Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth Paine getting a job for Oswald at the TSBD... Isn't that just a CIA cover story?


Recommended Posts

Please hear me our before responding.

I believe the CIA was behind the JFK assassination.

For me, it's too incredible to believe that Oswald just happened to get a job at a place where he could be framed for the murder. Therefore I believe Ruth Paine had to have been taking orders from the CIA.

It's also too incredible to believe that the CIA would choose a place for the shooting and the framing that wasn't under their control. So I believe that either the TSBD was a CIA front, or that the owner was a CIA asset.

Possibility 1 :

Now, if the CIA had control over the TSBD, there would be no need for Ruth pain to get Oswald a job there. The CIA could simply order the CIA asset at the TSBD to hire Oswald.

However, in order to maintain cover stories, it would have been necessary for everybody to go through the motions to make it look like Ruth Paine had actually gotten the job for Oswald.

Possibility 2:

It just occurred to me that maybe Oswald was unaware that Ruth Paine and the TSBD were CIA assets. In which case Ruth Paine really did get the job for him.

Any thoughts on these two scenarios? What do you believe and why?

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Lee Farley was on this forum, he made some really interesting posts about this topic.

In fact, he took it further than anyone I know.

See, Ruth's testimony and Linnie's testimony disagree with each other.

I just read Linnie Randall's testimony. She says she mentioned the TSBD to Ruth -- among several other places -- as a place Oswald might get job. That goes against my hypothesis here. Unless it is a coincidence... if that is conceivable.

She mentioned the TSBD because her brother, Buell Frazier, worked there.

I'm not sure what to make of this. It is troubling.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

See, Ruth's testimony and Linnie's testimony disagree with each other.

How do they disagree? In her Shaw trial testimony, with respect to Oswald getting a job, Ruth started to say something about Mrs. Randle, and the court wouldn't allow her to do it, apparently because it would be hearsay. I assume that she wanted to say Randle suggested the TSBD, which would be in agreeable with what Randle told the WC.

I couldn't find anything in Ruth's WC testimony (by searching "job") about how Oswald got the TSBD job, but I could have missed it. Is there some disagreement with Randle there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency.

Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK.

I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe.

Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told?

The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone.

I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Lee Farley was on this forum, he made some really interesting posts about this topic.

In fact, he took it further than anyone I know.

See, Ruth's testimony and Linnie's testimony disagree with each other.

The Paine's are interesting spies.

I learned a lot about deception and how to lie from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency.

Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK.

I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe.

Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told?

The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone.

I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.

willing suspension of disbelief, Coleridge

Link to post
Share on other sites

2013 Replay.....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ruth had visited her sister that fateful summer of 1963. Right before she picked up Marina. She stayed with her for several days. We are to somehow buy the idea that during that stay, and in all the years previous, and the years afterwards, she never ever asked where she went to work.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, my sister stayed with me at my house for several days in 2008 and again in 2010. And, as I recall, the topic of her work never once came up.

Now, would you like to call me a [L-word] too, Jimbo?

As a footnote to this whole discussion about Ruth Paine being a conspirator, let me add this basic fact, which is a fact that pretty much destroys the notion that anyone planted an innocent Oswald in the TSBD for the purpose of framing him for JFK's murder:

Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John F. Kennedy.

I know that the above statement elicits gasps of horror from the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio, but, nonetheless, it's a statement that has all of the physical evidence supporting it and a bunch of circumstantial evidence to boot, not the least of which were Lee Oswald's own actions both before and after the assassination, including Oswald's blatant lie that he told (twice) to Buell Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".

Naturally, DiEugenio doesn't think that Oswald's tale about wanting to go out to Irving to get "curtain rods" is the slightest bit suspicious at all. Or, as an alternative (which is almost certainly what Jimbo says he does believe), the "curtain rod" story of Oswald's is just one more lie that people framing Oswald utilized in order to set him up as the patsy. Which would mean, of course, that Wesley Frazier was part of the "Let's Frame Oswald" crew too. Or the evil cops FORCED Frazier to tell the lie about the curtain rods. Right, Jimmy?

I know that the actual evidence in this murder case means absolutely NOTHING to a conspiracy hound like Mr. DiEugenio. To him, the evidence has ALL been faked and manufactured. In the real world, however, crimes are actually solved by using the EVIDENCE connected to the case. In DiEugenio's world, though, I'm expected to throw out and disregard every last piece of evidence that points to the guilt of Mr. Oswald. But that's something that no reasonable and sensible person can possibly do after seeing and evaluating the huge pile of stuff that all leads to the inevitable conclusion that Lee Oswald killed not just one man on 11/22/63--but TWO! (Did Ruth Paine have something to do with framing Oswald for J.D. Tippit's murder too, Jimbo?)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency.

Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK.

I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe.

Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told?

The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone.

I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.

I agree Jon, that in this particular instance the simple solution is that Oswald acted alone. But there is far too much pointing in the opposite direction for me to accept that conclusion. And that is my reason for starting this thread.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency.

Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK.

I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe.

Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told?

The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone.

I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.

I agree Paul, that in this particular instance the simple solution is that Oswald acted alone. But there is far too much pointing in the opposite direction for me to accept that conclusion. And that is my reason for starting this thread.

Paul?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Oswald - left-wing or right-wing - not take heroic credit for killing Kennedy?

Why, when interrogated on the Rambler wagon by Will Fritz, did Oswald (according to Will Fritz's notes, at least) suddenly blurt out that Ruth Paine shouldn't be involved just because she owned a similar car? Blurt it out when Ruth Paine's name had not been brought up heretofore? And then follow that ejaculation with a stagey collapse-and-sigh routine and the exclamation, "Now everybody will know who I am." This guy who was praised for seemingly having mastered interrogation behavior.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Paul, that in this particular instance the simple solution is that Oswald acted alone. But there is far too much pointing in the opposite direction for me to accept that conclusion. And that is my reason for starting this thread.

Paul?

Oops. Sorry Jon. (I probably shouldn't post in the morning.)

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...