The Real Ruth and Michael Paine

[W. Niederhut]

12 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks to Jim DiEugenio for all his work on the Paines.  It's a refreshing return to reality from recent attempts to whitewash them. 

I wonder if the recent blitz of threads whitewashing Ruth Paine's history with the CIA might be an example of Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" strategy for "conspiracy theory" forums-- similar to the Fred Litwin nonsense.

Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: Griffin, David Ray: 9781566568210: Books - Amazon

Edited May 3, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Greg Doudna]

41 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

I wonder if the recent blitz of threads whitewashing Ruth Paine's history with the CIA might be an example of Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" strategy for "conspiracy theory" forums-- similar to the Fred Litwin nonsense.

Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: Griffin, David Ray: 9781566568210: Books - Amazon

It is not, from me, in any way shape or form W. 

There is no known history of Ruth Paine with the CIA to whitewash. You should, you must, if you care about truth, reword your statement. You are making false, unsubstantiated smearing of someone without evidence. How do you feel morally about that? "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"--ancient near eastern code.

All documents concerning Ruth Paine except for tax records are now released--nothing more to get. Not one shred of evidence--document, witness testimony, nothing-- that Ruth was CIA. 

You can say because her sister was and her father was USAID then you know she "must have been too" which would not be a problem if you labeled that accurately as unsubstantiated suspicion, unsubstantiated allegation. But you don't. You express it as bedrock fact.

When you started talking like this, my first reaction was "Et tu, W.?" Because I have followed your posts on Ukraine, Solzhenitsyn et al and they are thoughtful.

Are you familiar with Rene Girard and scapegoat theory? Girard argued that all cultures, going as far back into prehistory, resolve deep group tensions by fixing upon an innocent scapegoat, projecting guilt upon that scapegoat, and sacrificially executing that scapegoat. That was not the half of it. Girard also argued (this was work in anthropology, with a slight bit of Girard's Roman Catholic theology mixed in), that this phenomenon, which Girard argued was a cultural universal, also involved this: cultures when they fix upon and abuse and destroy their innocent scapegoats literally, literally--literally--cannot see that that is what they are doing when they are doing it.

What this community, and you (as in the story of David and Nathan the prophet in the Old Testament, with the parable ending with the words, "You are the man"), are illustrating here is picture-perfect Girard theory, case study.

My posts came about in response to the film "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" released a month ago. 

I would like to think that exoneration of an innocent person will advance, not weaken, the struggle to come to resolution and knowledge of the criminal conspiracy that assassinated JFK. 

Even if you do not believe Ruth Paine is exonerated simply because no hard evidence has ever existed to incriminate her, why in God's name do you not acknowledge that most basic principle of American jurisprudence, "innocent until proven guilty", and apply that to Ruth Paine?

Even "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" gets this most basic point straight up front:

Narrator: There are all kinds of claims and rumors about the Paines but no concrete evidence has ever directly linked them to the CIA.

And I do not know if you are aware of this--I suspect not--but there is almost a straight-line correlation between the top tier of JFK assassination researchers who do not speak of Ruth Paine as guilty, going down to the grassroots where Ruth Paine is considered the worst form of witch and devil and called horrible names. At the top tier, Newman, such substantial work over decades on the CIA, never goes after Ruth Paine. Talbot, who wrote the book against Dulles, exonerates--yes explicitly exonerates, Ruth Paine in his Dulles book. You don't find attacks on Ruth Paine in Larry Hancock's books, who is top tier of the top tier, in his oeuvre (corpus of published research). And Bill Simpich, who knows most if not all of the major names and is one himself, says all of the major names in his league, known to him, consider Ruth Paine exonerated from being part of the assassination plot, in "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine":

Bill Simpich: I don't know anybody who thinks that they were part of the plot to kill the President.

(In the interests of full disclosure, Simpich holds to a view that Ruth Paine, innocent of any witting role in the assassination, was unwittingly manipulated by others into doing things that advanced the plot, without awareness of it.)

If holding Ruth Paine innocent of the assassination in agreement with ca. 100% of the top tier according to Simpich, and stating the simple, plain, unvarnished truth that there is no evidence she was CIA, is what you think is cognitive infiltration, perhaps look at that top tier--all of the top tier of researchers known to Simpich--who hold to exactly what you appear to believe in your bones is subversive to the proper existential order related to JFK assassination conspiracy research.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Jim and William.

As per Fred L and Cass S.  I really do not know.  I would guess though that Fred does this on his own.  And it is simply due to his own Neocon politics. 

I read his book Conservative Confidential.  It was about  the reaction to 9-11. That was a real eye opener.  

[Sandy Larsen]

Greg,

There may be no direct evidence that Ruth Paine was CIA, but there is very strong circumstantial evidence indicating so. Circumstantial evidence requires corroborating evidence in order to remove "reasonable doubt," but there is plenty of other circumstantial evidence pointing to Ruth to do just that.

The plotters had to get Oswald to take a job at the TSBD so that he could play his role as patsy there. Testimonial evidence shows that Ruth was responsible for Oswald applying for a job there. The only reasonable way she could have known that Oswald needed to apply there is if she were taking orders from the CIA. And she would take orders from the CIA only if she were a CIA asset. Therefore she was a CIA asset.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

There may be no direct evidence that Ruth Paine was CIA, but there is very strong circumstantial evidence indicating so. Circumstantial evidence requires corroborating evidence in order to remove "reasonable doubt," but there is plenty of other circumstantial evidence pointing to Ruth to do just that.

The plotters had to get Oswald to take a job at the TSBD so that he could play his role as patsy there. Testimonial evidence shows that Ruth was responsible for Oswald applying for a job there. The only reasonable way she could have known that Oswald needed to apply there is if she were taking orders from the CIA. And she would take orders from the CIA only if she were a CIA asset. Therefore she was a CIA asset.

You did not see my post on the other topic ("The Secret Service never told Marina that Ruth Paine was CIA"), where I directly responded to you on this very thing? Here, I will post it again:

Oswald and obtaining the job in the TSBD

Sandy, thanks for your answer. I think you may be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Lets start with some common ground. I think Lee was either CIA himself or CIA was all over him in the sense of watching him, one or the other. I think Oswald was an operative infiltrating groups that agencies wanted disrupted, such as FPCC in New Orleans, and probably others. On Mexico City, that is a puzzle and I do not claim to understand it, but I have some thinking short of certainty: the big question to me is whether Lee was sent there or went there on his own to try to escape to Cuba or the USSR (and was followed, surveilled, and that visit exploited after the fact opportunistically by CIA). (I don't buy the idea that he did not go to Mexico City.) I do not think Oswald's encounter with Kostikov in the Soviet embassy was planned but was accident, and I think the monitored followup phone call of someone not Oswald to that embassy but pretending to be Oswald was a phishing phone call, to find out who Oswald had talked to inside there.

I think the assassination plot was known as to its existence by a small number of persons in CIA but that CIA was not carrying out the on-the-ground of it, but that was handed off to or being done by a mob interest, to plan and carry out the execution of the plot, part of a larger context of CIA/Mob contacts and working relationships, in this case probably via Marcello of New Orleans since he controlled Dallas.

On the TSBD, I wrote in a different thread on that but I may not have gotten that completely right. The point I brought out that stands is an important one: the idea that a serious plot for an assassination would rely upon--plan in advance to use--a cold-call phone call from a complete stranger in Irving, Ruth Paine, to ensure Oswald would be hired, makes no sense. Since that makes no sense, the plot planning had to have some other way of accomplishing the setup for the assassination than that, in which whether Ruth Paine's phone call happened was not too important. And since that phone call of Ruth Paine cannot have played any central role in the actual plot planning, there is nothing to distinguish that phone call of Ruth to Truly at TSBD as other than what it has always appeared to be, Ruth making a phone call to try to help Marina's husband who is in a bad situation and needs a job. That the assassination happened at the TSBD six weeks later becomes coincidence as far as Ruth Paine is concerned, no different than the way a thousand other incidental human acts could be so interpreted looked at backward from a Big Event.

I suggested an alternative possibility that had not received attention: that it was via Buell Wesley Frazier (himself a recent arrival to Dallas and recent TSBD hire) as a mechanism to have an "inside man" know details of timing, connections to key persons, and then put in a personal word, as raising the chances of success of Oswald in being hired. The main problem in suggesting that is it has no more positive evidence than the ideas that Ruth Paine called Truly at TSBD at the behest of the CIA, that is, nothing. Like Ruth Paine, Frazier had a family association--Frazier's stepfather in Huntsville, according to Frazier as he told to the authors of Lone Star Speaks, was Dixie Mafia. The Dixie Mafia groups in Texas worked with (always under) Marcello of New Orleans. So there was an argument from association and juxtaposition of timing with the building, TSBD, which could fit into a Marcello-plot idea. That was the argument I saw. The strength of the argument is that an inside man (such as Frazier) is a mechanism or would be in a good position to assist in bringing about a hire of someone else. The weak point is that there is no evidence, its all imagination of possible reconstruction, in that sense almost as bad as the ideas that the CIA had Oswald hired at TSBD downtown by means of having total stranger Ruth Paine from Irving make a phone call and TSBD would hop to it.

I am now thinking maybe I have been assuming too much, such as that the TSBD was picked in advance as essential to the plot. There are other ways it could have worked. The basic situation, thinking it through, is that there is a plot intended to take place in Dallas during the presidential visit to Dallas involving a parade. However the route is not known and even if there was an inside man involved in the route planning, there are many uncertainties. It is essential in the reconstruction that Oswald (CIA or equivalent spook agency) be part of the plot approved and run by Marcello. The way that could work is Marcello might be asked to use Oswald (Oswald's uncle in New Orleans had worked in the Marcello organization which could grease that connection [the uncle, Murret, died 1964]). Oswald is asked to be an informant on the plot. Oswald gets double-crossed by being sacrificed as the patsy, after he thought he was working as an informant.

Rather than a complex reconstruction in which Oswald or others arranged for all of Oswald's prior job interviews to fail before the hire at TSBD, replace that with a simpler construction: that Oswald was after any job that could have a good chance of being on a parade route, which could include a hundred or more possibilities, not just TSBD (even though TSBD was very good strategically as it turned out). The evidence that this was what was going on--Oswald seeking any job that could have a good chance of maybe being on the parade route comes from several indications I see. First, there is that early police talk about finding a map of Oswald marked with places on the parade route, at least that is what the Dallas police thought it looked like. Later that was explained as a misunderstanding as only being Oswald job applications (that is the point). However, to the present day I have been unable to find any image of that map which has the markings clear enough to be seen. (There is a photo of that map, which had been given to Lee to use by the Paines and had some unrelated Paines' markings on it before Oswald had it, but the photo I have seen is not clear enough to see the markings on the map after Oswald had it.)

Oswald's first job application, where he was turned down for the job, was retroactively suspected by the employer as possibly connected to it being a location which would be where the presidential parade would go by. And after Oswald got the TSBD job there are at least three known instances (could be more) of what I believe can only be interpreted as plot-connected attempts to get plot-connected persons hired into jobs in tall buildings on downtown arteries. All three apparently involved false use of Oswald's name even though in none of those cases was the person Oswald. That is, Oswald's job in TSBD was not all the interest there was in tall buildings with good sniper possibilities in the runup to JFK's visit to Dallas.

But there is the fundamental question: how can a sniper assassination be planned before the parade route was known which was only finalized at close to the last moment? One possibility is, even though the route was not known, some things could be anticipated on the basis of fairly good guess, or analysis of necessity. And in the main uncertainty--which of three arteries, Elm, Main, or Central--the motorcade would take through downtown--some tall buildings could cover two of those, and it would only take two or three hires on those main downtown arteries and there is a good chance whatever parade route was selected it would be covered; Kennedy would be vulnerable. That is on the assumption of no inside man inside the motorcade-route planning end of it. If there was an inside man in a position to influence or order a key leg or alteration in the route, that would be an even easier explanation--just have a good sniper location set up and have the motorcade at the last minute routed by it, wherever it was. The key point is that the fixation (speaking to myself here) on TSBD specifically, may be overthinking this. The idea would be that Oswald would get any job on one of the main downtown arteries or otherwise on a portion of the parade route that might reasonably be anticipated, and the plot would then develop the rest of the sniper planning around that location wherever Oswald was. I think the original framing plan for Oswald was not to have him be tagged as the shooter or that the shooting be done by one person but rather a criminal conspiracy blamed on Castro by means of Oswald as the supplier or owner of a rifle used in the shooting and found afterward (the Flip DeMey argument).

And in further support of this: the Laura Kittrell Texas Employment Commission story of her dealings with Oswald. Kittrell's account of Oswald is mixed and conflated with memories of Larry Crafard whom she also dealt with and confused with Oswald, creating incongruities such that her entire story was given no interest by the FBI and relatively little interest by researchers. I think her story may have been covered up, and, provided it is subjected to critical analysis and interpretation, has information there of much significance (among other things, there is a report of a physical aptitude test in Oct 1963 indicating Oswald would be a poor rifle shot, and Oswald agreeing with Kittrell that that was true, he was a poor shot with a rifle--that alone could be possible motive for coverup). There are a number of things of interest, but for present purposes there is this: Oswald is at TEC in early Oct 1963 wanting a job and Kittrell's job is to help him. Apparently Oswald had been classified for blue-collar or general work and Oswald came back to get upgraded to white-collar and he said he wanted a job in a downtown building. (I found the typed version of the Kittrell mss. difficult to access; to save others time here is how. Go to the John Armstrong Collection site at https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/poage-collections/john-armstrong-collection. Hit "Search Collections". Search for "Kittrell". Click on first search listing, "Sightings of LHO, Oct. 1963--Laura Kittrell" (187 images). Click on "Download" button to lower left. A popup screen will give you three choices and ask what you want; click the choice, "Full Asset". Click "Download". It should now be on your computer.) Kittrell started writing her story Dec 1963. This is Laura Kittrell writing of Oswald in her office in early Oct. 1963 (pp. 33-34 of Kittrell mss.):

"He [Oswald] wanted me to drop everything else and make him out an extra application for office work, and I was feeling the time slip away, and did not want to.

"He won his argument with me by dredging up some office experience. At first it seemed to me that just as he had, upon seeing the ad for the electronics assemblers, invented needed but unverifiable experience as an electronics assembler, (in Russia!) so he had now invented white-collar experience to go with his sudden notion that he should have an office job, downtown.

"'I used to sell shoes', he said. 'That is office-work experience, isn't it?'

"'Well, do you want to sell shoes, then?', I asked crossly.

"'No,' he said, 'I want an office job, downtown.'"

Therefore I am concluding now that Buell Wesley Frazier's mid-Sept relocation from a mobbed-up home in Huntsville and employment in the TSBD in a position to assist Oswald in being hired there a month later may or may not have been accidental (I know of no way of knowing), but in either case Ruth Paine's phone call was an accident and played no role in the planning or execution of the plot. 

I imagine a plot in which several sniper-friendly buildings were lined up ready to go prior to the President's arrival to Dallas, depending on how the parade route played out. If it was decided to do it from one of the locations other than where Oswald had found his job, that need not be an insurmountable problem in that the key original setup was (a) a Castro conspiracy (multiple shooters in evidence, no problem), proven by (b) linkage and implication of Oswald to a rifle (and perhaps visiting to the shooting site if not employed there).

In a benign interpretation of Oswald, which has my strong sympathies, Oswald might be imagined to have informed on this plot and right up to the last minute expected intervention to stop it, though without knowing the detail that he was being set up with the rifle association. When the assassination happened without being prevented, that would have been a moment of panic for Oswald, but a backup contingency plan "in case anything goes wrong" might have been to get to the Texas Theatre for say a 3 pm meeting, which is what he did--where a killer arrived with intent to kill him there, though that is another story.

Bottom line: it is unnecessary to assume or conclude any of the six involved in Oswald's TSBD hire, including Ruth Paine, were CIA except Oswald. There is no evidence or indication that any of those other five, including Ruth Paine, were witting to anything other than a young pregnant immigrant woman's husband needing a job.

Since from most accounts Oswald had no unusual meetings or contacts at his rooming house in Oak Cliff, his mechanism for regular contact for his informant work would be during his lunch hour walking to one of the downtown offices or nearby to meet someone, during his work days. 

[Sandy Larsen]

Greg.

FWIW, I think it is wrong for assassination researchers to have a low opinion of Ruth Paine.

We need to keep in mind that both Oswald and Ruth were doing under-cover work, and they both were taking orders from their respective handlers. When Oswald applied for his job at the TSBD, it is very likely that not only was Ruth instructed to advise Oswald to apply, but that Oswald was instructed to take her advice. Nothing could be left to chance.

When Ruth tried to get Marina to move in with her, it's possible that she was instructed to do that. Of course, Oswald would have been instructed how to handle the situation. But why would their handlers instruct them to do such a thing?  I don't know... maybe to free up Oswald's time so he could work on some project?

Or, maybe Ruth just took it upon herself to involve herself in the Marina's and Lee's lives. I'd be really surprised if that's what happened. After all, when two agents are working together on some project, they certainly shouldn't be going far off script.

Neither Ruth nor Oswald knew that they were involved in an assassination plot. Nobody should begrudge them for having unknowingly done so.

Some people may look down on Ruth for helping the CIA mess around with the Warren Commission evidence. But really, shouldn't they consider that Ruth was probably shaken and scared to death when she learned -- to her great surprise -- that she was working for thugs and murderers? And realize they could mess her up too?

I think that if people would read Ruth's testimony, they would find that she was not so bad. She was quite fair to Oswald. She said she liked him once she got to know him.

I think that Greg is right, that Ruth Paine is a very decent person. She just thought that working for the CIA in fighting communism was her patriotic duty. But because of that she got caught up in a very bad situation.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:00 AM, Greg Doudna said:

...there is nothing to distinguish that phone call of Ruth to Truly at TSBD as other than what it has always appeared to be, Ruth making a phone call to try to help Marina's husband who is in a bad situation and needs a job. That the assassination happened at the TSBD six weeks later becomes coincidence as far as Ruth Paine is concerned...

 

Oh come on Greg... you can't seriously believe that Ruth's "innocent" (according to you) suggestion for Oswald to apply for work at the TSBD just happened -- by some insane coincidence -- to put Oswald where he needed to be for the Big Event!

I don't know how to calculate the odds of that actually happening, but I'm certain its going to be astronomically long.

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh come on Greg... you can't seriously believe that Ruth's innocent suggestion for Oswald to apply for work at the TSBD just happened -- by some insane coincidence -- to put Oswald where he needed to be for the Big Event!

I don't know how to calculate the odds of that actually happening, but I'm certain its going to be astronomically long.

 

I think it is a mistake to assume the assassin had to fire from the TSBD. There were other buildings along the route that may have been just as well suited, or perhaps even better suited, for an assassination attempt. 

Of course, even that is operating under the assumption the assassin had to fire a rifle. The vast majority of political assassinations have not involved a rifle. It may have been that the original plan was for someone to shoot JFK from the crowd along Main. If one assumes Oswald was always supposed to be the patsy, moreover, it could be that his handler was supposed to get him there, and perhaps even have him hold up a pro-Castro sign or something, And that after the shooting someone would yell "He did it!" and then a bunch of people would jump on him, etc. 

I've mentioned this before, so pardon me if you find it redundant. But I had a close friend with whom I grew up who eventually rose up to be a Lt. Col. in U.S. Special Forces. Among his "skill set" was recon beyond enemy lines, and hostage rescue. And he always told me that in any plan you have to PACE yourself, with PACE being an acronym for having four plans: a Primary plan, an Alternative plan, a Contingency plan, and an Emergency plan. 

It seems clear not all went as planned, as the killing of Oswald by Ruby was at best an emergency plan. Well, it follows that the shooting of JFK may very well have been an alternate plan, after Oswald was unable to find work where he was supposed to find work, or where he simply "lucked" into a job at a location the planners thought would suit their needs.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Mentions of Oswald and the School Book Depository seem incomplete unless the work of journalist Elzie Glaze is considered, which seems to indicate that  Oswald's supervisor, Bill Shelley, worked for the CIA.

In this Ed Forum post from 2006, researcher William Weston re-published his article from the May 1999 issue of "Fourth Decade." Here is an excerpt from the posted article, with emphasis added by me: 

In late 1974, while working as a journalist in Dallas, Glaze met a woman who began working for the Book Depository in 1969 - six years after the assassination. (She was no longer working there at the time she spoke to Glaze.) Her supervisor was William Shelley. The company, she said, had a strange way of introducing new employees to their duties. She and another new employee were approached by two men, who produced I.D. wallets and identified themselves as "government agents." They were taken to an empty room and given questionnaires to fill out. These exams were full of oddly irrelevant questions, calling for opinions on various topics of the day, especially social issues. Obediently the two employees wrote out their answers. When they were done, they gave the sheets back, and in the short pause that followed, one of the examiners bluntly asked: "Have you been recruited by the FBI or the CIA?" The two employees were stunned. As ordinary office workers, they were only doing minor clerical tasks at low wages. Why would anyone think that they came from the FBI or the CIA? While it was true that the Book Depository had acquired the notoriety of being the place where Oswald shot the President, still by 1969 that should have been ancient history. Yet even more disturbing were the next questions that came to mind. If the Book Depository was just an insignificant, little company, why would it be attracting the attention of the two biggest intelligence establishments in the country? Furthermore, what was the intrigue that was spurring these "government agents" to hunt down unwanted infiltrators?

Glaze asked the woman if she and her co-worker were the only ones subjected to this kind of treatment. No, they were not the only ones. Background checks on new employees were done as a routine procedure at the Book Depository. After listening to the woman's account, Glaze decided to check it out. He contacted her former supervisor, William Shelley, and asked to meet with him. Shelley agreed to this request and even allowed the reporter to take notes and use a tape recorder. The meeting took place at the Book Depository warehouse near the intersection of Royal Lane and Interstate 35 on the far northwest side of Dallas. (The company had moved from its old location on 411 Elm Street in 1970.) The information that Glaze was gathering must have been extensive, for the two men had numerous meetings together. Yet only a few disclosures are provided in the letters. The most significant one appears in the 1989 letter: "Mr. Shelley claims to have been an intelligence officer during World War II and thereafter joined the CIA." This extraordinary revelation goes far in explaining the mysteries of the Book Depository, and a discussion of its implications will be given later in this article.

There is also a strong visual suggestion that Shelley was photographed with Oswald at the New Orleans Trade Mart earlier in 1963. The two top pictures below show Oswald in New Orleans and a man who sure looks, and dressed, like Bill Shelley.  The bottom three pictures show Shelley in Dallas on 11.22.63.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Jim Hargrove

[Pat Speer]

39 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mentions of Oswald and the School Book Depository seem incomplete unless the work of journalist Elzie Glaze is considered, which seems to indicate that  Oswald's supervisor, Bill Shelley, worked for the CIA.

In this Ed Forum post from 2006, researcher William Weston re-published his article from the May 1999 issue of "Fourth Decade." Here is an excerpt from the posted article, with emphasis added by me: 

In late 1974, while working as a journalist in Dallas, Glaze met a woman who began working for the Book Depository in 1969 - six years after the assassination. (She was no longer working there at the time she spoke to Glaze.) Her supervisor was William Shelley. The company, she said, had a strange way of introducing new employees to their duties. She and another new employee were approached by two men, who produced I.D. wallets and identified themselves as "government agents." They were taken to an empty room and given questionnaires to fill out. These exams were full of oddly irrelevant questions, calling for opinions on various topics of the day, especially social issues. Obediently the two employees wrote out their answers. When they were done, they gave the sheets back, and in the short pause that followed, one of the examiners bluntly asked: "Have you been recruited by the FBI or the CIA?" The two employees were stunned. As ordinary office workers, they were only doing minor clerical tasks at low wages. Why would anyone think that they came from the FBI or the CIA? While it was true that the Book Depository had acquired the notoriety of being the place where Oswald shot the President, still by 1969 that should have been ancient history. Yet even more disturbing were the next questions that came to mind. If the Book Depository was just an insignificant, little company, why would it be attracting the attention of the two biggest intelligence establishments in the country? Furthermore, what was the intrigue that was spurring these "government agents" to hunt down unwanted infiltrators?

Glaze asked the woman if she and her co-worker were the only ones subjected to this kind of treatment. No, they were not the only ones. Background checks on new employees were done as a routine procedure at the Book Depository. After listening to the woman's account, Glaze decided to check it out. He contacted her former supervisor, William Shelley, and asked to meet with him. Shelley agreed to this request and even allowed the reporter to take notes and use a tape recorder. The meeting took place at the Book Depository warehouse near the intersection of Royal Lane and Interstate 35 on the far northwest side of Dallas. (The company had moved from its old location on 411 Elm Street in 1970.) The information that Glaze was gathering must have been extensive, for the two men had numerous meetings together. Yet only a few disclosures are provided in the letters. The most significant one appears in the 1989 letter: "Mr. Shelley claims to have been an intelligence officer during World War II and thereafter joined the CIA." This extraordinary revelation goes far in explaining the mysteries of the Book Depository, and a discussion of its implications will be given later in this article.

There is also a strong visual suggestion that Shelley was photographed with Oswald at the New Orleans Trade Mart earlier in 1963. The two top pictures below show Oswald in New Orleans and a man who sure looks, and dressed, like Bill Shelley.  The bottom three pictures show Shelley in Dallas on 11.22.63.

Working for the OSS and then the CIA in the aftermath of WWII doesn't mean much as much as it might seem. People like Moe Berg and Julia Child worked for the OSS during the war.

How long did Shelley work at the TSBD before and after the assassination? I seem to recall he'd been working there for like 10 years, and continued working there for another 10 or more. That's not exactly the behavior of a CIA asset. I mean, it's not as if the TSBD was a hotbed for international business or anything.

I would agree that the man in that photo bears a resemblance to Shelley. But it could be that we're overly influenced by the haircut. That haircut was popular among hipsters back in the day and returned to style with the swing resurgence in the 90's. ii

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh come on Greg... you can't seriously believe that Ruth's innocent suggestion for Oswald to apply for work at the TSBD just happened -- by some insane coincidence -- to put Oswald where he needed to be for the Big Event!

I don't know how to calculate the odds of that actually happening, but I'm certain its going to be astronomically long.

 

So what? Are you under the impression that consequential events in history never happen due to random coincidences such as this? To pretend otherwise is absurd.

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It is not, from me, in any way shape or form W. 

There is no known history of Ruth Paine with the CIA to whitewash. You should, you must, if you care about truth, reword your statement. You are making false, unsubstantiated smearing of someone without evidence. How do you feel morally about that? "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"--ancient near eastern code.

 

 

Greg,

      I suggest that you go back study the original, detailed commentaries in the first several pages of this 2015 thread by James DiEugenio and Greg Parker.  It can't be said any better.  They review the evidence about the Paines, Allen Dulles, and the involvement of the Paines in helping to set up and, later, frame Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK.

     This includes a review of the fact that Ruth Paine's own father and sister worked for the CIA-- something that she tried to cover up during the Clay Shaw trial.

     And, incidentally, I don't bear false witness against anyone.  Never have and never shall.

     It's against my "ancient Near Eastern religion."

     

[Denny Zartman]

26 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

      I suggest that you go back study the original, detailed commentaries in the first several pages of this 2015 thread by James DiEugenio and Greg Parker.  It can't be said any better.  They review the evidence about the Paines, Allen Dulles, and the involvement of the Paines in helping to set up and, later, frame Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK.

     This includes a review of the fact that Ruth Paine's own father and sister worked for the CIA-- something that she tried to cover up during the Clay Shaw trial.

He doesn't care. He's made up his mind. He considers Ruth Paine a friend, and no amount of facts will change his mind about her. He will defend her no matter what.

[Denny Zartman]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

There is also a strong visual suggestion that Shelley was photographed with Oswald at the New Orleans Trade Mart earlier in 1963. The two top pictures below show Oswald in New Orleans and a man who sure looks, and dressed, like Bill Shelley.  The bottom three pictures show Shelley in Dallas on 11.22.63.

It sure looks like Shelley to me.

[James DiEugenio]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh come on Greg... you can't seriously believe that Ruth's innocent suggestion for Oswald to apply for work at the TSBD just happened -- by some insane coincidence -- to put Oswald where he needed to be for the Big Event!

I don't know how to calculate the odds of that actually happening, but I'm certain its going to be astronomically long.

 

Recall, Truly was not being paid through the TSBD at the time.

He was the guy who gave Oswald's name to the police.