Jump to content
The Education Forum

HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: A NEW LOOK AT THE JFK ASSASSINATION (2021)- 3/19/2021


Recommended Posts

On 3/28/2021 at 1:55 PM, Vince Palamara said:

...he then disappeared, his review left Amazon, and his Facebook was gone, too (he went by the fictitious name "Carlo Rossi", bragged in his info about being in military intelligence for decades and also being a recently retired postman).

 

In the Beltway world, people move from MI to lucrative private intelligence jobs.  How out-of-it do you have to be to move into the USPS ranks?*

*With no slur intended toward our diligent letter carriers with their colorful tattoos and stretched ear piercings.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Irrelevant to the issue?

Vince was not under oath when he wrote his book.

Ruth Paine was under oath before the grand jury.

Yes irrelevant. What you are doing is "whataboutism", never mind the (irrelevant here) matter that it is only your spider-sense statement-analysis interpretation that justifies your insinuations, expressed in the form of catty suggested suspicions with eyebrows raised and "hmmm", never quite saying directly what you are getting at but intending others to conclude, for which you have no direct evidence beyond inquisitor mind-reading interpretive logic or conspiratorial dot-connecting-suspicion-reasonings. I note the best researchers, such as Larry Hancock and David Talbot and numerous others, not to mention 100% of the experienced staff investigators of both major investigations, both WC and HSCA, have not accused or voiced suspicions that Ruth Paine was dishonest or part of JFK assassination plotting or whatever, which you never quite say directly in simple declarative sentences, what you firmly believe exactly Ruth to be guilty of.     

On not being "under oath", I can hardly believe you are serious if you are defending as OK if a book presents a fabrication as a known fact, if the book is not "under oath". 

From the little I know of Vince (through reading, not personally) I am quite certain Vince does not hold to such a low moral bar as you seem to be suggesting or defending. I do not actually think you do either.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

In the Beltway world, people move from MI to lucrative private intelligence jobs.  How out-of-it do you have to be to move into the USPS ranks?*

*With no slur intended toward our diligent letter carriers with their colorful tattoos and stretched ear piercings.

Right, this guy was evidently Colonel Flagg level Military Intelligence. His idea of an influence operation is writing a strongly-worded letter to the CEO of a huge company. 

When I worked in the Shareholder Relations department of a large company, part of my job was opening the mail. I regularly received letters addressed to the CEO. In 10/10 cases, these were letters written by crazy people.

Anyone with a bit of intellect knows you don't get through to the CEO when you send a letter to the company addressed to him/her. 

Most of those letters went in the trash. If I had received a letter complaining about a co-worker, I might show it to my boss. It would never have reached H.R., though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg:

I went ahead and summarized what Ruth Paine said before a grand jury in New Orleans.

All grand jury testimony is sworn.  Anyway can check for accuracy if they like.  Simple to do.

In books, its different.  People make mistakes, sometimes they draw on wrong sources, sometimes they just make errors in judgment.  These can be corrected.

Grand jury testimony cannot be corrected, unless the witness agrees to purge the record.  To my knowledge, Ruth never did that. And JG never found out about the deception.

As per trying to insinuate that somehow Larry or David have ignored the Paines, not really?  In Larry's book SWHT, he uses the whole case of Buddy Walthers and those pesky file carriers, and he sources it well; Talbot writes several pages on the Paines in The Devil's Chessboard. 

The Paines were ignored for a long time.  Not the case today.  People like Kelly and Parker are keeping the drumbeat up.  To the point that Ruth now has to get a friendly correspondent named Jeff Meek to lob her softballs to defend herself.  And she shows up at celebrations of lousy documentaries that honor the disgrace that was the Warren Commission.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg:

I went ahead and summarized what Ruth Paine said before a grand jury in New Orleans.

All grand jury testimony is sworn.  Anyway can check for accuracy if they like.  Simple to do.

In books, its different.  People make mistakes, sometimes they draw on wrong sources, sometimes they just make errors in judgment.  These can be corrected.

Grand jury testimony cannot be corrected, unless the witness agrees to purge the record.  To my knowledge, Ruth never did that. And JG never found out about the deception.

As per trying to insinuate that somehow Larry or David have ignored the Paines, not really?  In Larry's book SWHT, he uses the whole case of Buddy Walthers and those pesky file carriers, and he sources it well; Talbot writes several pages on the Paines in The Devil's Chessboard. 

The Paines were ignored for a long time.  Not the case today.  People like Kelly and Parker are keeping the drumbeat up.  To the point that Ruth now has to get a friendly correspondent named Jeff Meek to lob her softballs to defend herself.  And she shows up at celebrations of lousy documentaries that honor the disgrace that was the Warren Commission.

 

But Jim, Ruth Paine was just a benevolent Quaker volunteering out of the goodness of her heart.

In seriousness though, has anyone actually examined Ruth Paine's excuse for why she inserted herself into Oswald's life, being that she claims that poor pregnant Marina needed someone to translate for her? Has anyone ever brought up how absurd that excuse is given that Marina Oswald was married to a man who spoke English and Russian who was perfectly capable of translating for her? Or that Marina didn't need anyone to translate because she spoke English?

Ruth's excuses and lies (under oath) tell us a great deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Richard Russell did not buy her Good Samaritan story.

The clip of Ruth Paine speaking to a reporter--it's in a lot of documentaries--she says "of course she needed someone to translate" and I thought straight away "her husband speaks Russian! She speaks English! What is Ruth Paine making that up for?"

I think it's really quite obvious that Ruth Paine was an asset, witting or not. I don't know about the conspiracy, but as for the cover-up, she was absolutely witting. Making up crazy stories about needing to translate, using her garage as an evidence factory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thank you Vince for obtaining this clarification that there is no truth or basis to the claim of knowledge, as quoted and footnoted to Deb Galantine in your book, that Ruth Paine visited CIA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Here is the full passage with the claim that appears two times in your book without qualification:

"As researcher Deb Galantine wrote to the author:

'Oswald apparently arrived in Mexico City on 9/27/63. But this report [document of Floyd Boring claim of sighting of Oswald in d.c. on 9/27/63] has him in Washington, D.C. on that date. Ruth Paine had recently returned to New Orleans shortly before this date from the Washington D.C. area. She had incorporated a visit to CIA headquarters while in the D.C. area in order to 'see her sister'. I have doubts about Ruth traveling alone on her road trip with two small children. I suspect she took her husband along. So it may be possible that Michael Paine stayed behind in the area. Someone in the D.C./PA/Baltimore area was impersonating Oswald in several places during that time frame." (Honest Answers, p. 236; also pp. 162-163)

I checked Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, and Douglass says nothing of any visit of Ruth to CIA headquarters. The point matters in that Ruth testified to the New Orleans grand jury under penalty of perjury, under questioning from Garrison, that she visited her sister in the D.C. area, but did not know at the time of her visit (not until that moment when informed by Garrison) that her sister was employed by CIA. she did not work, directly or indirectly, for the CIA. From the grand jury transcript (ellipses are in the transcript).

Q. Did you or your husband at any time directly or indirectly work for any Federal Law Enforcement Agency?

A. Not I, and I doubt Michael would have without my knowing it.

Q. How about the Central Intelligence Agency?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, have you met anyone who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?

A. I just don't know. Conceivably, but in other words he didn't just come up to me and say here I am . . .

Q. That's what I say, to your knowledge.

A. No.

Q. No one has ever identified himself as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency?

A. No, not to my knowledge.

This The claim appearing in your book, to the extent that your readers read it and believe it to be true, will become one more case of Ruth Paine being unjustly smeared, with this claim perceived to be evidence that Ruth Paine has been untruthful.

So this raises the question: what can be done to remedy this, so that this new "false fact" does not get quoted and requoted and go viral, when it is a fabrication you put into print? (I do not mean intentionally Vince.)

Your prompt obtaining and reporting of Deb Galantine's statement that nothing supports that claim, posted on this forum, is at least something, and honorable and to your credit. Whether this will be sufficient to avoid damage done unjustly by this to this person's reputation is another matter (I doubt it). I would be interested in what other researchers here advise concerning the question of how false and damaging factual claims concerning persons, once recognized, should be handled. 

Read Jim DiEugenio's response- it is brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

@Vince Palamara -- reading here about the harassment you faced in 2013 -- appalling. The fact that this guy wrote to the CEO of your company to get you fired is one of the dirtiest, shittiest things imaginable.  His accusations of "un-American activity" are laughable and ironically are the only un-American thing here, this notion that your constitutionally-protected speech is somehow in and of itself not American. HIS actions were the un-American actions here.

In addition, it shows that your work evidently was hitting some kind of nerve if you've got people trying to interfere with your life.

 

Exactly! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Richard:

Ruth actually was going to invite Marina to live with her about three weeks after they met.

Carol Hewett found the unmailed letter.

And Michael Paine told the Houston Post on 11/23 that Oswald shot at Walker. 

But he's just this friendly Quaker. Nothing to see here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Vince responded promptly and acknowledged and posted the correction honorably.

Thanks for that. Keep in mind, my book is roughly 480 pages and is massively footnoted and documented and, out of necessity, relies on MANY sources from others (see, for example, the massive bibliography). Nothing is knowingly false. I have an errata page on both my major blogs (since March and I haven't posted anything above them, so they remain the newest entry) for the world to see (both my blogs have over 250K views. In fact, one is at over 880K views). The specific line about Ruth herself visiting CIA headquarters will be removed in future printings- the rest will remain. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

But Jim, Ruth Paine was just a benevolent Quaker volunteering out of the goodness of her heart.

In seriousness though, has anyone actually examined Ruth Paine's excuse for why she inserted herself into Oswald's life, being that she claims that poor pregnant Marina needed someone to translate for her? Has anyone ever brought up how absurd that excuse is given that Marina Oswald was married to a man who spoke English and Russian who was perfectly capable of translating for her? Or that Marina didn't need anyone to translate because she spoke English?

Ruth's excuses and lies (under oath) tell us a great deal. 

Weird Ruth Paine interview - I guess it's funny to her - YouTube

 

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...