Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Real Ruth and Michael Paine


Recommended Posts

By the way, quantity in no way should be confused with quality. Just because you have read every bit of testimony of Marina and Ruth does not mean you understand them better. It doesn't make you more objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 651
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By the way, quantity in no way should be confused with quality. Just because you have read every bit of testimony of Marina and Ruth does not mean you understand them better. It doesn't make you more objective.

That's basically true -- I might have made some mistake here or there -- HOWEVER, I can say with certainty that people who are too lazy to read all of Ruth Paine's testimony are in NO POSITION to know what they're talking about, because they don't know what they're missing.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul B.,

I agree.

I don't believe Ruth Paine had anything to do with the cover-up. Hoover found her a pest.

As for the framing of Oswald, I've got an open mind.

Ruth is hard to read pre-assassination and post-assassination.

Pre-assassination, she appears to want to be close to Marina. And she she appears (driving lessons, etc.) not to be hostile to Lee. Post-assassination it's another matter. She has nothing good to say about Lee.

Truth is, if I had my way, I'd examine Ruth under oath.

But that would be pointless. She's old and fragile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul B.,

I agree.

I don't believe Ruth Paine had anything to do with the cover-up. Hoover found her a pest.

As for the framing of Oswald, I've got an open mind.

Ruth is hard to read pre-assassination and post-assassination.

Pre-assassination, she appears to want to be close to Marina. And she she appears (driving lessons, etc.) not to be hostile to Lee. Post-assassination it's another matter. She has nothing good to say about Lee.

Truth is, if I had my way, I'd examine Ruth under oath.

But that would be pointless. She's old and fragile.

Well, Jon, I can say with certainty that Ruth Paine is as lucid as you are today. She's probably better educated, too.

Ruth Paine will still entertain interviews, but she's picky about the interviewers -- she no longer has patience with Blind Accusers.

Ruth Paine is very logical to demand that whoever wishes to interview her MUST FIRST read all of her Warren Commission testimony. All of it.

Then, they MUST NEXT read all of her Jim Garrison Grand Jury testimony. All of it.

Otherwise, don't bother trying to contact her. She no longer suffers fools gladly.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure looks blue.

Add to the long list of things leading to suspicions about the Paines the fact that their tax records are still being withheld.

Umm, you guys really don't want to jump to conclusions based on a Photoshop image -- do you?

We haven't sunk that low.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Treo,

You aren't becoming an alterationist are you?

Where's the photoshopped image?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure looks blue.

Add to the long list of things leading to suspicions about the Paines the fact that their tax records are still being withheld.

Umm, you guys really don't want to jump to conclusions based on a Photoshop image -- do you?

We haven't sunk that low.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Treo,

You aren't becoming an alterationist are you?

Where's the photoshopped image?

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, let's take a closer look, shall we?

Let's start with the WC testimony of Ruth Paine of March 19, 1964 (vol. II, p. 475)

Mr. JENNER. Describe your automobile, will you please?

Mrs. PAINE. It is a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon, green, needing paint, which we bought secondhand. It is in my name.

So, there's the fact under consideration. Her station wagon was green.

OK, now let's look at the photograph that you presented -- where the colors are so BRIGHT, and the grass is super-green, the sky is super-blue, and her slacks seem to be an ultra-bright green, so the colors are, IMHO, enhanced beyond the average.

That sort of colorization allows one -- if one wishes -- to take a light-green automobile and tweak it to make it appear to be a light-blue automobile.

It's a photograph, for goodness sake.

So, yes, in that photograph that you presented Tommy, her station wagon DOES look light-blue. But that's just a photograph.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure looks blue.

Add to the long list of things leading to suspicions about the Paines the fact that their tax records are still being withheld.

Umm, you guys really don't want to jump to conclusions based on a Photoshop image -- do you?

We haven't sunk that low.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Treo,

You aren't becoming an alterationist are you?

Where's the photoshopped image?

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, let's take a closer look, shall we?

Let's start with the WC testimony of Ruth Paine of March 19, 1964 (vol. II, p. 475)

Mr. JENNER. Describe your automobile, will you please?

Mrs. PAINE. It is a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon, green, needing paint, which we bought secondhand. It is in my name.

So, there's the fact under consideration. Her station wagon was green.

OK, now let's look at the photograph that you presented -- where the colors are so BRIGHT, and the grass is super-green, and the sky is super-blue, and the colors are, IMHO, enhanced beyond the average.

That sort of colorization allows one -- if one wishes -- to take a light-green automobile and tweak it to make it appear to be a light-blue automobile.

It's a photograph, for goodness sake.

So, yes, in that photograph that you presented Tommy, her station wagon DOES look light-blue. But that's just a photograph.

See my point?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Trejo,

Did you look at the car in the pinterest link I provided? Probably not

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/504614333224648831/

Did Ruth have her car painted blue after the assassination? Maybe

Did 1955 Chevrolet "Bel Air" station wagons come with a luggage rack? No

How did Roger Craig know that the getaway station wagon was a Rambler station wagon? Because it had a luggage rack at the back of the roof.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Ruth has read it all and has decided the LHO was guilty. Not very impressive.

No, Paul B., I don't know where you get your information, but since you're biased against Ruth Paine, you aren't really qualified to speak for her.

Ruth Paine is still open to a convincing CT -- but she hasn't seen one, yet.

Ruth Paine continually said, throughout her testimony, that she didn't think LHO was the shooter, and she couldn't see what shooting JFK would gain for him. Michael Paine said the same thing.

However, the Paines had no answer to the FBI and the WC attorneys who presented so much circumstantial evidence against LHO. They were speechless.

In that secretly wire-tapped phone call from Michael Paine to Ruth Paine on the afternoon of 11/22/1963 (which nobody has taken credit for, BTW, but which Ruth Paine admits is genuine), Michael Paine said to Ruth Paine, "LHO will be blamed for this, but we both know who is truly responsible."

Ruth Paine was asked point blank what they meant by that, and she promptly replied, "We were talking about the people, whoever they were, who published the WANTED:JFK handbills, and the WELCOME MISTER KENNEDY black-bordered Ad in the DMV that morning."

Actually, the Paines were right. The WC testimony demonstrates that Robert Allen Surrey, the man whose office was inside General Walker's home on Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas, was part of the JBS plot to produce both of those historical artifacts of the JFK assassination.

IMHO, this is why Jack Ruby told Earl Warren, "...Chief Justice Warren...Bill Decker says be man and say it...there is a John Birch Society here in Dallas, and General Walker is one of the top men in the organization -- take it for what it is worth..."

But just out of plain bias, these historical facts just zoom right over the heads of the CIA-did-it CTers.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because none of us believe the Paines like you do.

So, If I make a list of all the suspicious things her and Mike were a part of, I could then write:

And none of this makes a bit of differences to the PT Cruiser.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because none of us believe the Paines like you do.

So, If I make a list of all the suspicious things her and Mike were a part of, I could then write:

And none of this makes a bit of differences to the PT Cruiser.

So, James, you're simply biased against the Paines yourself. I've read your attacks of them in the second edition of our book, Destiny Betrayed (2012) and you borrowed your ideas entirely from Carol Hewett and her Probe magazine followers.

But in my Ruth Paine thread on this FORUM I've completely debunked all of her weak arguments against the Paines. She wasn't very careful, e.g. she thought that Ruth's October 14th letter to her mother should have mentioned something about the November 9th Embassy Letter!

That's the kind of scholarship that the anti-Paine school has around here!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, all you have is guesswork, Ed,"

And here I was being accused of 'guessing', when all Trejo had were guesses.

Want to discuss furnishings of Lee's and Marina's, since your 'baby' got thrown out with the bath water?

Of interest is the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee And Marina, even at the questioning not once did Marina say they had furniture, for the baby, themselves, the apt. or otherwise and as such would not need to be in that store. They were looking at a kids bed.

And this just makes your claims questionable,

Oswald attempted to get his wife to come back and, over Bouhe's protest, De Mohrenschildt finally told him where she was. De Mohrenschildt admitted that:

if somebody did that to me, a lousy trick like that, to take my wife away,
and all the furniture
, I would be mad as hell, too. I am surprised that he didn't do something worse.253

Paul , that's from Chapter Seven of your favorite book the warren-commission-report.

And that crib theory you had...

Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

So crib did break down? It could fit in a trunk or on a roof of a car.

Hmm, seems you were mistaken no matter which way you fold it.

Cheerio Trejo

Well, Ed, you're still trying to be clever -- but the information you provide is still very skinny.

You seize upon somebody's random use of the word "furniture", but when you look closer, all they describe is a baby crib.

But that was my whole point. The largest "furnishings" that the Oswalds ever had was a "baby crib" which some people call a "baby bed."

NO OTHER FURNITURE of the Oswalds was EVER DESCRIBED -- EVER.

And all the evidence that you scrape up, from anywhere, Ed, only serves to make my case stronger.

You've got NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to contradict my material observations.

The Oswalds had a baby crib. George Bouhe bought it for Marina Oswald. LHO threatened to smash it.

That's it!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Shall we see about your above claims?

Well, Ed, you're still trying to be clever -- but the information you provide is still very skinny. ~ Trejo

Mr. RANKIN. After you were married did you go to live in your husband's apartment there?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you buy any new furniture?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

I am starting to pity you Mr. T

Mr. JENNER. I am just trying to get these two events. Marina recalls when they lived on Elsbeth Street she had a dispute with Lee, and--about her Russian friends, in which he said, "Well, if you like your friends so much, then go ahead and live with them."

And she said that left her no choice, so she got in a cab and went over to Anna Meller's house with the baby.

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Oh, that is how she described it.

Mr. JENNER. She was there a week.

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. That was the second time? What month was it?

Mr. JENNER. I don't know.

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, we took her there. But maybe she went there for the second time, you see.

Mr. JENNER. Well, she may have forgotten you took her.

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; maybe she forgot it. You know, we took all the furniture also. I could not forget that--because my car was loaded. You could practically feel the gound. I still have the same car in Haiti today.

We had a tremendous load in our car. It took us the whole day to load and unload and carry them.

Somewhere in here between Taylor needing a trailer to move the Osald's, George De Mohrenschildt's

car rubbing the ground, and a move to Paine's the load gets much lighter. It had to.

Mrs. PAINE - Well, much of the last portion, some of the last portion of Sunday was spent packing up. It was a very well loaded automobile by then, because I already had a great many of my own, including a boat on the top of the car to which we attached the. playpen, stroller, and other things on top.

Okay Trejo, so then only things Ruth could fit in/on her heavily overloaded, boat laden, car went with Ruth.

Mrs. MELLER - I don't recall exactly but I think it was more probably two occasions that George Bouhe spent lot of money. Second time, I think he bought for child baby playpen, excuse me, I am not familiar with those names, playpen and certainly we tried to buy cheaper and something because child did not have bed and it was same time bed for the child.

Mr. LIEBELER - Mr. Bouhe also bought a bed for the baby?

Mrs. MELLER - No; he bought playpen and it was for time bed for the baby.

Bouhe buys an Montgomery Ward playpen for about $11 for the kid.

1959 playpen

01773a7874634dda7dc052fb155db213.jpg

Or Thayer model of same vintage,

b052438f020c771f05f9fd9a57ed4c61.jpg

They fold and are easily transportable Mr. Trejo

Care to discuss furnishings further?

Your showing with baby furnishings was puerile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone throw the PT Cruiser a towel.

He needs to wipe the pie off his face.

The Anti-Paine school now resorts to jokes and comedy, because logical arguments have evaded them.

In fact -- I can't think of a single, solid argument that the Anti-Paine school has presented since this thread began.

As for Ed, he began by insisting that the Oswalds had more than a baby crib as their "furnishings" but failing to find any evidence or proof, now resorts to expertise in the many STYLES of baby cribs available in 1963.

Y'all make pathetic points. Somebody give me a solid, logical argument against the Paine's for a change!

Nothing? Do you really have nothing at all?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...