Is this the warm up for the 60th?

[James DiEugenio]

It never ends.  If you recall my two part article on the putrid LBJ special, well here Mark Updegrove does double duty.

He was in that four hour special, and now he has written a book that tries to revive the whole Kennedy as a blow dried hair playboy, all image no substance.

And like CNN deceptively elevating LBJ, Time now helps Mark belittle Kennedy, Specifically on the Missile Crisis, Vietnam and CIvil Rights.

It never ends does it?

https://time.com/6165142/jfk-myths/

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the whole thing about no one in the military chain knowing about Vietnam and JFK's withdrawal policy is utter hogwash.

What about McNamara, he was only the Secretary of Defense.

 

[Michael Crane]

Blow dry this short hair?

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, the whole thing about no one in the military chain knowing about Vietnam and JFK's withdrawal policy is utter hogwash.

What about McNamara, he was only the Secretary of Defense.

 

The merging of the global security state, the increasingly titanic multinationals, the mass media and the major political parties...well, it's a done deal. 

Now, serious people in DC are proposing a Ministry of Truth for social media platforms. 

So why now, so many decades after the JFKA, is the topic still radioactive in M$M? 

The short answer: For WaPo, NYT, CNN, NBC, CBS to tell the blunt truth, they would have to reveal the Deep State either countenanced or participated in the JFKA and then covered it up ---and the major media bought and broadcast the untruth. 

This truth-telling would be corrosive to establishment credibility---an establishment increasingly intolerant of challenges to its credibility and authority.

Pending: A Ministry of Truth for social media platforms. Cheered by the very people who say  they are defending democracy. 

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It never ends.  If you recall my two part article on the putrid LBJ special, well here Mark Updegrove does double duty.

He was in that four hour special, and now he has written a book that tries to revive the whole Kennedy as a blow dried hair playboy, all image no substance.

And like CNN deceptively elevating LBJ, Time now helps Mark belittle Kennedy, Specifically on the Missile Crisis, Vietnam and CIvil Rights.

It never ends does it?

https://time.com/6165142/jfk-myths/

Quite likely on the 60th part.  Yours and Olivers film(s) probably stirred them up.  

 

[James DiEugenio]

Great picture Michael.  Whew, time warp.

Ben, I totally agree.  The huge media conglomerates are all on the same page on this.  And they dare not let is bust open or it would show how closely they are related to the shadow government.

Ron, yes I did think of that.  But how could anyone who saw Oliver's film buy this crap about Kennedy.  Anyone who sees either version will never be able to swallow Updegrove's crapola.  In fact, to be honest, I don't think he does either.

 

[Ron Bulman]

GD's sudden recent three topic defense of Ruth Paine makes me wonder why now?  

[James DiEugenio]

Well, maybe because in the last year  you had the 9 ABC affiliates with the Thompson film, Oliver Stone's two films and now Max Good on Ruth Paine.

That is a rare confluence of broadcast, film material for our side.

If you recall, since Posner, its been all the Krazy Kid Oswald stuff.  This is the first real break for us.

Edited May 1, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

Ron, I am responding to the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" which was first released at the Ashland Film Festival (Ashland, Oregon) the first week of April 2022. I paid twice for the 24-hour access in those days and during my second 24-hour access, April 7-8, made a transcription of about 70% of the film.

A better question might be what do these errors with respect to Ruth Paine have to do with solving the JFK assassination and why are these errors still continuing in 2022. 

And as to why, consider it sticking up for a friend. If you saw a friend smeared and wrongly accused, I think you would do the same.

[Pat Speer]

40 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ron, I am responding to the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" which was first released at the Ashland Film Festival (Ashland, Oregon) the first week of April 2022. I paid twice for the 24-hour access in those days and during my second 24-hour access, April 7-8, made a transcription of about 70% of the film.

A better question might be what do these errors with respect to Ruth Paine have to do with solving the JFK assassination and why are these errors still continuing in 2022. 

And as to why, consider it sticking up for a friend. If you saw a friend smeared and wrongly accused, I think you would do the same.

Max showed the film to a few of us at a conference a few years back. I found it quite interesting. While the film showed some bias against Mrs. Paine, it really told two stories: one in which a Quaker woman with a somewhat mysterious past detailed her personal connection to a political assassination, and one in which an old woman was hounded by people convinced she was a knowing part of the murder of President Kennedy.

It was very much a Rorschach test. After it was over, a number of people said things like "Wow, he nailed her, that evil witch (or something rhyming with witch)!" But my takeaway was different and came as a surprise to me. I came away feeling sorry for her. I have known some "good Christian" women in my life, and Ruth Paine is definitely one of those, warts and all. I suspect it is those warts, moreover, that leads some to hate her with a burning passion. They don't trust "good Christian" women and assume they are basically phonies. 

I see Ruth as a complex person. I have a strong suspicion her feelings towards Marina extended beyond friendship, and that she may have been in love with her. I have a similarly strong suspicion that this helped fuel her dislike of Lee, and her eagerness in helping the officials pin the tale on the Oswald. 

As a consequence, it wouldn't surprise me if she went along with a few lies about the evidence against Oswald.

But the thought she was a knowing participant in the assassination, and deliberately set Lee up as a patsy, etc... is, to me, unthinkable.

Years ago I came across a book that claimed Jackie killed JFK herself because she was tired of his affairs and that Onassis organized the cover-up. 

I put the idea Ruth helped kill Kennedy by setting up Oswald in the same stinky garbage bin. 

 

P.S. I think one of the steps in my evolution in thinking about Ruth came a few years back when I re-read her testimony regarding the curtain rods. If she was part of a frame-up, all she had to do was say "See those curtain rods! Those are the only curtain rods I've ever had in my garage. And Michael came out and checked on them right after we heard Lee said he'd brought curtain rods to work, and they were there!" Bim Bam Boom. But no, she said Michael came out and looked at a package that he thought were curtain rods (but could very well have been blinds) and that she herself had never double-checked to see if he was correct.

She offered evidence helping Oswald's (largely non-existent) defense even when the frame-up would have been far better served by her telling a white lie. And I think that's because she is someone who largely tells the truth...as she sees it. 

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

I guess Pat has never heard of the doctrine of not laying it on too thick?

I mean, Mexico City, the Walker note, the Walker pictures, the letter to the Russian embassy, the Imperial Reflex camera and the BYP. And then she talks about the curtain rods? 

Anyway, this is why I think you have the four part film whitewashing LBJ, and now Updegrove with his book shrinking JFK.  IMO, this will be a warm up for next year.

The thing is, about Updegrove, he is neither an archivist nor a historian. Is that not a bit unusual for a guy who was a presidential library manager? 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I guess Pat has never heard of the doctrine of not laying it on too thick?

I mean, Mexico City, the Walker note, the Walker pictures, the letter to the Russian embassy, the Imperial Reflex camera and the BYP. And then she talks about the curtain rods? 

Anyway, this is why I think you have the four part film whitewashing LBJ, and now Updegrove with his book shrinking JFK.  IMO, this will be a warm up for next year.

The thing is, about Updegrove, he is neither an archivist nor a historian. Is that not a bit unusual for a guy who was a presidential library manager? 

 

 

 

My point was that what she said about the curtain rods, contrary to popular belief, did not suggest Oswald was lying. She said she did not check to see if any curtain rods were missing from the garage--that Michael did. Michael, moreover, thought the curtain rods were in a package and said he saw a package in the garage. IOW, no one verified the existence of curtain rods in their garage prior to Ruth's doing so with Jenner months and months later. This makes it darn near impossible to prove Oswald did not take curtain rods to work--a la what he supposedly told Frazier. 

If Ruth was the boogie man out to get po' Lee she could have said she saw the curtain rods when she first heard about Frazier's story. But she didn't. 

It also seems a heckuva coincidence that the rooming house replaced the curtain rods in Oswald's room the next day. They claimed the DPD had damaged the curtain rods while searching the room. But huh...who is to say the curtain rods weren't damaged before the arrival of the DPD, and that Oswald did in fact carry curtain rods to work that day. Kinda makes you wonder... Or ought to...

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Max showed the film to a few of us at a conference a few years back. I found it quite interesting. While the film showed some bias against Mrs. Paine, it really told two stories: one in which a Quaker woman with a somewhat mysterious past detailed her personal connection to a political assassination, and one in which an old woman was hounded by people convinced she was a knowing part of the murder of President Kennedy.

It was very much a Rorschach test. After it was over, a number of people said things like "Wow, he nailed her, that evil witch (or something rhyming with witch)!" But my takeaway was different and came as a surprise to me. I came away feeling sorry for her. I have known some "good Christian" women in my life, and Ruth Paine is definitely one of those, warts and all. I suspect it is those warts, moreover, that leads some to hate her with a burning passion. They don't trust "good Christian" women and assume they are basically phonies. 

I see Ruth as a complex person. I have a strong suspicion her feelings towards Marina extended beyond friendship, and that she may have been in love with her. I have a similarly strong suspicion that this helped fuel her dislike of Lee, and her eagerness in helping the officials pin the tale on the Oswald. 

As a consequence, it wouldn't surprise me if she went along with a few lies about the evidence against Oswald.

But the thought she was a knowing participant in the assassination, and deliberately set Lee up as a patsy, etc... is, to me, unthinkable.

Years ago I came across a book that claimed Jackie killed JFK herself because she was tired of his affairs and that Onassis organized the cover-up. 

I put the idea Ruth helped kill Kennedy by setting up Oswald in the same stinky garbage bin. 

P.S. I think one of the steps in my evolution in thinking about Ruth came a few years back when I re-read her testimony regarding the curtain rods. If she was part of a frame-up, all she had to do was say "See those curtain rods! Those are the only curtain rods I've ever had in my garage. And Michael came out and checked on them right after we heard Lee said he'd brought curtain rods to work, and they were there!" Bim Bam Boom. But no, she said Michael came out and looked at a package that he thought were curtain rods (but could very well have been blinds) and that she herself had never double-checked to see if he was correct.

She offered evidence helping Oswald's (largely non-existent) defense even when the frame-up would have been far better served by her telling a white lie. And I think that's because she is someone who largely tells the truth...as she sees it. 

Lots of insights here Pat. The Rorschach Test description. This is one of the most sympathetic, human summaries I've read. I think Marina's rejection of Ruth--just sudden cutoff without explanation, refusing to see her or answer letters--was one of the most painful things in Ruth's life. I have read that studies of romantic breakups and times to recovery showed the worst is when someone cuts off with no explanation or discussion, longest recovery time from that. Fastest time to recovery is when there is a real discussion at time of breakup. 

On the point about the curtain rods. Yes, Ruth if she wanted to incriminate Lee and did not care about being truthful could have done so in a hundred ways that she did not. She never even had Oswald violent or saying anything against Kennedy.

The "good Christian" woman and the way that strikes some people unreasonably negatively... yes.