The Real Ruth and Michael Paine

[Greg Parker]

I used to have a dark room in the basement of my house.

This was back in the seventies, when still photography was in vogue.

The idea that a dark room has to take a lot of space is ridiculous. Not the case at all.

I operated my dark room in a space of about 5 by 5, maybe 6 by 6. And I developed literally hundreds of pictures.

It was not at all a difficult process. Nor did it consume a lot of space.

Exactly!

[Paul Trejo]

I used to have a dark room in the basement of my house.

This was back in the seventies, when still photography was in vogue.

The idea that a dark room has to take a lot of space is ridiculous. Not the case at all.

I operated my dark room in a space of about 5 by 5, maybe 6 by 6. And I developed literally hundreds of pictures.

It was not at all a difficult process. Nor did it consume a lot of space.

Exactly!

OK, OK, a basement is a good place for a darkroom -- because it's a BASEMENT, with a plausible control of the LIGHT.

A one-car garage at street level, though, which is entered and exited continually as the Laundry room as well as the Freezer space, is not such a good place -- even if you could carve out a 6*6 space in it. Pitiful light control.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...Her claim is that the weekend of the assassination was the FIRST time the two commie papers were delivered to her address. Does she tell the cops? No. Does she tell the FBI? No. She gets rid of possible evidence in the biggest case of the century. She was NOT that stupid. She got rid of them because of what SHE and/or her cohorts did with them - used them to help frame Oswald using the only REAL photo - the one that was destroyed by Marina and taking in Mink about 18 months earlier - as the template for far more incriminating versions.

A lot has been said about why two papers from parties that hated each other were used.

Now you know. It was the Paines admitted pig-ignorance about the two groups that caused that snafu.

Not really, Greg, you're adding your own material there. First of all, Ruth Paine didn't run to the FBI and the Cops just because LHO said he was a Marxist and said he advocated the FPCC. Ruth was and remains a member of the ACLU, and believes strongly in the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The reason that Ruth Paine threw away these COMMUNIST magazines AFTER the JFK murder, was because she could see the writing on the wall -- the DPD and General Walker and their cohorts were broadcasting that LHO was a COMMUNIST, and they were trying to blame the COMMUNISTS for the murder of JFK. It was a COMMUNIST PLOT, they screamed.

And Buddy Walthers was all set to accuse the Paines of COMMUNISM, obviously.

But Ruth Paine didn't care anything about that BEFORE the murder of JFK. In fact, Michael Paine would play with the minds of college students at Luby's restaurant, challenging them to defend their Anti-Communist ideas, by attending Left-wing meetings and debating with the people there. He would be challenged by a student -- "Did YOU did that?" Michael would reply, "Yes! I know lots of Left-wing people -- including one guy who lived in the USSR and then came back to the USA when he'd had enough of it!"

The Left-wing didn't bother Ruth or Michael Paine -- until AFTER the JFK murder, when the tribal drums of Anti-Communism in the DPD began to sniff around their house, and claim to find a COMMUNIST PLOT in everything they found.

The fabrication of Buddy Walthers, for example, that he found "six or seven mietal filing cabinets full of names of Cuban sympathizers" in Ruth Paine's garage -- which he never inventoried, never photographed, never showed one other person -- and nobody else ever saw it -- this was the Anti-Communist MENTALITY that was coming down on the Paines.

You don't need ESP to recognize a mood like that.

So, Ruth Paine, seeing the BYP that the DPD showed her on Saturday, made sure that the tossed the Militant and Worker newspapers as soon as she found them in her home. Ruth Paine believes in Freedom of Speech and Press -- but she never believed in Communism because of its doctrine of "Violent Overthrow of the Government." As she said, Christ teaches Peace, and not Violence. Those were Ruth's own words.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Do you live inside Ruth Paines' head by any chance?

Now there's a creepy thought...

In any case -- this is just you telling us yet again what Ruth Paine, thought, what her motivations were and etc etc.

What color toilet paper did she use, Pauly? Inquiring minds demand to know!

[Sandy Larsen]

Do you live inside Ruth Paines' head by any chance?

LOL... Hey, maybe that is where the darkroom is!

[Paul Trejo]

Do you live inside Ruth Paines' head by any chance?

Now there's a creepy thought...

In any case -- this is just you telling us yet again what Ruth Paine, thought, what her motivations were and etc etc.

What color toilet paper did she use, Pauly? Inquiring minds demand to know!

Greg, as I said before, Ruth Paine herself told us what she THOUGHT in her WC testimony. She told us several times. She would tell what words she said to herself on this and that occasion -- so it's not ESP on my part.

As I said, I stick as closely to the WC testimony as I can. It's not that difficult, though I admit there are hundreds of pages of her WC testimony to cover the 5 thousand plus questions she was asked.

As for an alleged darkroom at Ruth Paine's house, why not just admit that your MAKING UP STUFF? First, you want to accuse Ruth Paine of forging the BYP and the Walker house photo; and secondly you need a darkroom for that. Both are WILD GUESSES.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

I am sure you will be covering this later in your book series, right?

And you will be offering evidence for what you state here?

Greg's volumes are very much annotated. At least so far. So you can see where he gets his material.

[Paul Trejo]

Just to recap -- there are two opposing CT's here.

1. The CIA-did-it CT supposes that Ruth Paine was working with the CIA/FBI to frame LHO for the JFK murder, by accusing Ruth Paine of forging the Embassy Letter, the Walker Letter, the BYP, the Walker house photos and the Mannlicher-Carcano.order form. Ruth Paine is also accused of supplying the Mannlicher-Carcano itself, as well as spreading the rumor that LHO went in Mexico City in 1963, was a Castro sympathizer, and tried to kill General Walker like a homicidal maniac. .

2. The Walker-did-it CT supposes that Ruth Paine's WC testimony is substantially true, and that Ruth Paine had no idea that LHO was involved in any plot involving Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw and the Radical RIght, or that this plot invoked General Walker directly.

These two theories are incompatible and I subscribe to (2). So I will continue to challenge weak arguments that attack Ruth Paine and insinuate her in any role involving any conspiracy in the murder of JFK or blaming LHO for it. I will continue to maintain that Ruth Paine was a Quaker Charity Lady.

So, Greg, if your arguments in your books lack material evidence -- or you're just making things up -- you can expect to be called on it. Turnabout is fair play.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

I am sure you will be covering this later in your book series, right?

And you will be offering evidence for what you state here?

Greg's volumes are very much annotated. At least so far. So you can see where he gets his material.

Jim,

it was the amazing Martha Moyer who cautioned me long ago to make sure any serious work I put out, be it a book or an article, is fully cited or I'd be crucified. As Australian journalist of note, Darren Linton said in his story about our then upcoming conference, "I was skeptical [about reading Parker's book] at first, having read many conspiracy theories over the years, but as it turned out, this was a methodical and analytical work. I can't say I accept some of the conclusions, but the work itself was thought-provoking. It readily acknowledged any gaps in research or available information and the cracks debunkers would likely prise into..."

Edited January 6, 2016 by Greg Parker

[James DiEugenio]

That is what I thought.

Thanks Greg.

And i agree about Martha Moyer.

She was another ace researcher, who, like Carol, got ignored in the rush toward people like Waldron etc.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul,

I can't remember: Do you believe Marina's husband fired at JFK?

Ruth Paine said on television she believed Oswald killed JFK because he, Oswald, was a little man who wanted to make a big splash. At the time, "little man" had a particular meaning, and Ruth Paine's statement was clearly a derogatory reference to Oswald's "manliness".

This interview always has rubbed me the wrong way. It seems contrived and disingenuous. Furthermore it's odd that Ruth Paine, who spent a fair amount of time with Oswald, would so coldly condemn him.

Ruth Paine hardly comes off as charitable.

[Greg Parker]

Paul,

I can't remember: Do you believe Marina's husband fired at JFK?

Ruth Paine said on television she believed Oswald killed JFK because he, Oswald, was a little man who wanted to make a big splash. At the time, "little man" had a particular meaning, and Ruth Paine's statement was clearly a derogatory reference to Oswald's "manliness".

This interview always has rubbed me the wrong way. It seems contrived and disingenuous. Furthermore it's odd that Ruth Paine, who spent a fair amount of time with Oswald, would so coldly condemn him.

Ruth Paine hardly comes off as charitable.

Who was "Marina's husband", Jon. If you cannot name him, you should drop all discussion of him based on your own dictum that we deal only in verifiable facts. For that matter - have you even seen their marriage license? No? Then how did you verify the marriage to whoever it was you BELIEVE she was married to?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

I can't remember: Do you believe Marina's husband fired at JFK?

Ruth Paine said on television she believed Oswald killed JFK because he, Oswald, was a little man who wanted to make a big splash. At the time, "little man" had a particular meaning, and Ruth Paine's statement was clearly a derogatory reference to Oswald's "manliness".

This interview always has rubbed me the wrong way. It seems contrived and disingenuous. Furthermore it's odd that Ruth Paine, who spent a fair amount of time with Oswald, would so coldly condemn him.

Ruth Paine hardly comes off as charitable.

Jon, in my reading of the evidence, LHO never fired at JFK. What implicates LHO in the JFK murder is the fact that LHO stupidly gave his rifle to a "trusted friend" that day.

Gerry Patrick Hemming's testimony to A.J. Weberman explains this scenario.

As for Ruth Paine's eventual dismissal of LHO, we should remember that she started out doubting that LHO was the JFK killer. Ruth never saw any signs that would suggest it. She never saw LHO behave violently. She never saw him with weapons. She never heard LHO say anything negative about JFK. It didn't make any sense to her. She told this to the WC attorneys again and again.

But the Warren Commission attorneys worked on her more and more, for months, until she finally agreed that the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE was too overwhelming to deny.

Robert Oswald took exactly the same approach. Robert Oswald originally thought that LHO was innocent -- but the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the rifle, especially, plus the fact that LHO ran from the scene, and panicked, running into a theater, didn't look good -- and this was his own brother.

Ruth Paine gave up trying to defend LHO, but to explain motive all she had was this THEORY that LHO did it to make himself out to be greater than he really was. WHAT ELSE COULD SHE CONCLUDE? RUTH SAW NO CLEAR MOTIVE! She admitted this.

Ruth Paine says to this very day that she still has an open mind -- so that if anybody could show her HARD EVIDENCE that there was a Conspiracy, she would accept it. But after 50 years Ruth says that all CT's appear to be nonsense to her. CTers smash each other to bits. There is no CONSENSUS.

So, she just agrees with the Warren Commission until somebody can get their act together and obtain a CONSENSUS CT. Ruth is still waiting.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 6, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

I use the term "Marina's husband" because, as you know, it's a neutral term. I takes no position as to the identity of the person called "Oswald".

You disagree that there were an Harvey and a Lee. You believe there was one individual named LHO. Fine. You have your opinion, which I don't discredit. You may be right. I think you're wrong. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

Let's separate fact from opinion.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Jon G. Tidd

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

I use the term "Marina's husband" because, as you know, it's a neutral term. I takes no position as to the identity of the person called "Oswald".

You disagree that there were an Harvey and a Lee. You believe there was one individual named LHO. Fine. You have your opinion, which I don't discredit. You may be right. I think you're wrong. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

Let's separate fact from opinion.

Okay. Post the marriage certificate.