The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Have you read Our Man in Haiti? The circumstances of DeM’s meeting in NYC and DC are purported by him to be about a possible coup, installing Clemard Charles, his Haitian banker friend and companion for at least one of those meetings, in place of Duvalier, and a business arrangement for a sisal plantation in Haiti. If you haven’t already, take a look at who was at these meetings. Jim’s observation makes a lot more sense than DeM’s explanation. $285K vs $300K - how much money is that in today’s dollars, + or - 10%? Why should the CIA and their MI liaison care about a sisal plantation? Why would DeM care about a Haitian coup? This story begs for more light, yet the identity of the two deep cover CIA people - WUBRINY-1 and -2 - at the NYC meetings was hidden from investigators. I believe they were finally identified. One was a close associate of George Bush btw - Thomas Devine. 

I will look at her book but there is no way that George D got that kind of money (285k) from the CIA or anyone. That would be 2.6 million in current funds. He told the WC that he only got 20,000 in cash and the rest toward the plantation as you mention. I'm not sure what he told Epstein but I have his book in the mail. The CIA wouldn't care about a plantation which tells me they had nothing to do with the deal. And George wouldn't care about a coup (although the banker guy was) unless it threatened to ruin his deal with the Haitians. The AI lady had no idea who he was or why he was at the meeting according to the HSCA. But thanks for the suggestion and I will look at it before I write my article on the matter.

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/3/2022 at 7:02 AM, Joe Bauer said:

There are many main characters in the Lee and Marina Oswald story that leave one unsure about their involvement with them in nefarious ways more than simple good will intentioned ones.

Regards Ruth Paine. 

No matter how much is reported about her possible asset work, travel and other odd activities one has to admit how much Ruth did for and gave to Marina and her babies at a time when they truly needed someone to step in like Ruth did, especially right up to, during and right after Marina just gave birth.

No one else was stepping forward on the total help giving commitment level Ruth was.

Robert Oswald and his wife? Other White Russians? Social services?

Ruth took Marina and her children into her own fairly small home where she had two children of her own. She paid for most all of Marina and her babie's basic needs.

Shelter and utilities, food, transportation especially in setting Marina up with pre-natal medical care. She allowed Lee to come and visit and even spend the night.

Whether there was something more nefarious going on with RP, or even if she had developed a kind of crush on Marina ... one still has to acknowledge her doing more for Marina and her children than 98% of society ever would. Taking them into her own small home and providing 95% of their basic needs. I don't think Ruth ever asked Marina, or even Lee, for a penny of shared costs expenses did she?

Ruth's background and her family's background certainly may be open to some curious scrutiny. Her sister's employment for one. Same with Michael Paine.

Where that leads is where it leads I guess.

I know a little about the Quakers. Love their active involvement humanitarianism and non-violent commitment to peace.

I am not convinced that Ruth wasn't sincere in her involvement with others and her motivations in helping them.

Even on the grand scale of improving relations between cold war adversaries and the very real threat of devastating conflict.

Also, the woman sang in choirs, folk danced, listened to Peter, Paul And Mary and Kingston Trio records, watched Lawrence Welk on TV, her husband bowled and she actively participated in trying to desegregate Dallas area libraries and other facilities and sympathized with the civil rights movement. A true liberal. 

Her uncanny Carol Burnett resemblance ( another super liberal ) even adds to my unsureness about her true possible nefarious motivation suspicion.

Maybe I'm just totally naive about how well assets can be set up to look so every day normal and innocently humanitarian minded nice and kind?

Well said Joe.

[Gene Kelly]

Jim:

In response to the "Garrisonism" comment, I found this interchange from Greg Doudna's interview of John Curington in March 2018 to be telling, as far as an agenda is concerned:

GD: What about Garrison, in Louisiana?  JC: Well, he came in our office. He became a big pest. I imagine I talked to him maybe twenty-five or thirty times. He had nothing to hang his hat on. Of course, he was always trying to get a little money. And Mr. Hunt, as far as I know, never let him have a nickel.

GD: He was asking Hunt for money?  For what? JC: to help build his case.

GD: How’s the money going to help build his case?  JC: Well, you have to have traveling expenses. You have to—and he’s on a limited budget with the DA’s office—you know he was just an attorney there.

GD: But he suspected Hunt. How is he asking a suspect for money? JC: Well, I never got that feeling in talking to him. Mr. Hunt may have met him a time or two, but he’d step into my office, when Garrison came in.

GD: So, Garrison was seeking extra funds for the investigation? JC: Yeah. He was seeking funds to help him on the investigation. Of course, as a district attorney, you know, you have certain things available to you, but if Garrison could pick up ten thousand here, or twenty thousand there, he wouldn’t be averse to it, no.  Garrison wanted to make a name for himself, and he didn’t care whose toes he stepped on to do it there. And he got laughed out of the courtroom.

GD: OK. Thank you, Mr. Curington.

Curington reappeared in 2018, publishing memoirs of his time with H. L. Hunt, co-written by one Mitchel Whittington who has stated that he makes his living writing regional books about history, folklore, and the supernatural.  One review of the book calls it a 'pious fiction', and had this to say:

The reader will be disappointed with lacking first-hand sourcing, as this is just another of those books. Even though warned by other reviews, it reads like an old Classic Tales comic book and/or Cliffs Notes pamphlet. There is a constant feeling of the all-encompassing phrase 'believe me when I tell you' lingering about the shallow text. If you consider Hunt and/or Murchison Jr were likely involved with "the deed" itself, you'd best look for other writings in which their names appear with "Momo" and "Bulldog" because this appears as frosting without a cake or vice versa. The author almost apologetically warns you, early and later vaguely, of his haphazard inferences. The book does not jibe with known facts; he has written a pious fiction.

In 1975, Curington was convicted of mail fraud in connection with embezzlement schemes, and received a probated sentence, with no jail time. Joan Mellen analyzed Curington's June 1977 National Enquirer story in Our Man in Haiti and characterized it as disinformation history. Casing the Dallas Police station, the night before Oswald was killed by Ruby, and the alleged Hunt meeting with Marina Oswald, appear far-fetched, and not to be taken seriously ... and are consistent with the title/content of this thread (i.e., incredible allegations). 

Gene

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

19 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Which suggests [Ruth Paine] was motivated primarily or solely by what she would personally get out of helping Marina and not because of the satisfaction gained from a doing a truly selfless act of charity. That's not sincere, that's selfish.

 

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What in the world is wrong with receiving something in return for doing a good deed.

 

Nothing wrong with that, IMO. But...

 

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What in the world is wrong with receiving something in return for doing a good deed.

There is no such thing as a "selfless" act of charity. Even an anonymous donor still has the self-satisfaction that their gift provides.

 

I respectfully disagree with Tracy on his point I highlighted.

It is quite common for a parent to selflessly sacrifice for their child. Some people even do so for others who are in need. They might (or might not) feel good for having done so, but that is not their motivation. Their motivation is empathy.

I suspect that Quakers are encouraged to give selflessly, as Gene said. I know that I, as a Mormon, was.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is quite common for a parent to selflessly sacrifice for their child.

Yes, that would be an exception to my statement.

[James DiEugenio]

Gene:

I have to say that I never saw anything in Garrison's files to the effect that he talked to Curington 25-30 times.

Or often went into his offices and became a "big pest" asking Hunt for money.

I did see some evidence that people who worked for Garrison visited Hunt and talked to Curington e.g. Weisberg and Boxley. 

But not Garrison himself.  

Its one of the reasons I did not find Curington's book convincing.

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is quite common for a parent to selflessly sacrifice for their child.

Yes, that would be an exception to my statement.

 

Actually, it was in the remainder of that paragraph where I made my point:

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is quite common for a parent to selflessly sacrifice for their child. Some people even do so for others who are in need. They might (or might not) feel good for having done so, but that is not their motivation. Their motivation is empathy.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I just read Parnell's silly reply to me through Brancato.

285 vs 300 K. What a cheap shot. Tracy, did you ever hear of rounding off?

The meetings with CIA and MI are discussed by Russ Baker in his book about the Bushes and by Bill Simpich at the AARC web site; Dorothe Matlack I think was first exposed by Fletcher Prouty. Do I have to do all your research for you? Try Duck Duck Go Go if you are in the dark partner.

As per the White Russians and LHO. That whole weird episode was caused by the Baron. And we know why George did that do we not?

Edited June 5, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Denny Zartman]

Tracy,

There's nothing wrong with doing the right thing and getting something in return for it. It's nice when that happens. Everyone wins, and that's wonderful. But expecting something in return should not be the motivation for doing the right thing. That's the difference between an act of charity and a transaction.

Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do is generally encouraged by the church, whereas doing the right thing because you're expecting sexual favors in return is generally discouraged by churches.

At times in my life I have helped people and animals and it did not make me feel good or came at an expense I couldn't afford. But I did it anyway because it was the right thing to do and it needed to be done. I have known other people who have done similar things. I disagree with your assertion that truly selfless acts don't exist.

If part of the reason Ruth wanted to help Marina because Ruth had a serious case of love at first sight and wanted to jump her bones, that's fine. I don't believe it, but if it's true I am not in a position to judge. All I would ask is that we please stop holding up Ruth's religion and wholesome lifestyle as if it were some sort of character reference useful in evaluating her honesty. Please remember, she's 1. coveting her neighbor's wife, 2. violating her marriage vows, and 3. hoping Marina would violate her own marriage vows.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Denny Zartman
typo

[Joe Bauer]

23 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Forgive me, @Joe Bauer, you're one of my favorite people in the forum. I always enjoy reading your posts, but I must respectfully disagree with you on this particular issue.

In your earlier post you wrote:

And you go on to describe her alleged altruistic Quaker nature. But then you follow that with your next post where you write:

Which suggests she was motivated primarily or solely by what she would personally get out of helping Marina and not because of the satisfaction gained from a doing a truly selfless act of charity. That's not sincere, that's selfish.

if the foreign exchange student story is true, then she was either defying or ignoring what was specifically being encouraged by her church and practiced by her fellow Quakers. In my opinion this would further undercut any claims of her sincerity because of her specific religion. It seems Ruth had an interest in other cultures as evidenced by her knowledge of the Russian language. Why then would a foreign exchange student not satisfy her interest? And I sincerely doubt that Quaker teachings encourage Quakers to help individuals in order to satisfy their own carnal desires. When you and your wife so generously took in a young mother, I hope neither of you did so because of what either of you wanted to gain out of it, but because she was a human being in need of help.

I believe Ruth's involvement with the Oswald family did not happen by chance and was not primarily or even secondarily driven by what the young people refer to as a "girl crush." Ruth needed to be in Lee's life to such a level where it gets Lee in Dallas, anchors him there, and where it would not be suspicious if Ruth "helped" Lee get a job downtown at what just happened to be the pre-selected kill zone. I personally believe the "crush" story is overblown, exaggerated to discourage further speculation about Ruth's motives. I think the Paine's involvement with the Oswald's was primarily as a result of needing to place the patsy at the specific location and secondarily to have a convenient source of incriminating physical evidence few would question. After all, she's just a nice Quaker lady.

 

Denny I see your points and "also" respectfully disagree and agree!

Yes, Ruth had some personal interest motivation in asking Marina to live with her.

It wasn't 100% pure altruistic.

Heck, hundreds of thousands of people taking in foster kids all across America get a check from the government for doing so. That doesn't generally equate into their intentions being much less than altruistic and admirable.

I'm not trying to make Ruth out to be a saint, but what is wrong with having at least "some" personal interest leeway in choosing who you decide to take into your home?

That is the ultimate act of giving. You give up so much privacy, space and expenses. And potentially risky for many reasons. What if Marina had a hidden selfish dark side? Or she was super lazy and slovenly? Plus, what if Lee turned ugly about Ruth stealing away his wife and baby and had become belligerent towards her?

Yes, Ruth had some needs of companionship and Marina fit the bill. In all the ways I previously mentioned.

When I commented that I think Ruth was smitten with Marina to a possible "crush" degree I was irresponsibly wrong in doing so as I honestly do not know anything at all about her sexual orientation. 

However, I think that it is easier for some people to open their homes up to others who they feel good about being around 24 hours a day. And an attractive young woman ( with an intriguing Russian background ) with a 2 year old child and late term pregnant with another fit that bill. 

If a 230 lbs. dirty, smelly, hairy faced and bodied man in need knocked on Ruth's door asking for shelter, pure altruistic intentions take a hike.

So, yes, one can say Ruth had some selfish need motivations in taking in Marina besides pure blindly altruistic ones.  But I don't think those on their own totally negate the worthiness of her kindness and generosity she bestowed upon Marina and her children, especially when the newly unemployed ( again ) Lee couldn't provide for their most basic needs of shelter, medical attention, transportation etc.

Now, the latter long term relationship Marina had with Precilla Johnson McMillan is the more suspicious one by a mile imo.

Oh, and to answer your curiosity about my wife's and my honestly altruistic intentions when helping the barefoot 17 year old girl holding her just months old baby in her arms  that knocked on our door one rainy night let me assure you, they were.

We knew the girl's parents. Their home life was pure chaos.

We had two children ourselves 12 and 9.

We had also taken my elderly mother into our home 6 month's earlier after she was financially abused by another brother in the 11 months he had her.

This girl's 17 year old boyfriend out of desperation to support his girl and new baby had robbed a local motel, gotten caught and was arrested at the time of her homelessness.

The boy called me with his one allowed phone call from the police department asking for some help. He was scared, crying even. He knew we had taken in his girl and baby.

To this day, I regret deeply that I didn't do more for him than just sympathetically listen to his anxious reaching out. 

I could have ( and should have ) done more. 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

285 vs 300 K. What a cheap shot. Tracy, did you ever hear of rounding off?

Why not just round up to the nearest million?

 

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do I have to do all your research for you?

No, I am working on it now.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

285 vs 300 K. What a cheap shot. Tracy, did you ever hear of rounding off?

Why not just round up to the nearest million?

 

Because THAT would be dishonest, Tracy.

Jim D. was right, your 285k vs 300k criticism was a cheap shot. Virtually everybody rounds numbers off, especially large numbers, and they do so usually to 1, 1 1/2, or 2 digit precision. Here's are examples of rounding off numbers to those three different precisions:

1 DIGIT ROUNDING
100
200
300
400

1 1/2 DIGIT ROUNDING
100
150
200
250

2 DIGIT ROUNDING
100
110
120
130
140
150

 

Do you honestly think someone's being dishonest by rounding off to a single digit when speaking informally? Or is it only when a WC critic does so?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Sandy.

This is why I have Parnell on ignore.  

I have to endure him sometimes because others do not.

[David G. Healy]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Denny I see your points and "also" respectfully disagree and agree!

Yes, Ruth had some personal interest motivation in asking Marina to live with her.

It wasn't 100% pure altruistic.

Heck, hundreds of thousands of people taking in foster kids all across America get a check from the government for doing so. That doesn't generally equate into their intentions being much less than altruistic and admirable.

I'm not trying to make Ruth out to be a saint, but what is wrong with having at least "some" personal interest leeway in choosing who you decide to take into your home?

That is the ultimate act of giving. You give up so much privacy, space and expenses. And potentially risky for many reasons. What if Marina had a hidden selfish dark side? Or she was super lazy and slovenly? Plus, what if Lee turned ugly about Ruth stealing away his wife and baby and had become belligerent towards her?

Yes, Ruth had some needs of companionship and Marina fit the bill. In all the ways I previously mentioned.

When I commented that I think Ruth was smitten with Marina to a possible "crush" degree I was irresponsibly wrong in doing so as I honestly do not know anything at all about her sexual orientation. 

However, I think that it is easier for some people to open their homes up to others who they feel good about being around 24 hours a day. And an attractive young woman ( with an intriguing Russian background ) with a 2 year old child and late term pregnant with another fit that bill. 

If a 230 lbs. dirty, smelly, hairy faced and bodied man in need knocked on Ruth's door asking for shelter, pure altruistic intentions take a hike.

So, yes, one can say Ruth had some selfish need motivations in taking in Marina besides pure blindly altruistic ones.  But I don't think those on their own totally negate the worthiness of her kindness and generosity she bestowed upon Marina and her children, especially when the newly unemployed ( again ) Lee couldn't provide for their most basic needs of shelter, medical attention, transportation etc.

Now, the latter long term relationship Marina had with Precilla Johnson McMillan is the more suspicious one by a mile imo.

Oh, and to answer your curiosity about my wife's and my honestly altruistic intentions when helping the barefoot 17 year old girl holding her just months old baby in her arms  that knocked on our door one rainy night let me assure you, they were.

We knew the girl's parents. Their home life was pure chaos.

We had two children ourselves 12 and 9.

We had also taken my elderly mother into our home 6 month's earlier after she was financially abused by another brother in the 11 months he had her.

This girl's 17 year old boyfriend out of desperation to support his girl and new baby had robbed a local motel, gotten caught and was arrested at the time of her homelessness.

The boy called me with his one allowed phone call from the police department asking for some help. He was scared, crying even. He knew we had taken in his girl and baby.

To this day, I regret deeply that I didn't do more for him than just sympathetically listen to his anxious reaching out. 

I could have ( and should have ) done more. 

 

all very good points, unfortunately the dark side got there first and there is no erasing that cloud without a thorough investigation -- to much happenstance and innuendo... not to mention the murder of a president. And, if one has/had a security clearance anytime in their life they are bound to it which puts her at a distinct disadvantage... frankly, I could care less if she was with the agency... if, allegedly, some of her *alleged* work revolved around Kennedy administration and LHO and surrounding company, well.........

Edited June 5, 2022 by David G. Healy

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim D. was right, your 285k vs 300k criticism was a cheap shot.

As I explained in my original post about this, I think he should try and be very accurate because he is looked up to and people may take what he says to the bank. But the point is de Mohrenschildt told the WC that the amount was $285,000 but only 20,000 of that was in cash. There was a rumor, promoted by conspiracy books, that the amount was 200-250k. That is substantially less than 300k I think you would agree. But even Joan Mellon said that the "probable figure" was only $50,000. So, Jim D's 300k "in the bank" is clearly wrong.