Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

[Chris Newton]

22 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

it was necessary to counter the BS for anyone new to the subject, which is important in and of itself.

Ron, I agree that it's important to provide a balanced argument. But there's a limit to my goodwill and patience and it's gotten to a point where I think it suppresses more of the conversation than it creates. Some researchers here have presented brilliant arguments that have persuaded me to think about issues in a whole new light. On the other hand , if you allowed me to describe what other people were thinking and feeling, I could present dozens of scenarios and justify whatever the conspiracy "du jour" was. Would that be honest? No.

I'm not interested in creating a fiction around this testimony. I am interested in understanding the questions that were asked, the responses, the misdirection, the subtle control of the subject matter that is being presented. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not providing a legal opinion, I'm just providing an experienced ear.

[Paul Trejo]

23 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Furthermore, I have "turned off" all posts on the Educational Forum by Paul Trejo. I refuse to read any posts made by this individual or participate in any form of discussion with him. My reason is that Zealots have no desire to participate in real debate or discussion.

I do not believe that his presence on this forum is to participate, in any shape or form, in the discourse envisaged by John Simpkin when he established this forum.

Chris,

As for my active participation in John SImkin's JFK Forum for these many years, I have soundly debunked James DiEugenio's Probe Magazine nonsense about Ruth Paine, and so he is still sore about that.  So his doubling-down of your evasion is no surprise.

Also, just because you've committed to evade my questions to your criticisms of Ruth Paine is no reason for me to stop defending her on this Forum.  Your criticisms still need to hold water.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo
John

[Michael Clark]

9 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Ron, I agree that it's important to provide a balanced argument. But there's a limit to my goodwill and patience and it's gotten to a point where I think it suppresses more of the conversation than it creates. Some researchers here have presented brilliant arguments that have persuaded me to think about issues in a whole new light. On the other hand , if you allowed me to describe what other people were thinking and feeling, I could present dozens of scenarios and justify whatever the conspiracy "du jour" was. Would that be honest? No.

I'm not interested in creating a fiction around this testimony. I am interested in understanding the questions that were asked, the responses, the misdirection, the subtle control of the subject matter that is being presented. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not providing a legal opinion, I'm just providing an experienced ear.

Chris, this does not have to do with the letter. Built, like the letter, and the questioning of Michael Paine regarding the "We both know" call, it demonstrates the same thing that you are pointing out; namely that the WC and the Paine's were doing a careful and skillful tango in order to obscure the truth.

On 5/18/2017 at 5:01 PM, Michael Clark said:

My 199 page transcript, #1 (undated)'of Ruth Paine's WC Testimony comes-up with no results when I search for "Abt".

My 20 page fragment of Ruth Paine Testimony makes no mention of John Abt.

My July 23, 1964 fragment of Ruth Hyde Testimony makes no mention of John Abt.

I found nothing in her affidavit.

My 217 page WC testimony of Ruth Paine March 21, 1964, shows one mention of John Abt.:

Mr. JENNER - At least your discussions with him do not enable you to proceed to the point at which to enable you to voice any opinions in this area or subject than you have now given?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I had not heard that name.
Mr. JENNER - And, therefore, you never suggested it to Lee Oswald?

 

Is this the only mention of John Abt in Ruth Paine's testimony? There is no mention of his name from her at all. She doesn't even have to lie if it never happened!

Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I had not heard that name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

As for my active participation in Jim SImpkin's JFK Forum for these many years, I have soundly debunked James DiEugenio's Probe Magazine nonsense about Ruth Paine, and so he is still sore about that.  So his doubling-down of your evasion is no surprise.

Also, just because you've committed to evade my questions to your criticisms of Ruth Paine is no reason for me to stop defending her on this Forum.  Your criticisms still need to hold water.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

John Simkin.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsimkin.htm

[Paul Trejo]

22 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

John Simkin.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsimkin.htm

 Right, John Simkin.

My point is, that if anybody on John Simkin's JFK Forum thinks he can just attack Ruth Paine willy nilly, without my challenging them for FACTS and EVIDENCE, then they can just forget it.

I'm not a zealot.  I just demand the TRUTH, and not mere rumors or sloppy accusations.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 Right, John Simkin.

My point is, that if anybody on John Simkin's JFK Forum thinks he can just attack Ruth Paine willy nilly, without my challenging them for FACTS and EVIDENCE, then they can just forget it.

I'm not a zealot.  I just demand the TRUTH, and not mere rumors or sloppy accusations.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

 

 

 

HECTOR

But value dwells not in particular will;

It holds his estimate and dignity
As well wherein 'tis precious of itself

As in the prizer: 'tis mad idolatry

To make the service greater than the god

And the will dotes that is attributive

To what infectiously itself affects,

Without some image of the affected merit. 

Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul,  

You have an incredible Grand Illusion about yourself.  The idea that you bought my book for the sole purpose of going through what I wrote about Ruth Paine tells us all we ned to know about you.  Your comments on it were so asinine that I did not even wish to reply at any length.  

And the idea that somehow that is the reason I do not consider you very highly is even more illusory.  The reason I don't is similar to what Chris said, and in fact he uses the same word I do.

YOU ARE  A ZEALOT!

Do you understand what that means?  In this case, it simply means that your conclusions are not drawn from the evidence.  Far from it.  They are drawn IN SPITE of the evidence.  Your arguments with Ernie are prime evidence of this terrible tendency.  No matter how much back up, no matter how much primary evidence he surfaces, you  maintain your ideas about Harry.  That is not what a rational person does.  Its what a zealot does.  Especially a zealot who does not feel the raft sinking as he descends with it.

Another example is the argument you had with RC Dunne.  As Sandy noticed above.

Another example is your insistence on selling Caufield's bad book. Without ever noting any of his terrible errors of fact, exaggeration and distortion.

Another example is your insistence on trying to market the WC image of Ruth and Michael Paine, and also the White Russians.  Again, that raft is sinking fast below you and somehow you are not aware you a re sucking in water.  

That is another definition of being a ZEALOT!  look it up yourself.

But beyond that, I fundamentally feel that your are here to mislead the public about the facts of who JFK was,  who his enemies up high were, and how the plot worked to kill him.

That is that.

I am done with Paul Trejo.

[Chris Newton]

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I had not heard that name.

I'd have to study it but my immediate reaction is that this is fundamentally dishonest. It goes right to the heart of whether or not Ruth was really an ACLU "believer". Lee Harvey Oswald asked Ruth Paine, he was calling from the jail after his arrest, to contact John Abt and gave her his number. It is not totally clear if she ever attempted to do this, maybe she made one call. She says she did but the purpose of the call (to Ruth), in context, is that Oswald did not have the luxury of making repeated calls to Abt because of his incarceration and he was trying to contact Abt for legal representation.

[Chris Newton]

13 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

 before you received the telephone call

On further reading she may not have heard the name BEFORE Oswald's call. So I'm OK with that statement. The whole issue of Oswald's guilt or innocence and Ruth's characterization of this issue does not jive with my own experiences interacting with members of the ACLU.

[Mark Knight]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

As for my active participation in Jim SImkin's JFK Forum for these many years, I have soundly debunked James DiEugenio's Probe Magazine nonsense about Ruth Paine, and so he is still sore about that.  So his doubling-down of your evasion is no surprise.

Also, just because you've committed to evade my questions to your criticisms of Ruth Paine is no reason for me to stop defending her on this Forum.  Your criticisms still need to hold water.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Who is this JIM Simkin of which you speak?

Of course, we SHOULD be used to your persistent lack of accuracy in nearly everything you post.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul,  

You have an incredible Grand Illusion about yourself.  The idea that you bought my book for the sole purpose of going through what I wrote about Ruth Paine tells us all we ned to know about you.  Your comments on it were so asinine that I did not even wish to reply at any length.  

And the idea that somehow that is the reason I do not consider you very highly is even more illusory.  The reason I don't is similar to what Chris said, and in fact he uses the same word I do.

YOU ARE  A ZEALOT!

Do you understand what that means?  In this case, it simply means that your conclusions are not drawn from the evidence.  Far from it.  They are drawn IN SPITE of the evidence.  Your arguments with Ernie are prime evidence of this terrible tendency.  No matter how much back up, no matter how much primary evidence he surfaces, you  maintain your ideas about Harry.  That is not what a rational person does.  Its what a zealot does.  Especially a zealot who does not feel the raft sinking as he descends with it.

Another example is the argument you had with RC Dunne.  As Sandy noticed above.

Another example is your insistence on selling Caufield's bad book. Without ever noting any of his terrible errors of fact, exaggeration and distortion.

Another example is your insistence on trying to market the WC image of Ruth and Michael Paine, and also the White Russians.  Again, that raft is sinking fast below you and somehow you are not aware you a re sucking in water.  

That is another definition of being a ZEALOT!  look it up yourself.

But beyond that, I fundamentally feel that your are here to mislead the public about the facts of who JFK was,  who his enemies up high were, and how the plot worked to kill him.

That is that.

I am done with Paul Trejo.

James,

I'm not a zealot.  I debunked your nonsense about Ruth Paine -- not only in your Probe Magazine from the 1990's, but also in both editions of your "Destiny Betrayed."

It's on record here in John Simkin's JFK Forum.  You didn't respond logically to my criticisms only because there is no logical response.

Your only response is emotional -- to call me a Zealot and then quit. 

Well, I think that lots of readers are watching this -- because lots of readers here have been reading JFK conspiracy literature for decades, and many have been influenced by Probe Magazine (myself included).

But when it comes to Ruth Paine -- I don't take nonsense from anybody.  She's a good person down to this very day -- and all these public attacks on her are unfair and unkind.

If you think I'm going to remain silent about defending Ruth Paine in public, you're wrong.

You're wrong about Ruth Paine, you're wrong about Michael Paine, you're wrong about me, and you're wrong about the JFK assassination.

'Nuff said,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

I'd have to study it but my immediate reaction is that this is fundamentally dishonest. It goes right to the heart of whether or not Ruth was really an ACLU "believer". Lee Harvey Oswald asked Ruth Paine, he was calling from the jail after his arrest, to contact John Abt and gave her his number. It is not totally clear if she ever attempted to do this, maybe she made one call. She says she did but the purpose of the call (to Ruth), in context, is that Oswald did not have the luxury of making repeated calls to Abt because of his incarceration and he was trying to contact Abt for legal representation.

Ruth Paine said that she never heard the name of John Abt before in her life.

She also said that when Lee Harvey Oswald called her from the Dallas City Jail about this, she was amazed at his cavalier attitude -- just ordering her around like she was his personal secretary.

Ruth Paine said that Lee Harvey Oswald did not seem to grasp in the slightest the great trouble and danger that he was in.  His attitude was devil-may-care.

As I read it, if not for her friendship with Marina Oswald (since Ruth always believed that Marina would come back to live with her), Ruth Paine wouldn't have called John Abt.

As it turned out, Ruth Paine did finally call John Abt.  I don't remember how many times, but she finally gave up.   As we learned later, Abt was out of town on vacation at the time, and his secretary would not give that information out to strangers.

All this is in her WC testimony.

Obviously, Ruth Paine never guessed that Lee Harvey Oswald actually expected to be bailed out by his accomplices -- "someone to come forward to give" him "legal assistance."  In my opinion, the leaders of the JFK plot told Oswald to call John Abt if he was arrested -- this would be their "code."  Oswald was only obeying orders, as I read it.  The Dallas Radical Right were on the floor laughing their heads off.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

37 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

I'm not a zealot.  I debunked your nonsense about Ruth Paine -- not only in your Probe Magazine from the 1990's, but also in both editions of your "Destiny Betrayed."

It's on record here in John Simkin's JFK Forum.  You didn't respond logically to my criticisms only because there is no logical response.

Your only response is emotional -- to call me a Zealot and then quit. 

Well, I think that lots of readers are watching this -- because lots of readers here have been reading JFK conspiracy literature for decades, and many have been influenced by Probe Magazine (myself included).

But when it comes to Ruth Paine -- I don't take nonsense from anybody.  She's a good person down to this very day -- and all these public attacks on her are unfair and unkind.

If you think I'm going to remain silent about defending Ruth Paine in public, you're wrong.

You're wrong about Ruth Paine, you're wrong about Michael Paine, you're wrong about me, and you're wrong about the JFK assassination.

'Nuff said,
--Paul Trejo

You are a zealot...... your comments and positions are the archetype for zealotry..

 

 

   On 10/27/2014 at 7:56 PM, Kathy Beckett said: 

No one is getting anywhere.

Once again, I suggest a 72 hour break, and a summary formulated and posted, if you wish, and then be done.

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

Paul Trejo wrote:

Kathy, it's been 72 hours, so I presume it's OK to begin posting here again.

My first post is a question to you, as Administrator. Why do you propose to be done with this thread? It seems to me that the thread has its own energy, and points are still being debated, and new information is still being presented.

In my view, there is no way to make a summary at this time -- unless it's a one-sided and biased summary.

Why would anyone wish to suppress further discussion on the topic of Harry Dean's account of the JFK murder? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

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

Kathy wrote:

I am not going to do anything with it. It is a part of the Forum. Nor am I trying to suppress anything.

It's a same old, same old. You are at a stalemate. If you want to start a new thread about a specific topic , no one is stopping you, but it needs to be specific.If you need to draw from this thread for a point on the other thread, use a link to the specific post or posts you are referencing. 

If you want to define your position, so folks will know what you think, so you don't have to type it over and over, I suggest that a blog would be ideal. You could put a link to it in your signature area, and anyone who wished could follow. 

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

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

Paul, you should take Kathy's advice and start a blog. You could unload your tome their, and you won't have to leave your drivel around the forum. I know you don't have much to say, you simply say the same thing over and over and over. If you express yourself on your blog, you can simply remind us where we can find it, with a link. 

You risk jamming another thread shut like the one from which I quoted above. There is no need for that. GET A BLOG!

Edited August 11, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ron Bulman]

Did Oswald ever really use Ruth's typewriter?  Her word only.  Sister was a CIA Psychologist for years before the assassination.  Daddy was OSS WWII, AID, she admitted to CIA later (?).   Husband Mikey as a non graduate of Harvard held a security clearance at Bell Helicopter which his step dad invented where he worked with German Dorenberger, imported after WWII  by Allen Dulles via Operation Paperclip (google it).  Some might infer he bombed London.  Mike's Momma was reportedly BFF with Dulles WWII spy/Lover Mary Bancroft.  Cabot, Lodge...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Dornberger

Oswald never lived to see the letter or comment on it.

Might they have been fed the letter... and persuaded to promote it? 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Chris Newton]

 

Thanks Ron,

 

Did Oswald ever really use Ruth's typewriter?  Her word only.

Not exactly. Marina testified that she saw Lee retype the envelope about 10 times. Marina can't vouch for what he wrote because she didn't read English at that time but it's clear he used Ruth's typewriter for "something". I worked with a typewriter collector to track down the specs and the history of Ruth's typewriter and the font on Oswald's alleged letter seems to be a match of a font that may have been on that typewriter. I also have samples of letters we assume Ruth wrote in the months after Nov. 22 that also seem to use that same font set.

Sister was a CIA Psychologist for years before the assassination.

Yes.

Daddy was OSS WWII, AID, she admitted to CIA later (?).

I am unclear at this time if she denied that he worked for USIS (or USAID) which can be a cover for CIA. They are the "white propaganda" element that was formerly OWI. It was probably OWI (not OSS) that he worked for, part of which got re-assigned to the State Dept. and part of which went to the COI after WW2.

Husband Mikey as a non graduate of Harvard held a security clearance at Bell Helicopter which his step dad invented where he worked with German Dorenberger, imported after WWII  by Allen Dulles via Operation Paperclip (google it)

As far as I know, yes.

Mike's Momma was reportedly BFF with Dulles WWII spy/Lover Mary Bancroft.  Cabot, Lodge...

Yes.

Oswald never lived to see the letter or comment on it. 

Yes, unless he wrote it. He never had an opportunity to comment on it, correct again.

 

I don't know, yet, If he wrote that letter or another letter. I think I've already proven that Ruth Paine's story about the letter's provenance is untrue. I want to learn why she had to create a story around this event. There is something important that is being covered up. They had to essentially accuse all the Detectives that initially showed up at the Oswald residence of being mistaken about their testimonies. They made a floorplan as a WC exhibit that is not an accurate depiction of the home.

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Chris Newton