The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I base my opinions based on facts, not conjecture or hearsay. 

No, you base your opinions on one piece of evidence only. There are several pieces of evidence that point to the file boxes belonging to Ruth and being examined by the Dallas Police, the FBI (2 occasions) and the Warren Commission. Yet you accept Walthers report and dismiss the others.

[Jeff Carter]

The only “report” is the Supplementary Investigation Report, written by Walthers and dated November 22, 1963. The other so-called “evidence”, in context of Walthers’ description of “names and activities of Cuban sympathizers”, is, at best, an inference made by Warren Commission attorney Liebeler. The Commission had clearly noted Walthers’ description, as seen in the Rumours and Speculation section of the WR, but Liebeler notably failed to directly address this issue when he had Walthers before him.

In fact, neither Liebeler or the Rumours and Speculation segment of the WR identify or refer to Walthers’ Report, despite it being the primary document on this matter. This failure, combined with the Commission’s careful language identifying “seven” boxes, indicates a  deliberate process of making an inconvenient data point disappear.  Pleadings that Walthers’ original Report had been superseded by other “evidence” appears as little more than partisan spin.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, you base your opinions on one piece of evidence only. There are several pieces of evidence that point to the file boxes belonging to Ruth and being examined by the Dallas Police, the FBI (2 occasions) and the Warren Commission. Yet you accept Walthers report and dismiss the others.

Tracy,

What evidence do you have that show an examination by the Dallas Police and the FBI on November 22, 1963 that states something different from Walthers report?  

Most of the so called "evidence" has to be seen through a political lens as the WC was political.  Politicians lie to have "evidence" fit their narrative.  In the eyes of the WC, Ruth Paine's file boxes could not have any information about Cuban sympathizer's.  There are serious implications about the truthfulness of Ruth Paine and her motives with the document provided by Walthers.

Ruth Paine is still alive and most likely will take her secrets to the grave.

 

Keyvan

[W. Tracy Parnell]

26 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Tracy,

What evidence do you have that show an examination by the Dallas Police and the FBI on November 22, 1963 that states something different from Walthers report?  

Most of the so called "evidence" has to be seen through a political lens as the WC was political.  Politicians lie to have "evidence" fit their narrative.  In the eyes of the WC, Ruth Paine's file boxes could not have any information about Cuban sympathizer's.  There are serious implications about the truthfulness of Ruth Paine and her motives with the document provided by Walthers.

Ruth Paine is still alive and most likely will take her secrets to the grave.

 

Keyvan

Keyvan and Jeff,

The reports that state what the file boxes were and what they contained are listed in my article and elsewhere in the thread by Greg. I realize that many do not believe anything the WR or the FBI or the Dallas police for that matter say about anything. Not much I can do about that.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Keyvan and Jeff,

The reports that state what the file boxes were and what they contained are listed in my article and elsewhere in the thread by Greg. I realize that many do not believe anything the WR or the FBI or the Dallas police for that matter say about anything. Not much I can do about that.

 

Tracy,

The only material that I can find are newspaper articles and documentation in the form of webpages.  These articles are written by reporters with content of what someone else said.  You are taking the word of authors instead of actual evidence that exists.  The evidence that I see is the document by Walthers.

As I stated, I tend to believe first sourced material.  Not to eliminate any other form of information, but chances are those are compromised.

Keyvan

Edited June 16, 2022 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

The only material that I can find are newspaper articles and documentation in the form of webpages.  These articles are written by reporters with content of what someone else said.  You are taking the word of authors instead of actual evidence that exists.  The evidence that I see is the document by Walthers.

As I stated, I tend to believe first sourced material.  Not to eliminate any other form of information, but chances are those are compromised.

Keyvan, forget newspaper articles, no relevance here. Its the DPD inventory of what was found in the search of Ruth Paine's house on Nov 22, and later FBI documentation of the contents of the metal file boxes, as well as the testimony and statements of the officers involved, and Ruth Paine. Documents all available on the Mary Ferrell site not difficult to find.

Yes it is a fact that Walthers wrote that in his initial report. That fact (that he wrote that) is not disputed. But since those metal file boxes are traced in later DPD and FBI documents and their contents described later which are not in agreement with what Walthers originally wrote, the question is: was Walthers correct? That is the issue.

Fact: Walthers never saw what he reported. (Walthers under oath, Warren Commission testimony.)

That means either he was reporting hearsay or making it up out of whole cloth, one or the other. If it was hearsay, who would be his source? Presumably some other officer? But no other officer ever confirmed or claimed or owned the claim. So it is a claim that has no known witness to what is claimed. And no verification or corroboration after the fact. So there are two choices. One, Walthers wrote something inaccurate. Two, a gigantic conspiracy involving multiple law enforcement agencies and Walthers himself, to cover up what Walthers wrote that was not mistaken. Sometimes common sense goes to what is just more likely between two alternatives.

Fact: what was claimed (that there is no known witness who saw) has no verification of existence. No one later claims to see them. You have to ask, what happened to them, if they existed. Well, cue the Twilight Zone music and imagine (that's what is required: imagination) elaborate theories of secret second stashes of metal file boxes secretly shipped to the sheriff's office in addition to the ones delivered to Capt. Fritz at DPD as every officer reported that day. Then imagine they were all secretly disappeared. No evidence that happened, apart from a starting premise of inerrancy in Walthers' original statement (premise: no officer working for Sheriff Bill Decker would ever write a mistake).

Fact: it has never been explained how anti-Castro Cuban names and addresses are recognizeable by eyesight as distinguished from pro-Castro Cuban names, or no-Castro Cuban related names. On obvious possibility is Walthers' statement reflects some assumed association with Oswald's FPCC literature and pamphlets. In which case there is no Ruth Paine connection since Oswald's FPCC was not Ruth's doing.

Fact: never in her entire life, either before, during, or after Nov 1963, is Ruth Paine known to have been involved with Cuban organizations, Cuban activists, Cubans. You have to consider common sense: which is more likely, that Ruth had a whole hidden life of surveilling Castro activists without a speck of evidence surviving of it, or did Walthers err in a sentence in his report. 

Then on the matter of Walther's inerrancy--in his claiming something existed which he never personally saw, and no other officer has been identified as claiming to have seen it, meaning at best completely unknown and unsubstantiated hearsay--one might look at:

• Walthers suspected the Paines of being involved in the assassination that first day (from the way he wrote of them). The officers generally suspected the Paines that day of being communists. Could this be a case of officers' "confirmation bias" of assuming what they suspect?
• According to Roger Craig, fellow deputy sheriff, Walthers was not only #2 to Sheriff Decker, Decker's favorite, but crooked, corrupt. This is in Roger Craig's manuscript.
• There are reports that Craig did not tell the truth about a bullet found near the grassy knoll. That he denied having found a bullet but persons close to the family saying he privately said he actually did have such a bullet. 
• A partner of Walthers, deputy sheriff Bill Courson, is reported in Roger Craig's manuscript as saying Walthers never was inside the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest, contrary to Walthers saying he was.
• And Walthers never stuck to his claim that there were metal file boxes filled with "pro-Castro sympathizers names", which nobody has ever been identified as having claimed to see, whose existence is contraindicated by DPD and FBI documents discussing the contents of Ruth Paine's file boxes, and Ruth Paine's testimony as well.

So yes, consider the facts, all these facts, and ask just on common sense, what makes sense. Consider the irony of how other officers' written and oral testimonies are certainly not considered inerrant by most researchers when it concerns matters such as the paper bag supposed to have carried Oswald's rifle, the finds of cartridges, or dozens of other things. But on THIS ONE PARTICULAR DETAIL in a written first-day report which has zero substantiation of any kind and plenty of counterevidence, there is a premise of THIS police officer's INERRANCY, come hell or high water. 

It is as if the bias against Ruth Paine is so strong that it overcomes common sense.

Rather than going for the simple explanation that Walthers wrote something incorrect, i.e. goofed--instead, elaborate and unsubstantiated mountains of conjectures and conspiracy theorizing gone amok are considered preferable explanations. 

No other law enforcement officer ever picked up on Walthers' claim, and Walthers himself abandoned it in 1964. But these mistakes, once started, have more lives than a cat's nine lives. They just live on and on forever, immortally as zombie theories, and here it is, in the year 2022, with people still kicking this dead horse. 

Anything to get at Ruth Paine?

Kafka, The Trial, for an analogy to forensic logic cited to accuse Ruth Paine in this case of the contents of her metal file boxes.

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

And Walthers never stuck to his claim that there were metal file boxes filled with "pro-Castro sympathizers names", which nobody has ever been identified as having claimed to see, whose existence is contraindicated by DPD and FBI documents

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Consider the irony of how other officers' written and oral testimonies are certainly not considered inerrant by most researchers when it concerns matters such as the paper bag supposed to have carried Oswald's rifle, the finds of cartridges, or dozens of other things. But on THIS ONE PARTICULAR DETAIL in a written first-day report which has zero substantiation of any kind and plenty of counterevidence, there is a premise of THIS police officer's INERRANCY, come hell or high water. 

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Rather than going for the simple explanation that Walthers wrote something incorrect, i.e. goofed--instead, elaborate and unsubstantiated mountains of conjectures and conspiracy theorizing gone amok are considered preferable explanations. 

Well put, Greg! A little bite in your writing style can't hurt, but I guess some would think I'd say that.

"Buddy " Walthers has become an immortalized hero of the Jim Di cult here for years, now.

I stand by what I said before.

Anybody named "Buddy" in Dallas in 1963. I wouldn't believe a word they said! 

heh, heh heh! .

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Keyvan, forget newspaper articles, no relevance here. Its the DPD inventory of what was found in the search of Ruth Paine's house on Nov 22, and later FBI documentation of the contents of the metal file boxes, as well as the testimony and statements of the officers involved, and Ruth Paine. Documents all available on the Mary Ferrell site not difficult to find.

Yes it is a fact that Walthers wrote that in his initial report. That fact (that he wrote that) is not disputed. But since those metal file boxes are traced in later DPD and FBI documents and their contents described later which are not in agreement with what Walthers originally wrote, the question is: was Walthers correct? That is the issue.

Fact: Walthers never saw what he reported. (Walthers under oath, Warren Commission testimony.)

That means either he was reporting hearsay or making it up out of whole cloth, one or the other. If it was hearsay, who would be his source? Presumably some other officer? But no other officer ever confirmed or claimed or owned the claim. So it is a claim that has no known witness to what is claimed. And no verification or corroboration after the fact. So there are two choices. One, Walthers wrote something inaccurate. Two, a gigantic conspiracy involving multiple law enforcement agencies and Walthers himself, to cover up what Walthers wrote that was not mistaken. Sometimes common sense goes to what is just more likely between two alternatives.

Fact: what was claimed (that there is no known witness who saw) has no verification of existence. No one later claims to see them. You have to ask, what happened to them, if they existed. Well, cue the Twilight Zone music and imagine (that's what is required: imagination) elaborate theories of secret second stashes of metal file boxes secretly shipped to the sheriff's office in addition to the ones delivered to Capt. Fritz at DPD as every officer reported that day. Then imagine they were all secretly disappeared. No evidence that happened, apart from a starting premise of inerrancy in Walthers' original statement (premise: no officer working for Sheriff Bill Decker would ever write a mistake).

Fact: it has never been explained how anti-Castro Cuban names and addresses are recognizeable by eyesight as distinguished from pro-Castro Cuban names, or no-Castro Cuban related names. On obvious possibility is Walthers' statement reflects some assumed association with Oswald's FPCC literature and pamphlets. In which case there is no Ruth Paine connection since Oswald's FPCC was not Ruth's doing.

Fact: never in her entire life, either before, during, or after Nov 1963, is Ruth Paine known to have been involved with Cuban organizations, Cuban activists, Cubans. You have to consider common sense: which is more likely, that Ruth had a whole hidden life of surveilling Castro activists without a speck of evidence surviving of it, or did Walthers err in a sentence in his report. 

Then on the matter of Walther's inerrancy--in his claiming something existed which he never personally saw, and no other officer has been identified as claiming to have seen it, meaning at best completely unknown and unsubstantiated hearsay--one might look at:

• Walthers suspected the Paines of being involved in the assassination that first day (from the way he wrote of them). The officers generally suspected the Paines that day of being communists. Could this be a case of officers' "confirmation bias" of assuming what they suspect?
• According to Roger Craig, fellow deputy sheriff, Walthers was not only #2 to Sheriff Decker, Decker's favorite, but crooked, corrupt. This is in Roger Craig's manuscript.
• There are reports that Craig did not tell the truth about a bullet found near the grassy knoll. That he denied having found a bullet but persons close to the family saying he privately said he actually did have such a bullet. 
• A partner of Walthers, deputy sheriff Bill Courson, is reported in Roger Craig's manuscript as saying Walthers never was inside the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest, contrary to Walthers saying he was.
• And Walthers never stuck to his claim that there were metal file boxes filled with "pro-Castro sympathizers names", which nobody has ever been identified as having claimed to see, whose existence is contraindicated by DPD and FBI documents discussing the contents of Ruth Paine's file boxes, and Ruth Paine's testimony as well.

So yes, consider the facts, all these facts, and ask just on common sense, what makes sense. Consider the irony of how other officers' written and oral testimonies are certainly not considered inerrant by most researchers when it concerns matters such as the paper bag supposed to have carried Oswald's rifle, the finds of cartridges, or dozens of other things. But on THIS ONE PARTICULAR DETAIL in a written first-day report which has zero substantiation of any kind and plenty of counterevidence, there is a premise of THIS police officer's INERRANCY, come hell or high water. 

It is as if the bias against Ruth Paine is so strong that it overcomes common sense.

Rather than going for the simple explanation that Walthers wrote something incorrect, i.e. goofed--instead, elaborate and unsubstantiated mountains of conjectures and conspiracy theorizing gone amok are considered preferable explanations. 

No other law enforcement officer ever picked up on Walthers' claim, and Walthers himself abandoned it in 1964. But these mistakes, once started, have more lives than a cat's nine lives. They just live on and on forever, immortally as zombie theories, and here it is, in the year 2022, with people still kicking this dead horse. 

Anything to get at Ruth Paine?

Kafka, The Trial, for an analogy to forensic logic cited to accuse Ruth Paine in this case of the contents of her metal file boxes.

This post is almost entirely conjecture.

An assumption that Walthers was simply mistaken faces three hurdles:

1) Walthers was a trained police officer.

2) The report was written within hours of being at the Paine home.

3) The “Cuban sympathizers” description expresses specific detail.

Liebeler failed to ask the most pertinent question: Why did you (Walthers) write that sentence in your report?

Assumptions or speculations are not enough to fill that gap. The Warren Commission failed to resolve the issue. Liebeler instead creates an inference, without ever referring to the relevant report or even acknowledging its existence. That is a “red flag”.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Keyvan, forget newspaper articles, no relevance here. Its the DPD inventory of what was found in the search of Ruth Paine's house on Nov 22, and later FBI documentation of the contents of the metal file boxes, as well as the testimony and statements of the officers involved, and Ruth Paine. Documents all available on the Mary Ferrell site not difficult to find.

Yes it is a fact that Walthers wrote that in his initial report. That fact (that he wrote that) is not disputed. But since those metal file boxes are traced in later DPD and FBI documents and their contents described later which are not in agreement with what Walthers originally wrote, the question is: was Walthers correct? That is the issue.

Fact: Walthers never saw what he reported. (Walthers under oath, Warren Commission testimony.)

That means either he was reporting hearsay or making it up out of whole cloth, one or the other. If it was hearsay, who would be his source? Presumably some other officer? But no other officer ever confirmed or claimed or owned the claim. So it is a claim that has no known witness to what is claimed. And no verification or corroboration after the fact. So there are two choices. One, Walthers wrote something inaccurate. Two, a gigantic conspiracy involving multiple law enforcement agencies and Walthers himself, to cover up what Walthers wrote that was not mistaken. Sometimes common sense goes to what is just more likely between two alternatives.

Fact: what was claimed (that there is no known witness who saw) has no verification of existence. No one later claims to see them. You have to ask, what happened to them, if they existed. Well, cue the Twilight Zone music and imagine (that's what is required: imagination) elaborate theories of secret second stashes of metal file boxes secretly shipped to the sheriff's office in addition to the ones delivered to Capt. Fritz at DPD as every officer reported that day. Then imagine they were all secretly disappeared. No evidence that happened, apart from a starting premise of inerrancy in Walthers' original statement (premise: no officer working for Sheriff Bill Decker would ever write a mistake).

Fact: it has never been explained how anti-Castro Cuban names and addresses are recognizeable by eyesight as distinguished from pro-Castro Cuban names, or no-Castro Cuban related names. On obvious possibility is Walthers' statement reflects some assumed association with Oswald's FPCC literature and pamphlets. In which case there is no Ruth Paine connection since Oswald's FPCC was not Ruth's doing.

Fact: never in her entire life, either before, during, or after Nov 1963, is Ruth Paine known to have been involved with Cuban organizations, Cuban activists, Cubans. You have to consider common sense: which is more likely, that Ruth had a whole hidden life of surveilling Castro activists without a speck of evidence surviving of it, or did Walthers err in a sentence in his report. 

Then on the matter of Walther's inerrancy--in his claiming something existed which he never personally saw, and no other officer has been identified as claiming to have seen it, meaning at best completely unknown and unsubstantiated hearsay--one might look at:

• Walthers suspected the Paines of being involved in the assassination that first day (from the way he wrote of them). The officers generally suspected the Paines that day of being communists. Could this be a case of officers' "confirmation bias" of assuming what they suspect?
• According to Roger Craig, fellow deputy sheriff, Walthers was not only #2 to Sheriff Decker, Decker's favorite, but crooked, corrupt. This is in Roger Craig's manuscript.
• There are reports that Craig did not tell the truth about a bullet found near the grassy knoll. That he denied having found a bullet but persons close to the family saying he privately said he actually did have such a bullet. 
• A partner of Walthers, deputy sheriff Bill Courson, is reported in Roger Craig's manuscript as saying Walthers never was inside the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest, contrary to Walthers saying he was.
• And Walthers never stuck to his claim that there were metal file boxes filled with "pro-Castro sympathizers names", which nobody has ever been identified as having claimed to see, whose existence is contraindicated by DPD and FBI documents discussing the contents of Ruth Paine's file boxes, and Ruth Paine's testimony as well.

So yes, consider the facts, all these facts, and ask just on common sense, what makes sense. Consider the irony of how other officers' written and oral testimonies are certainly not considered inerrant by most researchers when it concerns matters such as the paper bag supposed to have carried Oswald's rifle, the finds of cartridges, or dozens of other things. But on THIS ONE PARTICULAR DETAIL in a written first-day report which has zero substantiation of any kind and plenty of counterevidence, there is a premise of THIS police officer's INERRANCY, come hell or high water. 

It is as if the bias against Ruth Paine is so strong that it overcomes common sense.

Rather than going for the simple explanation that Walthers wrote something incorrect, i.e. goofed--instead, elaborate and unsubstantiated mountains of conjectures and conspiracy theorizing gone amok are considered preferable explanations. 

No other law enforcement officer ever picked up on Walthers' claim, and Walthers himself abandoned it in 1964. But these mistakes, once started, have more lives than a cat's nine lives. They just live on and on forever, immortally as zombie theories, and here it is, in the year 2022, with people still kicking this dead horse. 

Anything to get at Ruth Paine?

Kafka, The Trial, for an analogy to forensic logic cited to accuse Ruth Paine in this case of the contents of her metal file boxes.

Greg,

Do you have links that I can look at in the Mary Ferrell website about the testimony and statements of the officers involved?

Fact: Walthers never saw what he reported. (Walthers under oath, Warren Commission testimony.) Keyvan>> Walthers testimony was on July 23, 1964, eight and a half months after the fact.  You must look at his testimony through a political lens.  During his testimony he never denied not seeing them.

 

Fact: what was claimed (that there is no known witness who saw) has no verification of existence. No one later claims to see them. You have to ask, what happened to them, if they existed. Well, cue the Twilight Zone music and imagine (that's what is required: imagination) elaborate theories of secret second stashes of metal file boxes secretly shipped to the sheriff's office in addition to the ones delivered to Capt. Fritz at DPD as every officer reported that day. Then imagine they were all secretly disappeared. No evidence that happened, apart from a starting premise of inerrancy in Walthers' original statement (premise: no officer working for Sheriff Bill Decker would ever write a mistake). Keyvan>> There is a report signed by Walthers that there was information about Cuban sympathizers.

 

Fact: it has never been explained how anti-Castro Cuban names and addresses are recognizeable by eyesight as distinguished from pro-Castro Cuban names, or no-Castro Cuban related names. On obvious possibility is Walthers' statement reflects some assumed association with Oswald's FPCC literature and pamphlets. In which case there is no Ruth Paine connection since Oswald's FPCC was not Ruth's doing. Keyvan>> This is conjecture in your part.  Again, reference the document signed by Walthers.

Rather than going for the simple explanation that Walthers wrote something incorrect, i.e. goofed--instead, elaborate and unsubstantiated mountains of conjectures and conspiracy theorizing gone amok are considered preferable explanations. Keyvan>> You are wanting a different result from the fact that Walthers wrote a report, explained there was literature about Cuban Sympathizers.  Fact is fact.  He wrote it, it is up to you to believe it or not.

[Greg Doudna]

12 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Fact: Walthers never saw what he reported. (Walthers under oath, Warren Commission testimony.) Keyvan>> Walthers testimony was on July 23, 1964, eight and a half months after the fact.  You must look at his testimony through a political lens.  During his testimony he never denied not seeing them.

"Mr. Walthers. Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it." 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I stand by what I said before. [That Ruth wasn't CIA.]

 

Kirk, you disappoint me. You are always freaking right about everything! But on this you are wrong.

Following is what you said before. I don't have the energy to cover everything you said, so I will just make a few comments.

 

On 6/2/2022 at 4:53 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

What started out years ago, at least by innuendo as a rush to judgment that the Paine's were in on a plot to murder the President has been backed off, and not one author has positively come out and said, in this case, Ruth Paine was in on a plot to kill the President. Now she's an unwilling accomplice, but that's  ambiguous.

 

I'm relatively new to studying and analyzing the JFK assassination. So I don't know about the "rush to judgement" against Ruth Paine in the early days nor the "backing off." I've never heard of anybody claiming that Ruth was in on the plot.

Years ago, upon reading about an Oswald imposter visiting the Cuban and Russian consulates in Mexico City, and about the Oswald phone calls there not made by Oswald, about his disappeared surveillance photos, his meeting with Kostikov, the party he attended with his friends and the Durans, his $6500 up-front payment, etc. .... it became abundantly clear to me that Oswald was targeted as a patsy in what would be false flag operation -- probably orchestrated by the CIA -- against the Cubans and the Russians.

Around that time I was watching an episode of Hardball where Chris Matthews interviewed David Talbot about his book Brothers. Chris asked him, "David... How did Oswald happen to get the job where he needed to be play the patsy role?" (Paraphrasing, of course.) Which was kind of interesting given that Talbot hadn't even commented on there being a conspiracy. But it did accomplish Matthews' goal of squashing any conspiracy talk.

Anyway, that got me to wondering the same thing. I'd heard that Ruth Paine got Oswald the job.

Oswald being a CIA asset or agent was already a part of my working theory. I HAD to add Ruth Paine as a CIA asset or agent to my theory in order for it to be viable. I didn't and still don't have any hard evidence that she was with the CIA, but the circumstantial evidence is exceedingly strong.

If the CIA didn't arrange for Oswald to work at the TSBD, then the CIA-did-it theory falls apart. Yet the Mexico City evidence demands that the CIA was involved.

Given everything I've learned, the most likely role Ruth Paine had with the CIA is as an asset, one whose primary role was to identify communists. At the time this was considered a patriotic thing to do.

 

On 6/2/2022 at 4:53 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

But what Di Eugenio has at least alleged, is that  Ruth Paine found herself in an unwitting plot to assassinate the

President and then chose to plant evidence for the plotters.

 

You've got this part wrong, Kirk. Ruth had no role in the assassination... she (and Oswald) just followed CIA instructions for Oswald to take a job at the TSBD. The evidence she planted later was for the government coverup, which was not part of the assassination plot.

If Jim D. and others believe otherwise, I disagree with them.

 

On 6/2/2022 at 4:53 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

If a person when confronted with that dilemma, was given the choice, then chose to go and aid the conspirators, they would then become an accessory after the fact to the killing of a U.S President. That's not an unwitting accomplice. That's a very conscious choice, and a very serious allegation.

 

Ruth Paine wasn't involved in the CIA-designed false-flag operation to kill the president. The theory has Ruth Paine helping the government prevent WW3 by covering up the conspiracy.

Now that I've cleared that up, it appears that the remainder of your post is rendered irrelevant. It was easier to straighten you out than I had imagined. 

 

On 6/2/2022 at 4:53 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

But here I'll just take this "unwitting accomplice" narrative and merge it with the story RP's alleged spy work in Nicaragua which is a story that has been recycled for the maybe hundreds of times here in the past.

To believe this story, you're supposing that Ruth retains her position as a CIA asset, even after you allege her being   an unwitting asset in what many believe here is the greatest coup ever engineered in the history of the U.S. If you really think RP was a spy. Do you have any idea what being that entails? It's actually a clandestine life style. Are you familiar with the term, "spycraft"?" Is the CIA wise to use such an asset with such a blown cover in their escapades to forward the Contra War in Nicaragua? If RP was somehow exposed in that role, as an asset of U.S. Intelligence, wouldn't it just a beeline to her involvement in the JFKA case, and open up that whole mess?

 

A mess that people, including Di Eugenio here are claiming the CIA brought down a U.S. President over? Causing the first President in the history to resign because of his alleged knowledge of the JFKA? Why in the world would they take  a chance of letting Ruth Paine run amuck in Nicaragua? Would such an agent really be out in the open writing copious notes, particularly with her previous exposure? Or would she probably do so in her own private moments before she went to bed for example. What kind of spy does that? Doesn't that strike you as a little phony?

 

So you think they were smart enough to a engineer coup to kill the POTUS? and stupid enough to let this accessory to the fact do this?  Is there any evidence from any previous statement that RP or MP or LHO would wanted JFK dead? You're alleging she's been framed into being an accomplice to the murdering of a President. If she found herself in such a circumstance to be an accessory to the assassination of JFK would she even choose to continue her involvement with the CIA?

 

But why would the CIA ask her? RP would have been told to lead as quiet a life as possible. Don't make waves. But in order to make this story plausible, we have to portray RP as some ideological zealot,who would ignore any sound clandestine protocols and inject herself into ongoing JFKA controversy again and again. Does it really  make sense?

 

What kind of devil daring person have you projected on RP to proceed with such bravado to be actively involved in confronting naysayers? What spy would do that?  How foolish would she be to go participate in the televised mock trial only to have people here chime in and castigate RP for "not liking LHO" as if that means anything. No matter what you think of RP, whether it''s a traitor, a spy, or a woman taking on a room mate. Who in the CIA or "Deep state" would advise her to do that?

 

 

So for those who believe Ruth Paine found herself an unwitting co conspirator in the Kennedy assassination, and peddle her as being an asset for the American backed Contra forces in Nicaragua. I’m just wondering, how was that done? Did the dialog go something like this?

 

"Deep state" To Ruth Paine: First off, Re: operation Camelot. We apologize We understood your surprise. It was touch and go for awhile, But you stood up very admirably for the agency and unflinchingly behind your mission to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald despite pressures that even we couldn’t foresee, and your country owes you a debt they will never be able to repay.

 

Ruth Paine: Well...I ...did like President Kennedy, ...but I suppose it was the right thing to do to save the world from communism!

 

Deep State to Ruth Paine: Good girl! Though it’s been a number of years, we have another unique mission for someone of your specific background. As you know our anti government forces of liberty are now embroiled in a critical fight against the Communist Sandinista Nicaraguan government forces. The mission Ruth, should you choose to take it involves your usual cover as a Quaker relief worker into the remote Nicaraguan  jungle villages and gauging the communist government troop movements and whatever local knowledge you can garner and report back to the agency.

 

Ruth Paine: Well I...suppose.

 

Hey maybe Greg's proposals don't completely pan out either. But have you really given serious thought to what your Nicaragua story entails?

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Kirk Gallaway]

To be clear, Sandy, I've never heard you suggest that Ruth Paine planted evidence, and I've never thought from your comments that you thought that RP was involved in a plot to kill the President.

But I think I understand for the first time, your perceptions from what you've said earlier. That you aren't accusatory of Ruth Paine, hold no malice to her position and suggest that she was coached that it was her patriotic duty to tow, shall we say an "agency" line? To avoid WW3? Correct me if I'm wrong.  I found that interesting.

So Sandy,  you haven't noticed any malice or marked hostility toward Ruth Paine here?

[Sandy Larsen]

Kirk,

I have indeed seen hostility toward Ruth Paine here on the forum, which is unfortunate. I believe that Ruth Paine was/is essentially a good person and was/is very patriotic. I believe that she was anti-communist, which back then was considered to be a patriotic position to take, and to some degree still is. And yes, I believe that she reported on American communists to the CIA.

But I can understand why some forum members have a negative view of Ruth. Many of us believe that she helped the government cover up the assassination plot and frame Oswald. I guess that some members here feel like she did that maliciously. But what I believe is that she lied to the WC in order to help cover up the Russian/Cuban/Oswald conspiracy that the evidence pointed to. (The false flag operation by the CIA was designed to have Russia and Cuba blamed for the killing, with Oswald being the American point guy for this fake conspiracy.) I believe that the government told Ruth that the assassination APPEARED to be an international conspiracy (which BTW was true), and that President Johnson had directed the FBI to bury it (also true) for fear that it might otherwise lead to WW3. It was Ruth's patriotic duty to help the government put the blame only on Oswald. If that meant her planting some anti-Oswald evidence, so be it.

But that is my conspiracy theory. I don't get upset at others for being hard on Ruth because they have their own theories and Ruth probably does look like a scoundrel from their points of view.

BTW, I'll bet that being a Quaker was her cover. But that's pure speculation on my part.

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Ruth Paine was/is essentially a good person and was/is very patriotic. I believe that she was anti-communist, which back then was considered to be a patriotic position to take, and to some degree still is. And yes, I believe that she reported on American communists to the CIA.

But what I believe is that she lied to the WC in order to help cover up the Russian/Cuban/Oswald conspiracy that the evidence pointed to. (The false flag operation by the CIA was designed to have Russia and Cuba blamed for the killing, with Oswald being the American point guy for this fake conspiracy.) I believe that the government told Ruth that the assassination APPEARED to be an international conspiracy (which BTW was true), and that President Johnson had directed the FBI to bury it (also true) for fear that it might otherwise lead to WW3. It was Ruth's patriotic duty to help the government put the blame only on Oswald. If that meant her planting some anti-Oswald evidence, so be it.

But that is my conspiracy theory. I don't get upset at others for being hard on Ruth because they have their own theories and Ruth probably does look like a scoundrel from their points of view.

BTW, I'll bet that being a Quaker was her cover. But that's pure speculation on my part.

Of all the nonsensical posts on this forum, this doozy by Sandy Larsen takes the cake. Do you actually expect us to believe that "CIA asset" Ruth Paine was permitted to testify at length in front of the Warren Commission and then proceed to give interviews to journalists and researchers for the next 59 years? Is the CIA in the habit of exposing their valuable assets in public forums for decades on end? Regarding your preposterous "pure speculation" that Ruth Paine pretended to be a Quaker, the less said about that, the better.

[James DiEugenio]

I have 4 words:

William Hootkins is coming.