right Wing goon squad in Dallas, Texas, a clearer theory emerges, IMHO. All the people named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellon are ALSO named by General Walker and his boys, including Joseph Milteer.

Finally, insofar as the CIA might not have been the killers of JFK, then I think we're not spending enough time researching General Walker, while some folks are still trying to prove, like Carol Hewett and her followers (like Steve Jones, Barbara LaMonica and James DiEugenio), using truly flimsy evidence, that Ruth Paine was part of a CIA plot to kill JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 24, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

Tom - you articulated precisely what I believe. I've made many of those exact points in objecting to Trejo's theory. I'm sure he will chime in soon and explain how it was that Hoover, Dulles et al and company saved the country from civil war. I agree with you - the idea that our leaders covered up the conspiracy on the right because they were worried about a new civil war is so much less believable than your idea. Btw, we share the same thoughts about that first weekend with its horrific punctuation point.

Agreed, this is a point Paul T. mistakenly makes over and over again. But it's a fallacy, and it ignores the context of the 60's.

Paul T., despite the revisionist media articles you may have read about the 60's, tauting the Goldwater republican candidacy being the start of the modern conservative movement, the 60's was a leftist decade, the last one since. Both houses were overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats for the entire decade. Nixon was elected on a fluke, by the riots in Chicago, at the Democratic convention in 1968, where the left clearly shot itself in the foot, or there wouldn't have even been a enlected Republican president for the entire decade.

If the Kennedy assassination conspiracy was revealed to have been fomented by General Walker and his assorted group of rednecks, as you assert, the left would have gotten their small pound of flesh and outside a more vigorous prosecution for white hate crimes, that would have been the end of it. No politicians from that time would be afraid of an all out left right war. Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent. Sure there was the JBS, and some Texas millionaires, but the organized right civilian resistance was largely a segregationist movement in the South. Your motive for all this involved government cover up, to protect this one disillusioned general, is completely at odds with the historic facts on the ground.

[Paul Trejo]

...

Paul T., despite the revisionist media articles you may have read about the 60's, tauting the Goldwater republican candidacy being the start of the modern conservative movement, the 60's was a leftist decade, the last one since.

Both houses were overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats for the entire decade. Nixon was elected on a fluke, by the riots in Chicago, at the Democratic convention in 1968, where the left clearly shot itself in the foot, or there wouldn't have even been an elected Republican president for the entire decade.

If the Kennedy assassination conspiracy was revealed to have been fomented by General Walker and his assorted group of rednecks, as you assert, the left would have gotten their small pound of flesh and outside a more vigorous prosecution for white hate crimes, that would have been the end of it. No politicians from that time would be afraid of an all out left right war.

Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent. Sure there was the JBS, and some Texas millionaires, but the organized right civilian resistance was largely a segregationist movement in the South.

Your motive for all this involved government cover up, to protect this one disillusioned general, is completely at odds with the historic facts on the ground.

Thanks, Kirk, for the political discussion. You make some interesting political points, but IMHO they are slanted a bit to the left.

The 60's were only leftist in a relative way -- JFK spoke about letting the Vietnamese fighting their own war, but JFK also spoke about helping the South Vietnamese so that the "dominos" would stop falling. JFK was liberal, but he was also super-rich, and there was nothing socialist about JFK.

Although both houses of Congress were overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats for the entire decade -- we still invaded Vietnam during that time. So it's just too one-sided to call the 1960's "leftist."

The torch of the leftist movement in the USA was passed to LBJ, who brilliantly passed JFK's Civil Rights Bill. The murder of JFK all but guaranteed its passage. After MLK was murdered in cold blood, it was only a matter of time before he would be honored with his own national holiday.

However, Nixon was elected because LBJ bowed out, thank you very much. LBJ probably would have won reelection -- but LBJ stopped believing in himself.

If the Truth about JFK murder -- that he was killed by the Radical Right -- was revealed to America, you claim that "the left would have gotten their small pound of flesh," and you conclude that "that would have been the end of it."

I completely disagree. You say, Kirk, that "No politicians from that time would be afraid of an all out left right war." Your view is myopic -- its focus is strictly on the USA, without considering the USSR in the equation. The Cold War was still as white-hot as the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the fight was strictly in the USA, then it could have been resolved quickly, as you suggest. However, the entire planet was involved -- with the USSR looming large.

If the Left had gone after the Minutemen on the Right-wing (who were massively well armed, including military grade equipment) the FBI would have needed more help -- and the Coast Guard would have not been enough. Riots in the streets were plausible -- but this was during the Cold War!

Is there really any doubt that the USSR would have been tempted to get involved? That the CPUSA would have made a grandstand of it? That this would have energized the Radical Right to another extreme level? Don't underestimate the Minutemen of the 1960's, please, Kirk.

The situation could have easily spun out of control as the USSR interfered in USA Civil strife, and so a new US Civil War was not entirely out of the question.

You also write: "Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent." Excuse me?!

It was only a few months before JFK was murdered, that Medgar Evars was shot in the back in his driveway in Mississippi. It was only a couple more years after JFK was murdered that MLK was also murdered in cold blood. The Civil Rights Movement in the South was non-violent? Nonsense.

I do agree with you that the organized Right civilian resistance was largely a segregationist movement in the South -- but that is precisely the point of the Conspiracy Theory of General Walker in the JFK murder. General Walker was a segregationist! So was Guy Banister! So was David Ferrie! So was Joseph Milteer!

You try to minimize my political vision by reducing everything down to "this one disillusioned general." But your effort is completely at odds with the historic facts, Kirk, because the Radical Right in the USA in 1963 was far larger, and far more dangerous than you're making it.

I refer you to Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of JFK: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 24, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Is there an off switch somewhere?

[Paul Trejo]

Is there an off switch somewhere?

Yes, Greg, you simply go away.

Bye,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Is there an off switch somewhere?

Yes, Greg, you simply go away.

Bye,

--Paul Trejo

Very childlike solution. If you can't see it, it's not there.

[Paul Trejo]

Is there an off switch somewhere?

Yes, Greg, you simply go away.

Bye,

--Paul Trejo

Very childlike solution. If you can't see it, it's not there.

What are you getting at, Greg? Just spell it out. You can do it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

I did. I want someone to flip your off switch. You seem to go 24/7, You must be exhausted.

[Paul Trejo]

I did. I want someone to flip your off switch. You seem to go 24/7, You must be exhausted.

Ah, that's what you meant. OK, I get it now. See, Greg, you try to be clever, but sometimes you're just unclear.

OK, well, no, I'm not exhausted, but thanks for asking.

Why do I seem to have so much energy? Because I'm on a mission of Morality.

See, I believe that all those JFK CTers who publicly attack Ruth Paine, accusing her of plotting with the CIA to murder JFK are guilty of Immoral behavior.

These CTers attack a Quaker who was engaged in Charity -- accusing her of Conspiracy to Murder JFK. That's just morally wrong.

So, I'm here to right a wrong. It's a matter of Ethics and Morality. Also, I have plenty of patience. Years if necessary.

When will I stop? When I get one of two outcomes:

(1) Irrefutable Material Evidence that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent involved in a Conspiracy to Murder JFK; or

(2) When I get a PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR RUTH PAINE.

And not before.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 25, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul Trejo said:

The 60's were only leftist in a relative way -- JFK spoke about letting the Vietnamese fighting their own war, but JFK also spoke about helping the South Vietnamese so that the "dominos" would stop falling. JFK was liberal, but he was also super-rich, and there was nothing socialist about JFK.

Ok,

Perhaps the word "leftist" could be misconstrued. ( Though it was a period of big government) But I didn't say Socialist, you did. Your response is neither here nor there. I'm talking about the movements of people, not about John Kennedy's personal political views.

All the movements of people in the 60's were in place before Kennedy even got elected. For example, Do you think MLK thought Kennedy was enough into Civil rights? Do you know they were at odds?

Do you really think Kennedy had anything to do with the civil rights movement? Outside of one good speech, he tried to avoid dealing with it at all costs and only confronted it when he had to. Did Kennedy have anything to do with the Free Speech movement? Understandably no. And Kennedy had already died before the anti Viet Nam war movement.

However, Nixon was elected because LBJ bowed out, thank you very much.

No Paul,...thank you. You just illustrated my point that Nixon's election was a fluke. You can extend that further, and also say if RFK hadn't been assassinated, Nixon never would have been elected.

Your view is myopic -- its focus is strictly on the USA, without considering the USSR in the equation. The Cold War was still as white-hot as the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the fight was strictly in the USA, then it could have been resolved quickly, as you suggest. However, the entire planet was involved -- with the USSR looming large.

Talk about Russian warmongering! About the only other person who would share your viewpoint on that would be Walker himself. Do you realize it was OUR military and intelligence who approached Kennedy about launching a first strike against the Russians while we still had clear missile superiority? Talk about myopic!

Is there really any doubt that the USSR would have been tempted to get involved? That the CPUSA would have made a grandstand of it? That this would have energized the Radical Right to another extreme level?

Is there really any doubt??? Is that called Bravado Paul? In one word: yes! IMO, you're world wide apocalyptic view of General Walker being brought to justice is totally bananas!

If the Left had gone after the Minutemen on the Right-wing (who were massively well armed, including military grade equipment) the FBI would have needed more help -- and the Coast Guard would have not been enough. Riots in the streets were plausible -- but this was during the Cold War!

If the left had gone after the right wing??? And what do mean by the left? Martin Luther King and his non violent protesters? There were no radical student groups before the Viet Nam War. Who specifically are you talking about in this war you were projecting?

Don't underestimate the Minutemen of the 1960's, please, Kirk.

Don't underestimate the power of the American military, Paul. The minutemen would squashed out like a toad on the road.

You also write: "Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent." Excuse me?!

It was only a few months before JFK was murdered, that Medgar Evars was shot in the back in his driveway in Mississippi. It was only a couple more years after JFK was murdered that MLK was also murdered in cold blood. The Civil Rights Movement in the South was non-violent? Nonsense.

I think you better check you scorecard Paul. Do you understand that General Walker, the KKK and the various other White Supremacist groups are not part of the Civil Rights movement?

With all due respect Paul, I like some of your diggings. But If Caulfield's book veer into these contrived, paranoid right wing apocalyptic visions you enumerate here. I think I'll pass on it.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Kirk Gallaway