The latest from Ruth Paine

[Gene Kelly]

Its interesting (but not surprising) that the Barger/FBI "report" is simply a second-hand summary ... no names, no precise time, unclear from where the call originated (i.e. did Mike call Ruth or vice versa).  But the male caller was "sure that LHO had killed the President".  Its more like hearsay or an allegation, as opposed to factual. 

Later reports changed the date, and added that it was a collect call from Ruth (long distance) to the Bell workplace.  The Confidential Informant twist is added to  make it legally untouchable.  Then, in 1976, Barger changes his story (with the help of Hugh Aynesworth) to a telephone repairman encountering "chance" mechanical difficulties and inadvertent discovery, thereby blocking the HSCA from finding more.  Its amazing how much coincidence and 'chance' surrounds the Paines, straining credibility, especially in a high profile intrigue such as JFK's murder.  You would think that the murder of a President would over-ride concerns for a "confidential informant".  I can also attest (as a former federal employee) that when confidentiality is offered, it is always with the caveat that it may be revoked for larger concerns. One is counselled that there is no such thing as strict confidentiality.  

When the phone call is viewed in the context of the Russian book with the incriminating note within,  the strategy becomes clearer. The Paines are obviously being used as a cooperative conduit for incriminating information on LHO.  Its notable that Barger was the "intermediary" with Ruth in passing along such incriminating information.  This nebulous phone call (that the WC didn't want to touch) seems aimed at Castro (or Communists), representative of the PDS Phase 1 allegories.  Perhaps Castro was the intended focus of "who was responsible".  This record of a call thus becomes another piece of planted evidence (embassy letter, backyard photos) originating from the ever-accommodating Paines.

[Ron Bulman]

Thank you for an excellent informative explanation Gene.  Though I almost quit reading at Hugh Aynesworth.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 8:54 AM, Gene Kelly said:

Its interesting (but not surprising) that the Barger/FBI "report" is simply a second-hand summary ... no names, no precise time, unclear from where the call originated (i.e. did Mike call Ruth or vice versa).  But the male caller was "sure that LHO had killed the President".  Its more like hearsay or an allegation, as opposed to factual. 

Later reports changed the date, and added that it was a collect call from Ruth (long distance) to the Bell workplace.  The Confidential Informant twist is added to  make it legally untouchable.  Then, in 1976, Barger changes his story (with the help of Hugh Aynesworth) to a telephone repairman encountering "chance" mechanical difficulties and inadvertent discovery, thereby blocking the HSCA from finding more.  Its amazing how much coincidence and 'chance' surrounds the Paines, straining credibility, especially in a high profile intrigue such as JFK's murder.  You would think that the murder of a President would over-ride concerns for a "confidential informant".  I can also attest (as a former federal employee) that when confidentiality is offered, it is always with the caveat that it may be revoked for larger concerns. One is counselled that there is no such thing as strict confidentiality.  

When the phone call is viewed in the context of the Russian book with the incriminating note within,  the strategy becomes clearer. The Paines are obviously being used as a cooperative conduit for incriminating information on LHO.  Its notable that Barger was the "intermediary" with Ruth in passing along such incriminating information.  This nebulous phone call (that the WC didn't want to touch) seems aimed at Castro (or Communists), representative of the PDS Phase 1 allegories.  Perhaps Castro was the intended focus of "who was responsible".  This record of a call thus becomes another piece of planted evidence (embassy letter, backyard photos) originating from the ever-accommodating Paines.

Gene,

The fibbing that is shown in the original transcript of the Paine phone call is, in my opinion, proof of a conspiracy from the Radical Right, who used elements in the FBI and Police to tap the Paine's call.

The fib is that Michael Paine said, "I'm sure that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President." 

Michael Paine said no such thing.

So, why would the original transcript claim that Michael Paine said that?   The answer should be obvious -- whoever created that false transcript was trying to FRAME the Paines as well as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Why is it taking more than 50 years for readers to admit this?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

17 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Gene,

The fibbing that is shown in the original transcript of the Paine phone call is, in my opinion, proof of a conspiracy from the Radical Right, who used elements in the FBI and Police to tap the Paine's call.

The fib is that Michael Paine said, "I'm sure that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President." 

Michael Paine said no such thing.

So, why would the original transcript claim that Michael Paine said that?   The answer should be obvious -- whoever created that false transcript was trying to FRAME the Paines as well as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Why is it taking more than 50 years for readers to admit this?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, you are conflating what you are referring to as a "transcript" with what you are quoting as a "fib".

Why don't You quote and source you're "original transcript" and why do you quote your "fib" without sourcing it. 

Are you making stuff up?

[Joe Bauer]

I wonder if the Paines themselves may have at some time before their connections to the Oswalds been on the radar of some subversive concerned agency?  I mean, here you have two died-in-the-wool North Eastern liberals moving to the capital city of the most extreme right wing ideology with Ruth herself studying Russian and an active member of an international exchange program involving Russians ) and Michael with his side interests ( besides madrigal singing  ) of attending left wing ACLU meetings and even super right wing ones (out of curiosity?) and striking up leftist political ideology conversations with college students ... all before even meeting LHO?  

That's about as incongruous as die hard JBS followers moving to Berkeley, Calif. in the late 1960's.

I picture subversive detail agent James Hosty rubbing his hands together in excited glee and thinking...whew boy, I got a couple of hot ones here baby!

If the statements attributed to Ruth Paine by Paul T are true,  she gives first hand confirmation that the tapped phone call date was indeed 11,22,1963.  And she also states that the "we both know who's responsible" statement on that call was both accurate and made by her husband.

Wesley Liebeler was indeed wrong about the date of the call ( which as an innocent mistake is hard to believe )  and which was extremely important in giving Michael Paine an out where by he could honestly say he made no such phone call..."on that date."

Ruth Paine insists that any interviewer that asks for such be completely informed as to all her testimonies.

She seems to suggest she feels somewhat well informed about the JFK event through reading...but then she tells Trejo she didn't even know about the Lifton JFK book ( and how many others ? )  

And she indicates that she thought Vincent Buglosi's book was a good one as far as her education of the event?

Ruth Paine may be an intelligent woman in certain areas, but the impression one gets from hearing of her readings about 11,22,1963 indicates she is actually not well informed on the subject. That she hasn't really put legitimate time and effort into an adequate and "balanced" search for research truth.

Michael Paine's stumbling, disjointed, off subject answers to WC Wesley Liebeler questions regards the 11,22,1963 tapped phone call are clearly deliberate obfuscations and he knowingly keeps the wrong date in Liebeler's questioning from being corrected. He deliberately keeps from stating the full truth about that call as he knew it.

I watched a video interview of Michael Paine where he actually falls back on that silly LN hype of Oswald shooting JFK to make a statement that Oswald felt the world ( American and Russian systems ) needed change and that only violent actions could ever make real change happen. And implying Oswald was crazy enough to start that violence.

Paine also inferred that Oswald possibly acted on the the incredibly lucky and fateful circumstances of JFK's motorcade and limo route passing right below his workplace window. OMG ...I could change the world right here on a stack of books and right outside my window on my lunch break!  

Marina and my two baby girls will just have to understand I couldn't pass up such a lucky break like this.

Here again, Michael Paine is supposed to be a formally well educated man, but he expresses such simple minded thoughts that someone else came up with and promoted.

Paine says he and Oswald were both interested in the doings of the ultra right wing organizations to the point they actually attended one or more Dallas area meetings. M. Paine claims Oswald  related to him his shared negative feelings toward this extreme right political realm.

And this would explain Oswald perhaps taking a pot-shot at retired General Walker.

So, how does Paine explain the conflict of motive with right wing disliking Oswald going even farther than the Walker shooting in killing JFK, someone who was on Oswald's and Paine's side in disliking the far right wing?

There was an intellectual arrogance in Paine's talk of Oswald in this interview. Paine describes Oswald as a very uniformed person in the area of real political ideology.  He insinuates that Oswald was a pitiful figure in this regards, and blinded with an over-blown false reality sense of his own grasp and awareness of the subject.

You'd think someone of Paine's well nurtured privileged world ( he was a trust fund child ) and liberal, fair-minded slant beliefs would have more understanding empathy for a person like Oswald who at least tried to do more in his short and extremely underprivileged life than making model helicopters and getting jobs through his family.

The more M.Paine dismissed and painted Oswald as a pathetic figure ( he even described with disdain how he once had to step over Oswald's stretched out football game watching legs in his wife's living room one weekend day to find a seat there, as if to show what a lazy and thoughtless no count loser Oswald was) the more he revealed just how much he personally disliked Oswald, as did his wife Ruth. 

That strong personal bias is something to keep in mind when considering Paine's testimony about those one-on-one interactions with and what he truly knew of ( or felt ) about Oswald.

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Trejo]

Joe,

First, Ruth Paine was NOT accepted in the Dallas White Russian community for two solid reasons: her Russian conversation skills were at the beginner level, and she was a Quaker, i.e she never went to the Russian Orthodox services on Sunday, where they gathered.

Ruth Paine studied Russian back in high school, but without conversational skills, all she could do was walk school boys through a textbook.

As for the simplistic politics of Michael Paine, please remember, Joe, that this was more than a half-century ago.

Finally, as for Ex-General Walker, in his WC testimony, Walker opines that Michael Paine may have been involved.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 1, 2017 by Paul Trejo
Walker

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

Finally, as for Ex-General Walker, in his WC testimony, Walker opines that Michael Paine may have been involved.

 

And Paul, as usual, shows no respect to forum members or the casual reader by not offering a Warren Commission quote. 

----------------------------

""Paul has told me point blank that he repeats himself ad infinitum in order to influence the casual passers by here."

(intentionally in quoted and no reference made to the originating thread)

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Joe Bauer]

15 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Joe,

First, Ruth Paine was NOT accepted in the Dallas White Russian community for two solid reasons: her Russian conversation skills were at the beginner level, and she was a Quaker, i.e she never went to the Russian Orthodox services on Sunday, where they gathered.

Ruth Paine studied Russian back in high school, but without conversational skills, all she could do was walk school boys through a textbook.

As for the simplistic politics of Michael Paine, please remember, Joe, that this was more than a half-century ago.

Finally, as for Ex-General Walker, in his WC testimony, Walker opines that Michael Paine may have been involved.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I've corrected the reference to the white Russians regarding Ruth.

However, who was it that came up with the idea of introducing Ruth to Marina?

 

[Paul Brancato]

16 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

And Paul, as usual, shows no respect to forum members or the casual reader by not offering a Warren Commission quote. 

----------------------------

""Paul has told me point blank that he repeats himself ad infinitum in order to influence the casual passers by here."

(intentionally in quoted and no reference made to the originating thread)

 

 

Thanks for referencing a statement I made and stand by.

joe - I think you make excellent points about Michael Paine. Heck, I was 15 in 1963 and would have found M Paines take on Oswald as shallow then as I do now.

[James DiEugenio]

But isn't it interesting how fast MIchael and Ruth came up with it?

Almost as if they were in contact with the actual perpetrators.

Edited August 2, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael Clark said:

And Paul, as usual, shows no respect to forum members or the casual reader by not offering a Warren Commission quote. 

----------------------------

""Paul has told me point blank that he repeats himself ad infinitum in order to influence the casual passers by here."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for referencing a statement I made and stand by.

joe - I think you make excellent points about Michael Paine. Heck, I was 15 in 1963 and would have found M Paines take on Oswald as shallow then as I do now.

Paul B.,

Actually, I repeat myself (when I do) because my points are strong and valid, yet they receive continual attacks from so many here.  That's the main reason.  So, you've basically jumped to a conclusion based only on your own bias.  Come off it.

As for my offering Warren Commission quotes -- I've offered perhaps more than any other writer here.  But still I get attacked for my views -- so I'm tired of all that work.  If a person doesn't want to crack a book and read it, that's their problem.

Finally, Michael Paine's political views were fashionable a half-century ago.   Anybody can look backwards and criticize.  Hindsight is always 20/20.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 2, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 8/2/2017 at 9:18 AM, Joe Bauer said:

I've corrected the reference to the white Russians regarding Ruth.

However, who was it that came up with the idea of introducing Ruth to Marina?

Joe,

Thanks for making that correction about Ruth and the White Russians of Dallas.

As for the "idea" of introducing Ruth to Marina, that was Ruth's own "idea."   Here's the story as she told it to the Warren Commission (and no, I'm not going to cut and paste it here; I'll just summarize briefly).

1.  The time was late February, 1963.  A friend of Ruth and Michael Paine named Everett Glover, was giving a party at his house.

2.  The context was this -- Glover had known the Paines for many years, but the Paines had recently separated.  Glover thought of a way to re-unite them -- by inviting them to his party.

3.  Glover knew that Ruth Paine was very interested in studying the Russian language.  (She had asked two professors of Russian language in Dallas to tutor her, and they both turned her down). 

3.1.  Glover, an engineer, was also good friends with geology professor and oil engineer George De Mohrenschildt.  Flamboyant George had been touting Lee and Marina Oswald all over Dallas during this time.

4.  So, Glover had a great idea for a party.  He would ask George De Mohrenschildt to bring Lee and Marina to his home, and he would invite all his engineer friends from Bell Helicopter, Mobile Oil Company, and other Dallas/Ft. Worth companies, to interview this US Marine who had defected to the USSR and then came back to Texas with a Russian wife.

4.1.  The attraction for Ruth Paine was that Lee, Marina, George and his wife, Jeanne, all spoke fluent Russian.

5.  Michael and Ruth Paine decided to go.  At the last moment, however, Michael got a cold, so he didn't go.  So, Ruth drove by herself.

5.1.  The date was February 22, 1963, around 7pm.

6.  She got there a little early.  She not only knew Everett Glover, she knew his roommates, including Volkmar Schmidt and a few others.

7.  A little later, George DeMohrenschildt arrived with his wife, Jeanne, along with Marina and Lee  Harvey Oswald.

8.  Ruth testified -- repeatedly -- that she never saw the DeMohrenschildts before in her life -- and she never saw them again, either.   Not until the Jim Garrison scandals around 1966-1967 did she meet them again.

9.  Anyway, all these Dallas engineers gathered around Lee Harvey Oswald.  They asked him dozens of questions about the USSR, and Oswald loved being the center of attention.

10.  Ruth was completely bored with him.

11.  On the other hand, Marina Oswald, who also brought her baby June, was back in a bedroom with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, because the baby was cranky, and Marina was trying to get her to sleep.

12.  The most important thing -- to Ruth Paine -- was that they were speaking in Russian.

13.  Ruth Paine politely asked Marina and Jeanne if she could join them.  They said yes.

14.  Ruth Paine tried to contribute to their conversation, but they were speaking too quickly, and Ruth couldn't keep up.  (They were talking about babies and families.)

15.  When Ruth made an error in Russian conversation, Marina Oswald gently and politely corrected her.

16.  Ruth Paine testified that Marina Oswald was a truly class act.  A beautiful young mother, educated, with Russian grammar like an aristocrat -- just perfect.

17.  It was at that moment that Ruth Paine decided that she would try to make Marina Oswald her close, personal friend.

18.  The rest is US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Gene Kelly]

Ron (and others):

If you put stock in the Peter Dale Scott thesis of Phase 1 (Castro/Communist plot) and Phase 2 (LN) allegories, that might explain why Wesley Liebeler buried this phone call by referring to the wrong date, during his March 1964 WC interview of Michael Paine.  The idea of pinning the assassination on Castro or Communists had been abandoned by then, so this phone call is no longer needed.  Michael dismissed it in his testimony as "some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don’t know where it was... I thought it was some other part of the country".  He then deflects to another call from the police station to Ruth.  Ruth Paine testified to the WC:

"He (Michael) called. He knew about the assassination. He had been told by a waitress at lunchtime. I don't know whether he knew any further details, whether he knew from whence the shots had been fired, but he knew immediately that I would want to know, and called simply to find out if I knew, and of course I did, and we didn't converse about it, but I felt the difference between him and my immediate neighbor to whom I have already referred, Michael was as struck and grieved as I was, and we shared this over the telephone." (Vol III, P. 110)

So, Ruth and Michael Paine  tell conflicting stories about the phone call under oath in Warren Commission testimony. They weren't pressed on it and Liebeler deliberately made the call appear to be a rumor, and so it disappeared from the record until the mid-70s when Bernard Fensterwald came across the declassified Gemberling FBI report ( which had been withheld from the Warren Commission) and exposed it as a wire tap operation.  Fensterwald’s allegations were articulated by Congressmen Thomas Downing and Henry Gonzalez, on the House floor, as the HSCA was getting started.  Then we see the spin doctors utilize Hugh Aynesworth in a 1976 Dallas Times Herald article to refute the story of a wiretap on the Paine’s residential line.  

There's obviously something wrong and very fishy going on.  As a minimum, the Paines are being used; it wouldn't be the first time Allen Dulles used religious groups and individuals, such as Noel Field (see Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard") in his plotting and scheming.   However, I tend to see the Paines as much more than innocent dupes being manipulated.    

Gene  

[Paul Trejo]

On 8/3/2017 at 8:16 AM, Gene Kelly said:

... Ruth Paine testified to the WC:

"He (Michael) called. He knew about the assassination. He had been told by a waitress at lunchtime. I don't know whether he knew any further details, whether he knew from whence the shots had been fired, but he knew immediately that I would want to know, and called simply to find out if I knew, and of course I did, and we didn't converse about it, but I felt the difference between him and my immediate neighbor to whom I have already referred, Michael was as struck and grieved as I was, and we shared this over the telephone." (Vol III, P. 110)

So, Ruth and Michael Paine  tell conflicting stories about the phone call under oath in Warren Commission testimony...

There's obviously something wrong and very fishy going on... I tend to see the Paines as much more than innocent dupes being manipulated.    

Gene  

Gene,

I think you're conflating two different phone calls.  The call after 12pm, was before Oswald was named by the radio, and then I maintain there was another call after 2pm, after Oswald was named by the radio.

If there was only one phone call, then your suspicions might have some staying power -- but insofar as there were multiple phone calls between a man and his wife, where Marina Oswald was the key person of interest -- then I think your suspicions are hasty.

After Oswald was named by the radio, as I read the history, Michael Paine called Ruth Paine a second time, to say that he didn't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the real killer of JFK, but "we both know who was responsible."

By that, Ruth Paine explained to me in December, 2015, Michael meant (and Ruth understood him to mean) that those truly responsible were those who had published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill circulating around Dallas, as well as those who published the black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News that day: WELCOME, MR. KENNEDY TO DALLAS: WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE COMMUNISTS?  .

It was not that Michael or Ruth knew their names -- only their generic deeds.   IMHO, they were 100% right, and this is confirmed by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's recent book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Anyway, in my reading, immediately after the 2nd phone call, Michael Paine sped over to Ruth Paine's house from work, only to find the Dallas Police already there.  That gives us the relative time of the 2nd call.   The 1st call was made after a lunchtime cafeteria waitress told Michael that JFK had been shot.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[James DiEugenio]

Yawn.

How many times are you going to use your posts as an unpaid commercial for Caufield's deader than a doornail book Paul?