Ed Curtin on The Assassination and Mrs. Paine

[James DiEugenio]

Ed Curtin is one of the most knowledgeable, insightful and valuable essayists we have on the contemporary scene.

He literally has tens of thousands of followers all over the web.  And he is so well respected, he can cross post at several popular web sites, like Unz and Rockwell.  And that boosts his readership by a factor of ten.

You can wager he will be doing that with his review of Mex Good. Max and his film are really getting out there. Good for the republic.

http://edwardcurtin.com/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine/

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

The thing is that Max's film is starting to bleed over.

 

What I mean by that is that its getting out of the purely JFK enclave and advancing over to wider venues.  Ed will help that.

Who would have though it would be.👏

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Several of the statements made by Curtin in support of the film are not correct. See my series for details:

W. Tracy Parnell: The Assassination and Mrs. Paine (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[James DiEugenio]

Like I said, Lew Rockwell is one.  That guy gets 300,000 views per month.

 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/07/edward-curtin/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine/

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Several of the statements made by Curtin in support of the film are not correct. See my series for details:

W. Tracy Parnell: The Assassination and Mrs. Paine (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

What “several” statements does Curtin make in that review that are not correct? And by not correct I’m assuming you mean actually false, not something ambiguous you don’t agree with. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

What “several” statements does Curtin make in that review that are not correct? And by not correct I’m assuming you mean actually false, not something ambiguous you don’t agree with. 

I think if you look at my articles, you can probably tell. But I'll give you one:

"Her testimony led to the WC’s conclusion that Oswald, and Oswald alone shot, the president."

If you take the things CTs always mention (Walker note, note to Soviet embassy etc.) and get rid of them, LHO would have still been convicted had he lived. Her testimony was helpful as it was from someone who knew him fairly well in the his past. But it certainly did not "lead to the WC conclusion." That is a large overstatement-it was an accumulation of evidence of which hers was a small part. I have a blog post planned on this for later.

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I think if you look at my articles, you can probably tell. But I'll give you one:

"Her testimony led to the WC’s conclusion that Oswald, and Oswald alone shot, the president."

If you take the things CTs always mention (Walker note, note to Soviet embassy etc.) and get rid of them, LHO would have still been convicted had he lived. Her testimony was helpful as it was from someone who knew him fairly well in the his past. But it certainly did not "lead to the WC conclusion." That is a large overstatement-it was an accumulation of evidence of which hers was a small part. I have a blog post planned on this for later.

So the only example you can offer of Curtin’s alleged “several false statements” is one sentence that is technically true with only a purely semantic argument to the contrary. That was kind of my point. Curtin doesn’t repeat any of the allegations in the film in his review, so saying that he makes “several false statements” and using your blog series as a rebuttal is pretty deceptive, IMO. 

Curtin is obviously biased but all he really does is state facts and encourage readers to watch the film.

Normally I wouldn’t be so nitpicky, but when you criticize Good and hold him to such an obnoxious standard of technical accuracy, I think it’s pretty fair to do the same thing. 
 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Tom Gram

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

So the only example you can offer of Curtin’s alleged “several false statements” is one sentence that is technically true with only a purely semantic argument to the contrary. 

"always protesting her innocence, even though over the decades researchers have uncovered much evidence to the contrary."

There is exactly no evidence to the contrary. All that exists is suspicions by theorists.

"Both he and Ruth have always denied involvement in the plot and coverup, yet much evidence connects them to it. "

Again, there is no evidence only suspicions.

"Ruth, who spoke and taught Russian, was invited to a party by George de Mohrenschildt, a White Russian CIA asset who was ‘babysitting” Lee Harvey Oswald at the request of the CIA. "

This is Curtain's opinion only. This is based completely on statements made by de Mohrenschildt to Epstein when he was being paid $4000 by Reader's Digest. Two explanations-DM was quite mad by this time (he had been committed). Secondly, he wanted to give Epstein something new for his money. Moore denied that he asked DM to "babysit."

"she got Lee a job in the Texas School Book Depository, despite calls to her house from an employment agency offering him a much higher paying job. "

Enough has been said here about this. but briefly, there is no proof (and there never will be) that Ruth was aware of the higher pay and purposely withheld the information.

"Those who wish to kill to make a name for themselves obviously claim credit, but the Paines seem not to get this.  Their claim makes no sense, yet they both repeat it in the film."

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-LHO Would Have Admitted Guilt? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

"She has her defenders and they appear in the film along with well-known supporters of her and the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald did the deed alone:  Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Jack Valenti, Michael Beschloss, and Peter Jennings.

This is not incorrect but misleading. Valenti, Beschloss and Jennings appear in archival footage only and briefly. The bulk of the Ruth defending is done by Ruth, Holland and PJM.

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-LN Experts Diminished? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Now, pardon me while I do some real work. I can only waste so much time on these pointless discussions.

[Tom Gram]

21 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

And by not correct I’m assuming you mean actually false, not something ambiguous you don’t agree with. 

Again, I’m just holding you to the same standard of lexical exactitude that you hold Good. Not one of the statements you quoted is actually false. Evidence is not the same thing as proof, and like I talked about in the Trans Texas thread, a more nuanced discussion of this stuff will make your arguments a lot more convincing and attractive to people on the fence. 

“Curtin makes several statements that are questionable and have plausible alternative interpretations” 

What’s wrong with that? But fair enough, I’ll drop it so we can both do something more interesting.  

Edited July 7, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Guest]

Yes I belief you are correct on "Evidence is not the same thing as proof".

BUT evidence can lead to proof, right ?

So when the film indicates  "...have uncovered much evidence to the contrary ..."

it's pretty much (if not fully) identical to saying "there is proof"...

That is certainly not always the case, let alone it being "much"...

So the film was indeed talking about proof in the way they used the expression : "evidence to" ....

so Tracy was right on that. 

I'd call it 50/50 on the technicall aspect

 

[Ron Bulman]

This is an excellent article.  I had to chuckle at his explanation to his readers about lying and the CIA = MSM.  Same with his dig at Chomsky regarding his DOD funded employer MIT.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

“Curtin makes several statements that are questionable and have plausible alternative interpretations” 

Ok, I'll agree that is a better wording.

[James DiEugenio]

I have some good news for Max and some bad news for Parnell.

These are the top three rated articles at Kennedysandking.com

1. Part One of my review.

2. The research series by Hewett, Jones and LaMonica.

3. Part two of my review.

 

The really startling placement is number two.  And I am really gratified by that.  It tells me that Max's film provoked some real curiosity and interest in the Paines even beyond his film. 👏 to Max. 

Edited July 8, 2022 by James DiEugenio