"The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" comes out this month

[James DiEugenio]

As you can see from above, Max is making the rounds.

I think this has to qualify as a partial success story at least.

I mean, Max only expected to make the rounds on film festivals.

But his film has gone beyond that.

I really do hope he gets a cable sale. He and the film deserve that.

[Tom Gram]

14 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The "vast majority of viewers" you refer to are of the conspiracy persuasion. That is because that is who the film caters to. Because the market for a film that defends Ruth Paine would be just about zero. That is an unfortunate reality.

This film loses any pretense of objectivity when it allows Holland, McMillan and Ruth herself to act as the primary defenders of the lone assassin theory for most of the film only to tear them down by accusing or at least implying that they are all CIA employees or assets. No such trick was performed on the CT people although it would be very easy to do.

Several of the assertions in the film are indeed easily debunked despite what you claim. Here are just a couple:

Ruth did not get LHO the job at the TSBD as part of a plot. That is, unless you believe the plot included several other people who were also controlled by the conspiracy:

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-The Coffee Klatch ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Then we have this:

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-The "Secret Files" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

As for the assertions that are not "debunkable" because they are only suspicions (such as the Nicaragua matter for example) there is a reasonable alternate explanation. Again, take Nicaragua. Ruth was down there to determine if her group would continue to be affiliated with the Linder House. So, she took notes-imagine that. And some kid is taking photos and says he is doing it for the Nicaragua Network and Ruth repeats that. 

Now, out of all of this we are supposed to believe that the CIA has sent Ruth and this kid down to Nicaragua to collect information on groups supporting the Sandinistas? And how do they collect this information? Do they use overt techniques. No-they run around taking photos and notes right out in the open. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

What seems more reasonable is that Sue Wheaton, who is a conspiracy theorist (a fact you don't tell your audience), finds out Ruth Paine is there and starts a misinformation campaign against her. In this case, that is the much more likely explanation.

 

Good's film is a lot more objective than most of the "Paine defense" material I've seen. A common technique used to defend Paine (and the WC) is: (1) propose a plausible innocent explanation for a controversial set of evidence; (2) present it as conclusive; and (3) ignore that the evidence is ambiguous and that the supposedly debunked allegation retains a very real probability of being correct. It's good to share opposing views, but building a scenario from ambiguous evidence to support a predetermined conclusion is polemics, not research. Larry Schnapf's comment from the CE399 thread - directed at Steve Roe - applies perfectly here :

"Roe uses different levels of scrutiny when assessing evidence supporting the official theory as opposed to evidence supporting a conspiracy. He is eager to dismiss any inconsistencies with the official record as a harmless error but employs an exacting level of scrutiny for evidence supporting a conspiracy. This suggests a bias in his analysis and not a true pursuit of the truth."

Also, Good's film may not be perfectly balanced, but do you really think a film defending Paine would be anywhere remotely close to as fair with critics as Good was with Posner, Holland and co.? For example, you are accusing Good of implying that Holland was a CIA asset by using Holland's own words that said the exact opposite of what you claim Good was implying. Good could have brought up The Lost Bullet, displayed some of Holland's absolutely ridiculous claims on the assassination, and pretty much obliterated his credibility to any reasonable viewer. Instead he let Holland both bring up and (effectively) debunk the allegations against him. I think that's pretty fair any way you swing it. 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Tom Gram

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

(1) propose a plausible innocent explanation for a controversial set of evidence; (2) present it as conclusive; and (3) ignore that the evidence is ambiguous

But most of the "evidence" is not really evidence but suspicions. Ruth's sister was associated with the CIA, so she must be CIA. Ruth found the Walker note so she must have planted it. Michael worked at Bell Helicopter so he must have been CIA. And so on.

I will admit that how one views the Paines is subjective.

[Steve Roe]

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

"Roe uses different levels of scrutiny when assessing evidence supporting the official theory as opposed to evidence supporting a conspiracy. He is eager to dismiss any inconsistencies with the official record as a harmless error but employs an exacting level of scrutiny for evidence supporting a conspiracy. This suggests a bias in his analysis and not a true pursuit of the truth."

I'm aware of this comment by Larry. Of course, this came on the heels of the Elmer Todd initials discovery which was a corner stone to Stone's recent JFK film. Naturally this is a huge embarrassment to those involved with the film. It's nothing more but sour grapes striking out at me for doing something they should have done in the first place. I have nothing personal against Larry and like to keep to our JFK disagreements solely in a civil manner. He's entitled to his opinion. 

Likewise, I have my own opinion that Ruth Paine is being victimized by baseless, senseless and reckless innuendos. What is a CIA handler anyway? Do they wash clothes, tend to children, take mothers to hospitals, give blood, help assist mothers in delivery where the husband was noticeably absent while secretly setting up a man to be framed?

All of this stuff is nothing more than transferring the guilt from Oswald to fantasy nameless, faceless CIA spooks. Reasonable people see through this quixotic charade. 

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

What is a CIA handler anyway? Do they wash clothes, tend to children, take mothers to hospitals, give blood, help assist mothers in delivery where the husband was noticeably absent while secretly setting up a man to be framed?

All of this stuff is nothing more than transferring the guilt from Oswald to fantasy nameless, faceless CIA spooks. Reasonable people see through this quixotic charade. 

Lots of mocking but nothing that helps in the search for the truth.

[James DiEugenio]

Here is another exchange over Bill Hootkins.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1952-william-hootkins-is-innocent?highlight=hootkins+innocent

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

I'm aware of this comment by Larry. Of course, this came on the heels of the Elmer Todd initials discovery which was a corner stone to Stone's recent JFK film. Naturally this is a huge embarrassment to those involved with the film. It's nothing more but sour grapes striking out at me for doing something they should have done in the first place. I have nothing personal against Larry and like to keep to our JFK disagreements solely in a civil manner. He's entitled to his opinion. 

Likewise, I have my own opinion that Ruth Paine is being victimized by baseless, senseless and reckless innuendos. What is a CIA handler anyway? Do they wash clothes, tend to children, take mothers to hospitals, give blood, help assist mothers in delivery where the husband was noticeably absent while secretly setting up a man to be framed?

All of this stuff is nothing more than transferring the guilt from Oswald to fantasy nameless, faceless CIA spooks. Reasonable people see through this quixotic charade. 

Hi Steve. The initials were a killer find, but Schnapf was criticizing your interpretation of the timing issue. In your article you proposed a plausible scenario, presented it as conclusive, and failed to offer any supporting evidence to justify that level of certainty. I see the the same kind of thing in a lot of the criticisms of Good’s film, which takes away from the counterarguments and makes the conspiracy side seem a lot more reasonable. It is difficult to take research seriously when there’s an inconsistent level of scrutiny applied to the evidence, and you might have better luck convincing people on the fence by taking a more tempered approach.

I’m agnostic on Ruth Paine, but I do think that a very strong case can be made that she withheld information from investigators, which if true diminishes her overall credibility. Let’s take the Hootkins issue for example. Regardless of whatever alternative is proposed, Greg Parker’s identification of Hootkins as the boy in Shasteen’s barber shop has a strong evidentiary basis and will retain a very high probability of being correct. Without new evidence, you can’t debunk something just by offering an alternative scenario. 

All I’m saying is that you can’t just toss probability out the window and claim to be correct without having the evidence to back it up. If you can legitimately prove that an allegation is false or at least highly unlikely I’m all for it, but there are a lot of shades of grey between Paine being a witting CIA agent hellbent on framing Oswald and a completely innocent, fully trustworthy housewife. 

[Gene Kelly]

John

Others have analyzed the Russian syntax of the note and made the same observation you have.  In an April 2015 EF thread begun by Jon Tidd ("Who Wrote the Walker Letter?"), he points out that the characters used in the note were in some instances not written/formed correctly, there were numerous errors of case and errors of tense, and improper use of the infinitive. Further, the translation of the note contained errors and wasn't literal (i.e., the translation entirely overlooks how poorly this letter is written).

In 2010, Greg Parker had a Russian expert compare the unsigned Walker note to letters written by Oswald when living in Minsk. His opinion on the orthography was that the Walker letter was written by a non-Russian, and that the Minsk letters were not authored by the same person. Greg concluded that someone tried to imitate what they thought was Oswald's level of Russian writing ability.  Much of this depends upon one's view of Oswald's command of the Russian language, where opinions differ. Greg believes that Ruth Paine is a likely candidate for the note's author, and points out that Ruth's WC testimony mirrors the construct of the unsigned note: 

Senator COOPER - Yet he was intelligent enough that he had learned to speak Russian.  Mrs. PAINE - His Russian was poor, his vocabulary was large, his grammar never was good.

However, Ruth's view of Oswald's proficiency is in contrast to the more expert opinion of Peter Gregory, who once interviewed Lee Oswald in June 1962, in Fort Worth, while teaching Russian at the library. Oswald was looking for a job as a translator or interpreter: 

“I gave him a short test by simply opening a book at random and asking him to read a paragraph or two and then translate it. He did it very well. So, I gave him a letter addressed to whom it may concern that in my opinion he was capable of being an interpreter or a translator.”

I would add that the FBI's fingerprint expert lifted 7 latent fingerprints from the note (found in a cellophane envelope tucked between the pages of the housekeeping book), but none was identical with the fingerprints of Lee or Marina. And only one of three HSCA experts were later willing to say the note was in Oswald's handwriting).

At first, I found the story behind this unsigned note difficult to follow, but when you deconstruct the entire Walker chronicle, it becomes clear that the timing of everything surrounding the note is way too coincidental. The Warren Commission subsequently had problems with this note - and the Walker allegation in general - prompting Rankin to write Hoover a 6-page letter complaining that Marina's testimony was full of contradictions and recommending that she be requestioned. You could read this several different ways - depending upon how one views the complicity of the Commission lawyers and the FBI - but it appears that all parties were trying to get the cover story to be consistent.  

Regarding those pesky Paines, Carol Hewett's November 1997 analysis pointed out that one of the first published accounts raising a connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting came from none other than Michael Paine, who was quoted in the Saturday November 23rd issue of the Houston Post as suggesting that Oswald may have been involved.  And if you have the patience to read through his WC testimony, he is obsessed with Walker, whose name is mentioned numerous times (just perform a simple word search, and it becomes obvious).  I also find it quite telling that the WC almost forgot to question Ruth about this damming note ... but the charitable quaker didn't let that happen:

RUTH: You have not yet asked me if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount that for you if it is of any importance.  JENNER: Yes, l wish you would.

The icing on the cake for me is the observation by those who have since spoken to Ms. Paine. Whenever she meets with individuals who wish to talk to her about the assassination, she first asks for their position on the Walker shooting (what Joe McBride calls her "litmus test").  What this brings to mind is what cognitive psychology calls the “illusory truth effect” - 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). This tactic is commonly employed in political propaganda, marketing, cult brainwashing and notably on social media blogs (e.g., repetitive posts on threads). 

Finally, and germane to the plethora of EF threads that have appeared coincident with Max Good's fine film, we should beware of posts that have a suggestive (false) title ... because 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).  Rathje discusses experiments performed to examine the effects that incriminating innuendo delivered by media sources have on audience impressions. The author's simple advice to counter this tactic and discredit lies - without repeating them and spreading them further - is to always lead with the truth. The facts should come first, so our minds will stop confusing “alternative facts” with real ones. 

Gene

[Derek Thibeault]

On 6/9/2022 at 12:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

My first reaction after watching it was:  Why did it take 59 years to do something like this?

I will be doing a two part review, part one should be up this weekend at K and K.

I finally got to see it today - it's excellent for the budget that was used. Max really went after a great topic. I believe we need to break this assassination into segments, and the Paine's are a major one. I have thought of them for years and wanted a deep dive. Kudos to Max - I read Jim's review also well-done. We need a doc on the JD Tippett murder. I'm glad Max showed Jack Ruby's comments about "the truth" - to me, that is one of the most damning public statements of all. It's amazing that Ruth has told the same story, and neither her or Michael broke nor died young. Seeing Posner in this - total fraud man. Thank you, Max, it was well worth the purchase.

[Joseph McBride]

My FIFTY REASONS . . . FIFTY YEARS segment on J. D. Tippit (note

the correct spelling). Len Osanic produced the series, and Jeff

Carter did the videography. This is based on my research for

my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE, about two-thirds of which is on Tippit. 

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Derek Thibeault]

10 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

My FIFTY REASONS . . . FIFTY YEARS segment on J. D. Tippit (note

the correct spelling). Len Osanic produced the series, and Jeff

Carter did the videography. This is based on my research for

my book INTO THE NIGHT, about two-thirds of which is on Tippit. 

 

Thanks - yeah I messed up the spelling - very hard to find your book at a normal price - still looking though. I read your book on Orson Welles. It was very good. Thanks for this video clip, I watched all 50 a few years back - I will check this one out again. Thank you!

[Ron Bulman]

On 7/2/2022 at 8:17 PM, Joseph McBride said:

My FIFTY REASONS . . . FIFTY YEARS segment on J. D. Tippit (note

the correct spelling). Len Osanic produced the series, and Jeff

Carter did the videography. This is based on my research for

my book INTO THE NIGHT, about two-thirds of which is on Tippit. 

 

This is very intense.  I've only watched 3-4 of the Black Ops Fifty Reasons Fifty Years videos from links on here.  I thought I remembered hour long interviews with Len.  This is not an interview but a very concise presentation, direct, to the point.  675 pages of the book cannot be condensed into eight minutes and are not.  But, all here should take the time to watch the video whether you have the book or not.  It gets to the heart of the matter.

[Derek Thibeault]

21 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This is very intense.  I've only watched 3-4 of the Black Ops Fifty Reasons Fifty Years videos from links on here.  I thought I remembered hour long interviews with Len.  This is not an interview but a very concise presentation, direct, to the point.  675 pages of the book cannot be condensed into eight minutes and are not.  But, all here should take the time to watch the video whether you have the book or not.  It gets to the heart of the matter.

the 50 videos are great and very well done.

[Paul Cummings]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:09 AM, Steve Roe said:

I've watched it numerous times and have never believed this was "the cornerstone" of the four part series.

 

I'm aware of this comment by Larry. Of course, this came on the heels of the Elmer Todd initials discovery which was a corner stone to Stone's recent JFK film. Naturally this is a huge embarrassment to those involved with the film. It's nothing more but sour grapes striking out at me for doing something they should have done in the first place. I have nothing personal against Larry and like to keep to our JFK disagreements solely in a civil manner. He's entitled to his opinion. 

Likewise, I have my own opinion that Ruth Paine is being victimized by baseless, senseless and reckless innuendos. What is a CIA handler anyway? Do they wash clothes, tend to children, take mothers to hospitals, give blood, help assist mothers in delivery where the husband was noticeably absent while secretly setting up a man to be framed?

All of this stuff is nothing more than transferring the guilt from Oswald to fantasy nameless, faceless CIA spooks. Reasonable people see through this quixotic charade. 

 

[Joseph McBride]

I posted on the RFK section of this site a new podcast

interview I did with the rarely interviewed Scott Enyart,

the only person taking pictures during the shooting. He

discusses what happened, what he saw, and his Kafkaesque

ordeal after the LAPD, to which he lent the photos, failed

to return the ones he took during the shooting, only those

he took during RFK's speech and in the ballroom after

the shooting. This podcast is Bob Wilson's I'M LOOKING

THROUGH YOU. https://ochelli.com/rfk-assassination-witness-54-years-after/?fbclid=IwAR1U9eJGgaKdZbr01Yobf7KFgr2SdULQiqE-7Acw5emN8jJTpHmNTsCT9tA