Saint Ruthie-Saint Walker off-topic dump thread

[Michael Clark]

I figured that I would open a thread in which replies to other threads, that repeatedly get driven off-topic and into a pet theory, can be replied-to without diverting the subject thread.General Walker and Saint Ruthie are the most common diversions, thus the title.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Jason Ward]

Michael,

Thanks for starting the thread.  Perhaps you can help me understand the forum dynamics better since I am a newbie.

Here's what I don't understand about the CIA Ruth v. Saint Ruthie litigation: Why dwell on it?  Or get emotional about it?

Ruth's been in the CIA for at least a couple decades now and we're still arguing about whether she wrote Oswald's letters and the details of her typewriter.    I haven't seen a single primary source in documentary or testimonial form that links Ruth to the CIA.   DeMohrenschildt is documented.   Bush is documented.   Hunt is documented.   Morales, "Maurice Bishop," Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier, and all the others are documented.   AFAIK there is no one else besides Ruth who has been in the CIA for so long without a shred of paper to memorialize this "fact" nor a witness to testify to this "fact."  It's entirely conjecture.  Which is fine for many of us; we all have our own standard of determining the truth, and indeed conjecture is needed as a first step towards undeniable proof.

...but what is more conjecture and arguing going to accomplish at this point?   Those who bought the conjecture 10, 20, or 30 years ago are still buying it today.  Those who require a higher level of evidence are still not buying it, and never will until the documentary or testimonial evidence appears.   

The entire exercise it seems to me is a purposeless dichotomy: you're either busy developing ever-more hints and allegations to re-assure like minded CIA Ruth devotees of what they already believe -OR- you're insisting that until words on paper appear or a witness testifies Ruth is a saintly Quaker.

It's bogging us down.  There's a lot more that needs exploration.  Until something new appears speaking to Ruth's relationship with the CIA, why not move on?

regards

Jason

 

 

[Michael Clark]

On 8/22/2017 at 0:56 PM, Paul Trejo said:

James,

It was the Cold War.  What was normal in a time of threatened nuclear obliteration?

Harry Dean's story still carries weight, because he offers an account of what happened in Mexico City as he heard it from Radical Right leader Guy Gabaldon, he claims.

Harry Dean helped to load the paramilitary supplies trailer for Loran Hall and Larry Howard many times.   I take this to be a fact.

Loran Hall showed Harry Dean the money he got from Guy Gabaldon to drive Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City.

Loran Hall and Larry Howard match (to a significant degree) the description of "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" by Sylvia and Annie Odio.

Mexican Immigration records show that Lee Harvey Oswald entered and exited Mexico as a passenger in an automobile.

So, Harry Dean's story remains plausible -- despite 52 years of harsh criticism.   Harry's story still carries weight.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo. Try to stay on topic.The thread to which you were responding was about a phone call that the evil CIA agent and Nicaragua death-squad list compiler, Ruth Paine, made.