Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

  Why would Michael do this?.

Because they aren't Joe Six Pack kind of guys whose idea of fun is a drunken day at a ballgame.

They're nerdy, bookish types.   Michael is what LHO would be if born to a stable family instead of in to a cheap shotgun shack in New Orleans.

People do go to ACLU meetings you know?   And Bircher meetings?  I've been to both Democrat and Republican get-togethers and I'm not CIA.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:
23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

I can prove in a single reasoned statement that the Walker-Did-It theory is wrong:

Had Walker and his followers on the far right been behind the assassination, there would have been no reason for the cover up. The bastards would have been arrested, tried, and convicted. And that would have been the end of it.

There had to have been a very compelling reason for so many people in government to go along with the cover up. Saving Walker's hide wouldn't have fit the bill.

So just give up, toss your silly theory in the trash, and start over.

Sandy, 

You're mistaken.  First, the cover-up was not Walker's idea -- it was the FBI's idea.   Walker didn't want a cover-up.

The FBI insisted on a cover-up in 1963 for the same reason that the US Press never talked about Kennedy's mistresses in the White House -- the people were too naive to understand.

 

Oh please! The people would not have understood that General Walker and a bunch of his followers killed the president? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

 

Quote

It was unclear in the Cold War exactly how powerful the Minutemen were -- they were Coast to Coast.  Were there enough FBI agents to round them up?   If not, it could be a national crisis like Waco.


How many minutemen were involved in the assassination? Tens of thousands?

You're making excuses.

 

Quote

Or -- if the US Military had to get involved -- it would not be like today -- the Cold War was raging with Russia.  Russia would have had a field day.

So -- for the USA to save face during the Cold War -- the US Government had to hide the fact that the Dallas Right-Wing and Police Department heads killed JFK.  It was a major scandal.

 

If that is true, the FBI and Johnson Administration must have known that Walker was behind the assassination. Because if they didn't know, they wouldn't have known they needed to save face. What evidence is there that the Government knew Walker was guilty?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Because they aren't Joe Six Pack kind of guys whose idea of fun is a drunken day at a ballgame.

They're nerdy, bookish types.   Michael is what LHO would be if born to a stable family instead of in to a cheap shotgun shack in New Orleans.

People do go to ACLU meetings you know?   And Bircher meetings?  I've been to both Democrat and Republican get-togethers and I'm not CIA.

Jason

Off the typewriter but at least still on the Paines.  I think the Warren Omission typewriter or stenographer recorded testimony from Ruth that Oswald watched football in the afternoon on tv when he visited on the weekends.  He might have enjoyed a high school game in person or maybe even a SMU game as Michael liked to visit the Luby's across the street from campus.

What I was trying to get at is I don't see Oswald saying "Mike, I saw in the paper the ACLU's having a meeting, why don't we go check that out?".   Given his lack of any known affiliation with any US political organization?    I could see Michael saying "Lee, you claim to be not a Communist but  a Marxist, let's go see what these leftists have to say".  I'll drive.

As we're slightly off topic, I haven't seen this in a while.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lee+harvey+was+a+friend+of+mine&qpvt=lee+harvey+was+a+friend+of+mine&view=detail&mid=81C721AB0420FEC03ACF81C721AB0420FEC03ACF&FORM=VRDGAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Off the typewriter but at least still on the Paines.  I think the Warren Omission typewriter or stenographer recorded testimony from Ruth that Oswald watched football in the afternoon on tv when he visited on the weekends.  He might have enjoyed a high school game in person or maybe even a SMU game as Michael liked to visit the Luby's across the street from campus.

What I was trying to get at is I don't see Oswald saying "Mike, I saw in the paper the ACLU's having a meeting, why don't we go check that out?".   Given his lack of any known affiliation with any US political organization?    I could see Michael saying "Lee, you claim to be not a Communist but  a Marxist, let's go see what these leftists have to say".  I'll drive.

As we're slightly off topic, I haven't seen this in a while.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lee+harvey+was+a+friend+of+mine&qpvt=lee+harvey+was+a+friend+of+mine&view=detail&mid=81C721AB0420FEC03ACF81C721AB0420FEC03ACF&FORM=VRDGAR

Sure, Oswald had normal-red-blooded-American-boy traits such as enjoying football.  But he also either thought of himself as a kind of political sophisticate who could mingle in company above his paygrade and impress them with his intellect -OR- he was told to create the image of someone who thought of himself as this political scientist type. 

As for Michael and Ruth; although I discount any self-aware role for them in the conspiracy, nevertheless birds of a feather flock together.  The Paines are a few notches up the socioeconomic ladder from Oswald, but like all Progressives, they get satisfaction by going ghetto and showing their liberal minded embrace for diversity.  What's more diverse than a Russian in 1963 Dallas?  I mean I see the Marina-Ruth relationship as genuine and part of this is that Ruth is in her mind kind of a vanguard of new womanhood, learning Russian and easing Cold War tensions one-Russian-immigrant at at time.   Likewise, although Michael is clearly secondary to Ruth in this whole story, he is still part of this general Progressive-minded endeavor and fancies himself a great conversationalist, able to play the hardass rightwinger at work and play the liberal ACLU fan elsewhere.   

The Paines think of themselves as embracing and tolerant - inclusive is the current Progressive buzz word. Oswald is beyond their personal political boundaries with his professed Marxism, but as good leftist intellectuals they see communism and any -ism merely as points along a spectrum of political beliefs.   In my view.  So yes, Michael could have brought up the ACLU meeting, or the Walker meeting, or Lee might of just as well; politics was just as much a fun football game for them as an actual football game.  In my opinion.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2017 at 0:55 PM, David Von Pein said:

Mr. JENNER -- Excuse me. Would you please state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?

Mrs. PAINE -- Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was.

What part of Ruth Paine's answer can we prove to be untrue?

Why was it necessary to make up a story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot of us have decided the Paines are knowingly part of the conspiracy.

For those who can tolerate moving away from CT dogma for awhile just for the sake of discussion, Is it possible Ruth is not CIA, but that George DeM. or George Bouhe or Everrett Glover have a quiet word in Ruth’s ear along the lines of “I’d really appreciate it if you’d stay close to this couple and I’ll be around to help if you need it.”  ?
 
I believe the official narrative is that they meet at a party at Glover’s house and that the Oswalds get familiar with the Paines in nothing more than the usual way people meet at a party.  Given the connections of this social group, especially DeMohrenschildt, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Paines may have been employed in an unofficial non-intelligence capacity to simply take care of the hapless Oswalds.   This of course fits in with Ruth's religion anyway, and Ruth admittedly liked having Marina and the kid(s) around.  Does Ruth have to be CIA to unwittingly facilitate Oswald's move into assassination patsy?
 
A lot of you have conclusions around the letters and other evidence Ruth provides and use that as a basis for proving Ruth's CIA role, but perhaps you could just indulge me and say whether something along the lines of what I suggest is plausible; why or why not?  Maybe Paine's involvement with the Oswalds is connected with US intelligence but the Paines themselves don't know it?  I've seen this type of idea before of course, but if you don't mind I'd like to talk about it.
 
Jason
Edited by Jason Ward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

For those who can tolerate moving away from CT dogma for awhile just for the sake of discussion,

wtf Jason you are posting this in a Paine thread on a JFK Assassination forum. This is where we discuss CT.  Furthermore, you are deliberately trying to take this thread off topic. If you want to engage in a discussion about DeM, the White Russians and the dinner party, which I think only Ruth attended not Michael, then start your own thread on that.

You can agree or disagree with Davids assertion but you're not "allowed" to shut the discussion down.

Stay on topic please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

wtf Jason you are posting this in a Paine thread on a JFK Assassination forum. This is where we discuss CT.  Furthermore, you are deliberately trying to take this thread off topic. If you want to engage in a discussion about DeM, the White Russians and the dinner party, which I think only Ruth attended not Michael, then start your own thread on that.

You can agree or disagree with Davids assertion but you're not "allowed" to shut the discussion down.

Stay on topic please.

^^^^^This post is an exceedingly valuable contribution to the JFK assassination discussion.^^^^^

I'm just curious about something, Chris: Mr. DiEugenio, Mr Bullman, Mr Trejo, Mr Larsen; Mr. Clark, and several others have made posts that don't comply with the standards you are ordering me to obey.  Plenty of posts talk about the Paine's wealth, general role in the CT, and other things not having to do with a typewriter.  Why single me out?  Is it forum housekeeping or is this yet another display of ego and hostility?  Who's trying to control the discussion here again?   Where is it written that Chris Newton dictates what is "allowed" or not allowed?  Who between me and Chris is trying to limit posts to only the narrow parameters Chris decides ("you can either agree or disagree...").  (hint: afaik, you are neither the owner of the website, nor the decider of what I say, nor the police responsible for enforcing only topics you want discussed)

In the future, just ignore me; why attack me?   

if you don't want to respond that would be the best way to shut me down - but your repeated attacks on me personally are badgering and felonious.  Most of all you write with the deepest fear and insecurity; I mean what if others were distracted from your self-love affair and deep public need for admiration?   I'd like to return to the JFK assassination and as a peace offering I ask: isn't it possible the Paines are helping the conspiracy unwittingly?

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

 

19 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

wtf Jason you are posting this in a Paine thread on a JFK Assassination forum. This is where we discuss CT.  Furthermore, you are deliberately trying to take this thread off topic. If you want to engage in a discussion about DeM, the White Russians and the dinner party, which I think only Ruth attended not Michael, then start your own thread on that.

You can agree or disagree with Davids assertion but you're not "allowed" to shut the discussion down.

Stay on topic please.

This post is a real valuable contribution to the JFK assassination discussion.  

Or is it yet another display of ego and hostility?  Who's trying to control the discussion here again?   Where is it written that Chris Newton dictates what is "allowed" or not allowed?  Who between me and Chris is trying to limit posts to only the narrow parameters Chris decides ("you can either agree or disagree...").


(hint: you are neither the owner of the website nor the decider of what I say, nor the police responsible for enforcing only topics you want discussed)

In the future, just ignore me; why attack me?   

if you don't want to respond that would be the best way to shut me down - but your repeated attacks on me personally are badgering and felonious.  Most of all you write with the deepest fear and insecurity; I mean what if others were distracted from your self-love affair and deep public need for admiration?

Jason

 

 

wow. The things I want to say would bring the ban hammer. good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris Newton said:

 

wow. The things I want to say would bring the ban hammer. good luck.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^Threats and intimidation towards me episode 5, by Chris Newton^^^^^^^^^.  

I only see your attempts to shut down opinions you don't agree with and silence those who insight your insecurities.  Where is the JFk-related points in your posts?

Good luck.

...

Now, I invite you to give up attacking me and either answer substantively in response to what I say or just ignore me; how about it?   The Paines don't necessarily have to be consciously in on it for them to help along the conspiracy, do they?

 

Jason

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh please! The people would not have understood that General Walker and a bunch of his followers killed the president? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

 


How many minutemen were involved in the assassination? Tens of thousands?

You're making excuses.

 

 

If that is true, the FBI and Johnson Administration must have known that Walker was behind the assassination. Because if they didn't know, they wouldn't have known they needed to save face. What evidence is there that the Government knew Walker was guilty?

 

Hello again Sandy,

I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here.  What are you trying to say about the general public and their reaction to Walker and friends killing the president?

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2017 at 0:55 PM, David Von Pein said:

Mr. JENNER -- Excuse me. Would you please state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?

Mrs. PAINE -- Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was.

 

Mr. Jenner is discussing the date that Oswald allegedly typed his letter and Ruth allegedly found his draft. As I read this question and answer again, I realized that a part of it that Trejo repeatedly claims is a reference to Oswald having worked on the letter all weekend is instead a direct reference to the note itself. "He spent the weekend on it", is in reference to the preceeding sentence. He (the "note or rough draft") spent the weekend on it ("my desk secretary").

So back to my question:

What part of Ruth's answer is untrue and why was it necessary to make up a story?

 

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2017 at 6:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Maybe you or someone else knows something about this.  Somewhere in the last few months I read it had been discovered that at least part of Mike's time separated from Ruth he stayed in a bedroom at  house which was owned/rented and occupied by a fairly close associate of General Walker.  I need to start writing down sources when I come across something like this, too much info on the assassination in the old cranium.

I might have the citation you need, let me look at my notes.  I have seen that as well, but it could also be that I'm thinking I saw Mike had a room in a building owned by a Ruby associate, (half the people in Dallas seem to connect to Ruby, do they not?)

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Hello again Sandy,

I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here.  What are you trying to say about the general public and their reaction to Walker and friends killing the president?

Jason


Jason,

I really shouldn't continue with that short diversion from the topic of this thread. Paul had gotten his usual jab in regarding CIA-did-it CTs, and I responded to it. It's easy to understand. If you're interested in it, read these posts:

  1. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358150
  2. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358163
  3. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358248

In short, Paul claimed that the government covered up the Walker-did-it conspiracy because the public wouldn't have understood it. And I said nonsense, of course the public would have understood. (What's not to understand?)

That is an obvious weakness in Paul's CT.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Jason,

I really shouldn't continue with that short diversion from the topic of this thread. Paul had gotten his usual jab in regarding CIA-did-it CTs, and I responded to it. It's easy to understand. If you're interested in it, read these posts:

  1. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358150
  2. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358163
  3. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358248

In short, Paul claimed that the government covered up the Walker-did-it conspiracy because the public wouldn't have understood it. And I said nonsense, of course the public would have understood. (What's not to understand?)

That is an obvious weakness in Paul's CT.

 

Many thanks for the clarification, Sandy.  I hope you'll bring out your own CT soon.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...