The Secret Service never told Marina that Ruth Paine was CIA--never happened

[Denny Zartman]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1. The incident in Mexico City proves that the CIA was behind the plot to kill Kennedy, and was setting up Oswald, Cuba, and Russia to take the blame.
2. The CIA had to put Oswald in the TSBD at the right time to accomplish their plan.
3. Whoever it was who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD, certainly had been instructed by the CIA to do so.
4. Therefore if Ruth Paine got Oswald to apply at the TSBD, she must have been working for the CIA.

It doesn't matter whether Marina meant CIA or ACLU in her testimony. Either way we know that Ruth Paine must have been CIA.

 

Precisely.

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/30/2022 at 8:19 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

1. The incident in Mexico City proves that the CIA was behind the plot to kill Kennedy, and was setting up Oswald, Cuba, and Russia to take the blame.
2. The CIA had to put Oswald in the TSBD at the right time to accomplish their plan.
3. Whoever it was who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD, certainly had been instructed by the CIA to do so.
4. Therefore if Ruth Paine got Oswald to apply at the TSBD, she must have been working for the CIA.

It doesn't matter whether Marina meant CIA or ACLU in her testimony. Either way we know that Ruth Paine must have been CIA.

Sandy, on your point #3, do you really mean "whoever it was who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD, certaintly had been instructed by the CIA to do so?"

Think about this. Because there are six persons who "got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD". They are:

• Linnie Mae Randle--told Ruth Paine and Marina of TSBD job possibility. Told brother Frazier Lee needed a job.
• Marina Oswald--urged Ruth Paine to phone TSBD about job for Lee. Urged Lee to apply. Got Lee to apply.
• Ruth Paine--at Marina's urging called Truly at TSBD. Truly said Oswald invited to apply.
• Buell Wesley Frazier--upon learning from Linnie Mae, checked with boss Shelley at work on Oswald's behalf. Shelley checked with Truly. Shelley returned to Frazier with word from Truly that Oswald was invited to apply.
• Roy Truly--told Ruth Paine Oswald was invited to apply. Told Frazier Oswald was invited to apply. By those two actions Truly got Oswald to apply. Hired Oswald when he applied.
• Lee Harvey Oswald--he got Oswald to apply at the TSBD too. 

So there are six "who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD", not one. Is your #3 ("whoever") applicable to all six, or less than six?

Do you think it is reasonably possible that one or more of those six might not be CIA-instructed? 

If you are using this logic as proof that Ruth Paine is CIA, can you explain why this logic is not proof that all six are CIA by your same stated reasoning?

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, on your point #3, do you really mean "whoever it was who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD, certaintly had been instructed by the CIA to do so?"

 

Absolutely. However, I wouldn't include anybody who just supported Oswald in getting the job. It had to be somebody who actively tried to get Oswald to take the job.

 

17 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Think about this. Because there are six persons who "got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD". They are:

• Linnie Mae Randle--told Ruth Paine and Marina of TSBD job possibility. Told brother Frazier Lee needed a job.
• Marina Oswald--urged Ruth Paine to phone TSBD about job for Lee. Urged Lee to apply. Got Lee to apply.
• Ruth Paine--at Marina's urging called Truly at TSBD. Truly said Oswald invited to apply.
• Buell Wesley Frazier--upon learning from Linnie Mae, checked with boss Shelley at work on Oswald's behalf. Shelley checked with Truly. Shelley returned to Frazier with word from Truly that Oswald was invited to apply.
• Roy Truly--told Ruth Paine Oswald was invited to apply. Told Frazier Oswald was invited to apply. By those two actions Truly got Oswald to apply. Hired Oswald when he applied.
• Lee Harvey Oswald--he got Oswald to apply at the TSBD too. 

So there are six "who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD", not one. Is your #3 ("whoever") applicable to all six, or less than six?

Do you think it is reasonably possible that one or more of those six might not be CIA-instructed? 

If you are using this logic as proof that Ruth Paine is CIA, can you explain why this logic is not proof that all six are CIA by your same stated reasoning?

 

I will give an answer for each of the people you listed. Before I do, I want you to know that I didn't know about the roles played by any of the people in your list until now, with the exception of what I've heard about Ruth.  And if we were to find out that Ruth did not participate in getting Oswald the job, I would no longer believe that this incident proves Ruth to be CIA.

Now here is what I believe about each of those people in your list. I've rearrange the order to make it easier for me to explain. Note that I've marked red those people whose testimonies we can't trust:

• Ruth Paine: If Ruth was CIA, she would not have intentionally lied, saying that she got Oswald the job at the TSBD. Because doing so would have unnecessarily implicated her. So she must have told the truth about the job whether or not she was CIA. Therefore Ruth did indeed suggest to Oswald that he apply for the TSBD job.
• Lee Harvey Oswald: The plotters needed Oswald to work at the TSBD. Therefore his CIA handler instructed him to apply for the job that Ruth was about to suggest to him.
• Marina Oswald: Marina's testimony cannot be trusted given that she lied several times.
• Roy Truly: There is reason to believe that Roy Truly was CIA. His testimony cannot be trusted.
• Buell Wesley Frazier: I believe that three people saw Oswald standing on the TSBD. steps I believe that they were coerced into denying they saw Oswald. Doing so was their "patriotic duty," for purposes of "national security." I believe that they agreed to tell certain "white lies" in support of that. The three people who saw Oswald outside were Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady. I believe that their testimonies are largely correct, but each would only go so far beyond denying they saw Oswald outside. So, for the case of this list, Frazier's testimony cannot be fully trusted.
• Linnie Mae Randle: Linnie Mae told Ruth about the TSBD job. Therefore, either Linnie Mae was CIA, or she lied in her testimony, or her testimony was altered.

 

Conclusions:

• Ruth was CIA.
• Either Linnie Mae  was CIA, or she lied in her testimony, or her testimony was altered.
• The testimonies of the others cannot be trusted.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy, thanks for your answer. I think you may be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Lets start with some common ground. I think Lee was either CIA himself or CIA was all over him in the sense of watching him, one or the other. I think Oswald was an operative infiltrating groups that agencies wanted disrupted, such as FPCC in New Orleans, and probably others. On Mexico City, that is a puzzle and I do not claim to understand it, but I have some thinking short of certainty: the big question to me is whether Lee was sent there or went there on his own to try to escape to Cuba or the USSR (and was followed, surveilled, and that visit exploited after the fact opportunistically by CIA). (I don't buy the idea that he did not go to Mexico City.) I do not think Oswald's encounter with Kostikov in the Soviet embassy was planned but was accident, and I think the monitored followup phone call of someone not Oswald to that embassy but pretending to be Oswald was a phishing phone call, to find out who Oswald had talked to inside there.

I think the assassination plot was known as to its existence by a small number of persons in CIA but that CIA was not carrying out the on-the-ground of it, but that was handed off to or being done by a mob interest, to plan and carry out the execution of the plot, part of a larger context of CIA/Mob contacts and working relationships, in this case probably via Marcello of New Orleans since he controlled Dallas.

On the TSBD, I wrote in a different thread on that but I may not have gotten that completely right. The point I brought out that stands is an important one: the idea that a serious plot for an assassination would rely upon--plan in advance to use--a cold-call phone call from a complete stranger in Irving, Ruth Paine, to ensure Oswald would be hired, makes no sense. Since that makes no sense, the plot planning had to have some other way of accomplishing the setup for the assassination than that, in which whether Ruth Paine's phone call happened was not too important. And since that phone call of Ruth Paine cannot have played any central role in the actual plot planning, there is nothing to distinguish that phone call of Ruth to Truly at TSBD as other than what it has always appeared to be, Ruth making a phone call to try to help Marina's husband who is in a bad situation and needs a job. That the assassination happened at the TSBD six weeks later becomes coincidence as far as Ruth Paine is concerned, no different than the way a thousand other incidental human acts could be so interpreted looked at backward from a Big Event.

I suggested an alternative possibility that had not received attention: that it was via Buell Wesley Frazier (himself a recent arrival to Dallas and recent TSBD hire) as a mechanism to have an "inside man" know details of timing, connections to key persons, and then put in a personal word, as raising the chances of success of Oswald in being hired. The main problem in suggesting that is it has no more positive evidence than the ideas that Ruth Paine called Truly at TSBD at the behest of the CIA, that is, nothing. Like Ruth Paine, Frazier had a family association--Frazier's stepfather in Huntsville, according to Frazier as he told to the authors of Lone Star Speaks, was Dixie Mafia. The Dixie Mafia groups in Texas worked with (always under) Marcello of New Orleans. So there was an argument from association and juxtaposition of timing with the building, TSBD, which could fit into a Marcello-plot idea. That was the argument I saw. The strength of the argument is that an inside man (such as Frazier) is a mechanism or would be in a good position to assist in bringing about a hire of someone else. The weak point is that there is no evidence, its all imagination of possible reconstruction, in that sense almost as bad as the ideas that the CIA had Oswald hired at TSBD downtown by means of having total stranger Ruth Paine from Irving make a phone call and TSBD would hop to it.

I am now thinking maybe I have been assuming too much, such as that the TSBD was picked in advance as essential to the plot. There are other ways it could have worked. The basic situation, thinking it through, is that there is a plot intended to take place in Dallas during the presidential visit to Dallas involving a parade. However the route is not known and even if there was an inside man involved in the route planning, there are many uncertainties. It is essential in the reconstruction that Oswald (CIA or equivalent spook agency) be part of the plot approved and run by Marcello. The way that could work is Marcello might be asked to use Oswald (Oswald's uncle in New Orleans had worked in the Marcello organization which could grease that connection [the uncle, Murret, died 1964]). Oswald is asked to be an informant on the plot. Oswald gets double-crossed by being sacrificed as the patsy, after he thought he was working as an informant.

Rather than a complex reconstruction in which Oswald or others arranged for all of Oswald's prior job interviews to fail before the hire at TSBD, replace that with a simpler construction: that Oswald was after any job that could have a good chance of being on a parade route, which could include a hundred or more possibilities, not just TSBD (even though TSBD was very good strategically as it turned out). The evidence that this was what was going on--Oswald seeking any job that could have a good chance of maybe being on the parade route comes from several indications I see. First, there is that early police talk about finding a map of Oswald marked with places on the parade route, at least that is what the Dallas police thought it looked like. Later that was explained as a misunderstanding as only being Oswald job applications (that is the point). However, to the present day I have been unable to find any image of that map which has the markings clear enough to be seen. (There is a photo of that map, which had been given to Lee to use by the Paines and had some unrelated Paines' markings on it before Oswald had it, but the photo I have seen is not clear enough to see the markings on the map after Oswald had it.)

Oswald's first job application, where he was turned down for the job, was retroactively suspected by the employer as possibly connected to it being a location which would be where the presidential parade would go by. And after Oswald got the TSBD job there are at least three known instances (could be more) of what I believe can only be interpreted as plot-connected attempts to get plot-connected persons hired into jobs in tall buildings on downtown arteries. All three apparently involved false use of Oswald's name even though in none of those cases was the person Oswald. That is, Oswald's job in TSBD was not all the interest there was in tall buildings with good sniper possibilities in the runup to JFK's visit to Dallas.

But there is the fundamental question: how can a sniper assassination be planned before the parade route was known which was only finalized at close to the last moment? One possibility is, even though the route was not known, some things could be anticipated on the basis of fairly good guess, or analysis of necessity. And in the main uncertainty--which of three arteries, Elm, Main, or Central--the motorcade would take through downtown--some tall buildings could cover two of those, and it would only take two or three hires on those main downtown arteries and there is a good chance whatever parade route was selected it would be covered; Kennedy would be vulnerable. That is on the assumption of no inside man inside the motorcade-route planning end of it. If there was an inside man in a position to influence or order a key leg or alteration in the route, that would be an even easier explanation--just have a good sniper location set up and have the motorcade at the last minute routed by it, wherever it was. The key point is that the fixation (speaking to myself here) on TSBD specifically, may be overthinking this. The idea would be that Oswald would get any job on one of the main downtown arteries or otherwise on a portion of the parade route that might reasonably be anticipated, and the plot would then develop the rest of the sniper planning around that location wherever Oswald was. I think the original framing plan for Oswald was not to have him be tagged as the shooter or that the shooting be done by one person but rather a criminal conspiracy blamed on Castro by means of Oswald as the supplier or owner of a rifle used in the shooting and found afterward (the Flip DeMey argument).

And in further support of this: the Laura Kittrell Texas Employment Commission story of her dealings with Oswald. Kittrell's account of Oswald is mixed and conflated with memories of Larry Crafard whom she also dealt with and confused with Oswald, creating incongruities such that her entire story was given no interest by the FBI and relatively little interest by researchers. I think her story may have been covered up, and, provided it is subjected to critical analysis and interpretation, has information there of much significance (among other things, there is a report of a physical aptitude test in Oct 1963 indicating Oswald would be a poor rifle shot, and Oswald agreeing with Kittrell that that was true, he was a poor shot with a rifle--that alone could be possible motive for coverup). There are a number of things of interest, but for present purposes there is this: Oswald is at TEC in early Oct 1963 wanting a job and Kittrell's job is to help him. Apparently Oswald had been classified for blue-collar or general work and Oswald came back to get upgraded to white-collar and he said he wanted a job in a downtown building. (I found the typed version of the Kittrell mss. difficult to access; to save others time here is how. Go to the John Armstrong Collection site at https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/poage-collections/john-armstrong-collection. Hit "Search Collections". Search for "Kittrell". Click on first search listing, "Sightings of LHO, Oct. 1963--Laura Kittrell" (187 images). Click on "Download" button to lower left. A popup screen will give you three choices and ask what you want; click the choice, "Full Asset". Click "Download". It should now be on your computer.) Kittrell started writing her story Dec 1963. This is Laura Kittrell writing of Oswald in her office in early Oct. 1963 (pp. 33-34 of Kittrell mss.):

"He [Oswald] wanted me to drop everything else and make him out an extra application for office work, and I was feeling the time slip away, and did not want to.

"He won his argument with me by dredging up some office experience. At first it seemed to me that just as he had, upon seeing the ad for the electronics assemblers, invented needed but unverifiable experience as an electronics assembler, (in Russia!) so he had now invented white-collar experience to go with his sudden notion that he should have an office job, downtown.

"'I used to sell shoes', he said. 'That is office-work experience, isn't it?'

"'Well, do you want to sell shoes, then?', I asked crossly.

"'No,' he said, 'I want an office job, downtown.'"

Therefore I am concluding now that Buell Wesley Frazier's mid-Sept relocation from a mobbed-up home in Huntsville and employment in the TSBD in a position to assist Oswald in being hired there a month later may or may not have been accidental (I know of no way of knowing), but in either case Ruth Paine's phone call was an accident and played no role in the planning or execution of the plot. 

I imagine a plot in which several sniper-friendly buildings were lined up ready to go prior to the President's arrival to Dallas, depending on how the parade route played out. If it was decided to do it from one of the locations other than where Oswald had found his job, that need not be an insurmountable problem in that the key original setup was (a) a Castro conspiracy (multiple shooters in evidence, no problem), proven by (b) linkage and implication of Oswald to a rifle (and perhaps visiting to the shooting site if not employed there).

In a benign interpretation of Oswald, which has my strong sympathies, Oswald might be imagined to have informed on this plot and right up to the last minute expected intervention to stop it, though without knowing the detail that he was being set up with the rifle association. When the assassination happened without being prevented, that would have been a moment of panic for Oswald, but a backup contingency plan "in case anything goes wrong" might have been to get to the Texas Theatre for say a 3 pm meeting, which is what he did--where a killer arrived with intent to kill him there, though that is another story.

Bottom line: it is unnecessary to assume or conclude any of the six involved in Oswald's TSBD hire, including Ruth Paine, were CIA except Oswald. There is no evidence or indication that any of those other five, including Ruth Paine, were witting to anything other than a young pregnant immigrant woman's husband needing a job.

Since from most accounts Oswald had no unusual meetings or contacts at his rooming house in Oak Cliff, his mechanism for regular contact for his informant work would be during his lunch hour walking to one of the downtown offices or nearby to meet someone, during his work days. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't buy the idea that [Oswald] did not go to Mexico City

 

Greg,

I don't know how you  can possibly believe that the short blond-haired guy who went to the Cuban embassy was Oswald. Even Edgar Hoover knew it wasn't Oswald. The voices on Oswald's supposed phone calls didn't match Oswald's voice. The surveillance photos don't match Oswald. Cuban consulate employees Silvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue, who talked to the Oswald imposter, said the guy didn't look like Oswald. Cuban intelligence concluded it wasn't Oswald. There were multiple American surveillance cameras and yet absolutely zero photos of Oswald showed up. Two undercover American Agents inside the consulate didn't see Oswald.

The only evidence that Oswald actually went to Mexico City were bus related documents and a couple witnesses. Which seemed strange because according to their timing, Oswald didn't have time to return to Dallas and make an appointment he'd made. And yet he did make the appointment! Huh?? David Josephs later solved that mystery when he debunked the supposed Oswald's bus trips!

There was no Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

There was no Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

 

And BTW, Greg...

How do you explain the reports of Oswald and his American colleagues attending a party with Silvia Duran and others while in Mexico City, which was later debunked? And the report of the red-haired black dude who, in the Cuban consulate, paid $6500 in earnest money to Oswald for the shooting of Kennedy? And the (apparent) fact that Oswald met with Valery Kostikov, the KGB assassinations chief, in the Russian embassy?

Of course, none of that really did happen, just like Oswald didn't go to Mexico City.

But for kicks and giggles, pretend for a moment that it all did happen. What would you conclude from all that information? The logical conclusion would be that the Russians and Cubans were involved in a conspiracy with Oswald to assassination President Kennedy. Wow!

Of course, since we know that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, we know that this story was fabricated. But the purpose was to set up Russia, Cuba, and Oswald.

Why would somebody do that? To make it look like Russia and Cuba were behind the assassination. An Operation Northwoods against Oswald.

Greg... if you can't figure this out, you will never solve the JFK assassination. Mexico City is the key to figuring it out.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy I agreed with you Oswald is CIA or some equivalent and that there was a plot to blame Castro for the assassination via Oswald. You are picking at a point that does not affect or matter to the issue you and I were discussing, which is the TSBD hiring of Oswald.

I don't think the Silvia Duran twist party or the red-haired black dude who said he paid $6500 to Oswald, involved Oswald. I agree that the voice on the phone call to the Soviet embassy pretending to be Oswald wasn't. 

You cite some things that question whether Oswald was in Mexico City, but none of those are airtight. What is airtight is that Oswald in his handwriting in a letter he purposely left out for Ruth Paine to find in her living room (to be reported and become record inside the government and perhaps made public), said he had gone to Mexico City. So its a matter of weighting the various elements of evidence and to me I see greater weight that he did go there. I suppose it could be argued that Oswald was witting to pretending that another person who went there and pretended to be him, was him, wrote down Silvia Duran's information in his address book, had paper items from Mexico City, etc. I am not as quick as some to leap to the all-purpose "everything was forged" (such an easy solution to everything, isn't it?) whenever an issue of physical evidence comes up, especially in this case in which the physical evidence at issue comes from diverse sources and circumstances the only thing in common being contact with Oswald. 

We know that there was a major issue within the first weekend of the assassination of LBJ putting a stop to, and then covering up, a plot in some CIA quarters to blame Castro/USSR for the assassination. It seems to me that could be a pretty good motive right there coming from LBJ and Hoover to try to deny the idea that Oswald went to Mexico City, if it were possible to do so convincingly. As for the Cuban consulate witnesses, the two American informants inside the Cuban embassy only said they had not seen Oswald but they were not in the physical location where they would have seen him, so their testimony does not exclude Oswald there. Duran I think went both ways on whether it was Oswald. Azcue is the major and most compelling witness saying it wasn't Oswald. One possibility is he was right (which still leaves indeterminate whether Oswald was in Mexico City just not at the Cuban consulate). Another possibility is as a loyal Castro Cuban (as it seems he was despite US attempts to turn him) he said it wasn't Oswald because of how sensitive the situation was with respect to the charges being made against Castro, accusations that Castro did it, knew about and dealt with Oswald at that consulate, etc. Here is why I think Azcue privately maybe did think it was Oswald despite outwardly saying the opposite: because US intelligence picked up Castro referring to a report Castro received from the Cuban consulate and in that report Castro thinks there had been a scene with Oswald. Castro's private intelligence seems to have told him it was Oswald, and the source for that for Castro, would that not be Azcue in Mexico City? Azcue also could have been on the spot for his job personally over it. I don't know. I agree Azcue is a strong witness if he's telling the truth, but there is counterevidence going the other way, so it all has to be weighted. The photos of the blond-haired guy, how do we know who that was. Lack of photos of Oswald from the US side--perhaps relics of an early failed attempt of CIA/FBI to cover up Oswald going to Mexico City altogether?

There's another thing. I am not so sure that Post Office man Holmes, working with the FBI, was extravagantly lying under oath in his WC testimony--absolutely risking a prison sentence for perjury (if he was making it up)-- when he testified under oath to the Warren Commission that Oswald talked a lot about his Mexico City trip on the Sunday morning before he was shot. Nobody has paid much attention to that because nothing of Oswald talking about MC appears in the written reports of those Sunday morning interrogations, including I think Holmes' own. Which has greater weight--Holmes testimony under oath, or the written reports of the interrogations at the time which say nothing of Oswald talking of MC? What if the absence of it in the written reports was because at that early stage there was an attempt, if it could be gotten away with, to cover up Oswald in Mexico City, make it not to come to light that it had happened? (As part of LBJ/Hoover's decision to shut down the failed attempt to link the assassination to Castro.) I don't know. You can come down dogmatically on one side or the other on this and that's fine--I'm not as certain.

On Kostikov. From what I have read he was the person inside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City who, of the Soviet staff, would have been the one to deal with Oswald as a walk-in (I don't recall the exact reason but it related to defectors or something). Also, I have read that the story that he was involved in assassinations and wet ops was later questioned. In any case, his name only comes into the picture when the phishing phone call (voice impersonator of Oswald) picked up, by accident, from the Russian answering at the other end, a volunteering of the name, Kostikov, as a contact of Oswald inside that embassy (a phishing phone call that succeeded in obtaining that detail of information). Everyone has focused on Kostikov as being the setup of connecting Oswald to the USSR in the assassination while overlooking the more important addressee of Oswald's US/Soviet embassy letter. I think Kostikov's name coming up in Mexico City was an accident at the time of the Mexico City trip but what was not an accident is in the Soviet embassy letter, which, again, fact, was in Oswald's handwriting. Oswald addressed that letter to the leading KGB official in the US by name, and in the letter referred to "finishing our business", an ambiguous statement which can be read either innocently or with sinister meaning and may have been intentionally composed that way (Oswald wrote that letter in his handwriting but he could have had help in composition). 

Either it was Oswald in Mexico City or Oswald himself was up to his ears in intentionally cooperating in making it sure look like he was there, from his end. That's about the best I can make of it. Again, you are picking an argument over something that does not really affect the discussion concerning the TSBD hiring of Oswald. 

I have read claims that the Lopez report for HSCA, which is probably the best information that exists on the Mexico City trip issue, concluded Oswald did not take the trip. When I checked that, I found such claims were not correct but rather the Lopez Report concluded with uncertainty, which is not the same thing. What isn't uncertain is that somebody wanted to blame the JFK assassination on Cuba and then by decision at the top level of LBJ that was aborted in favor of going for the lone-nut solution. As long as we agree on that, maybe set aside the rest of the Mexico City debate for another time and place? Do you have anything to say regarding what I wrote concerning Oswald at TSBD?

[Steve Roe]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

• Linnie Mae Randle: Linnie Mae told Ruth about the TSBD job. Therefore, either Linnie Mae was CIA, or she lied in her testimony, or her testimony was altered.

 

Conclusions:

• Ruth was CIA.
• Either Linnie Mae  was CIA, or she lied in her testimony, or her testimony was altered.
• The testimonies of the others cannot be trusted.

 

Are you serious? Do you really think there was a Koffee Klatch conspiracy? Was it a "You bring them - We frame them" ladies neighborhood social group? Wow, "Little Langley in Irving". The ridiculous lengths some people go to trash Ruth Paine is mind-blowing. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/3/2022 at 8:07 AM, Steve Roe said:

Are you serious?

 

Absolutely serious. I list the ways in which the known evidence can be consistent.

 

On 5/3/2022 at 8:07 AM, Steve Roe said:

The ridiculous lengths some people go to trash Ruth Paine is mind-blowing. 

I've never trashed Ruth Paine.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Absolutely serious. I list the ways in which the known evidence can be consistent.

What you've actually listed are ludicrous leaps in logic that involve such caveats as "there is reason to believe" and "I believe" ...

[Sean Coleman]

CIA or not, my spidey sense tingles every time I see or hear her, there’s just something about RP that isn’t right…..if looks could kill…

Thats her ‘55 Chevy Bel Air she’s leaning against….

 

which was sold on fleabay for $10k!…..but unfortunately it doesn’t tally with Roger Craig’s recollection

Sorry, don’t want to hijack & turn this into a RC/Nash thread, it’s just interesting stuff.

[Greg Doudna]

Marina Oswald writes to the Dallas ACLU who had sent letters inquiring of the Secret Service's treatment of Marina

Note the juxtaposition of Marina . . . ACLU . . . Ruth Paine . . . and the Secret Service, under the spotlight of ACLU scrutiny. No wonder the Secret Service would persuade Marina to steer clear of Ruth Paine who translated the ACLU letter, who was a member of the ACLU, and who had been Marina's closest friend, because Ruth Paine was associated with ACLU (not CIA), and ACLU was "leftist" and that would not be good for Marina's reputation etc and etc.

As Marina said, the Secret Service explained to Marina that Ruth Paine and "CIA" (sic) were "writing letters over there". No, the Secret Service did not at all like Ruth Paine and "CIA" (sic) "writing letters over there"! 

Marina was talking about the ACLU and simply got the acronyms confused in her New Orleans grand jury testimony. 

Also note how early this is, the original context for what Marina was telling Garrison's grand jury in garbled form years later.

Also note Marina states in this earliest version of explanation for why she has cut off from Ruth Paine, that it is for Ruth Paine's good, she does not want to inconvenience Ruth Paine! (No doubt a Secret Service encouraged explanation.)

Those who are convinced Marina was infallible, not on anything else (such as her incrimination of Lee), but at this one moment when she spoke of "CIA" five years later instead of that which was obviously the Secret Service's nemesis and fear with respect to continued Marina/Ruth Paine contact, the ACLU and Ruth "writing letters over there", will continue to repeat forever and ever. But they discredit themselves every time they do so because it is not honest with respect to reconstruction of actual intent and meaning in original context.  

 

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

I studied the crucial planning of the

motorcade route for INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

Kenneth O'Donnell was a key inside

man. The decision was made at the Dallas

office of Eugene Locke, head of the state

Democratic Party, but O'Donnell appears

to have been the main decider. The route

could essentially have been decided before

that but officially finalized then.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Gene Kelly]

All:

I have now posted this message in several of these disingenuous threads. I recommend studying what cognitive psychology calls the “illusory truth effect” - where we legitimize lies by reiteration (see: “I Heard It Before, So It Must Be True” by Susana Martinez-Conde, October 5, 2019, Scientific American; and “Illusory Truth, Lies, and Political Propaganda” by Joe Pierre, January 22, 2020. Psychology Today). Commonly known by the phrase "if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth", this tactic is commonly employed in political propaganda, marketing, cult brainwashing and notably on social media blogs (e.g., repetitive posts on threads).  This stems from the fact that we process repeated statements more fluently, and we mistake that feeling of fluency for a signal that the statement is true: 

• If repeated enough times, the information may be perceived to be true even if sources are not credible
• The illusory truth effect is very evident on subject matter people perceive themselves to know about
• The effect can happen even if someone had previous knowledge that the information was false

Further, we should beware of posts that have a suggestive (false) title ...  the headline alone is intended to cement a false idea in our minds (see “When Correcting a Lie, Don't Repeat It. Do This Instead” by Steve Rathje, July 23, 2018, in Psychology Today).  It appears that same tactic is being employed with this thread, similar to a number of threads that have appeared coincident with Max Good's film.  The Psychology Today article's simple advice to counter this tactic and discredit lies - without repeating them and spreading them further - is to fact-check, and always lead with the truth. The facts should come first, so our minds will stop confusing “alternative facts” with real ones. 

Gene