Ruth Paine on "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" film: "Well done, but powerfully awful"

[Sean Coleman]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

On what grounds? What would you like them to have been charged with?

Jonathon, I enjoy your rebukes but have noticed you’ve never started a thread? Just wondering what your subject would be and how the responses would go 🤨

[David G. Healy]

16 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

...

Ok,ok,a joke.  But the bottom line is: What do you got on Alesi?

he's a supporter and a water carrier for 90 year old, that's an important witness and known quantity (surrounding) the murder of the president of the United States perhaps???

Sounds exactly what I think a "historian" with his eyes wide open and notebook present should be addressing... and frankly I, and I suspect many others around here could care less about personal freedom of speech issues and other first amendments distractions. The simple facts would do just fine

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Alesi reports what Ruth Paine thinks of DiEugenio

From Alesi who approved this message:

"Just saw it on the forum. The guy [DiEugenio] is a dope and I hope he reads what I wrote. He gets the most basic details wrong.  He has just seen Max’s film and is commenting on it. I obviously have no hat and the plaque says Defense Investigative Service, NOT Intelligence Service, but of course that misrepresentation better suits his narrative.

"Does he know that Ruth has never heard his name? She told me that after we saw the film."

I'm sure if *he* is worth his weight cork, he'd get on here and address a few of the issues... 

[David G. Healy]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

On what grounds? What would you like them to have been charged with?

wonderful when you talk like that.... lmao!

[Allen Lowe]

I want to address something about Ruth Paine that I don't think anyone else has mentioned. One of the things cops/detectives will tell you is to beware of the suspect who is too anxious to help, to be constantly consulted, because this type pf person is likely guilty or had guilty knowledge and wants to appear cooperative while keeping an eye on what the police are doing.

Who does this remind us of? Think fast - the woman who has been harassed by researchers for years - most people in her situation would avoid the light of day and not sit for hundreds of hours of interviews by the people they know to be suspicious of them. But not Ruth, who not only carries the facade of innocence (not just in relation to the assassination but also about here sister's employer and her family's mazs of intelligence connections), but who says yes to a major documentary at a time when she could have ignored it (even though it will be seen by millions).

Now before the rest of you Paine apologists try the obvious argument - that just the opposite is true - well, you've been had by a classic sociopath. In real life, witnesses like Paine who had first hand knowledge of incriminating events repeatedly walked away or died (think Mercer or Bowers). But not good old Mr. Paine, who doth protesteth way too much. Even as she smiles for the cameras and tells the WC how offended she was by LHO's request for counsel!

What is very wrong with this picture?

Edited October 22, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

What is very wrong with this picture?

Your analysis.

[Matt Allison]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your analysis.

Yes; sorry Allen, but this is garbage. 

Ruth Paine was an easy target, and would have gotten tons of guff whether she was cooperative or not.

[Allen Lowe]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Yes; sorry Allen, but this is garbage. 

Ruth Paine was an easy target, and would have gotten tons of guff whether she was cooperative or not

thanks boys; I know both of you have extensive investigative experience. And of course, like Ruth, every other relative of yours works for the CIA.

Just plain folks, all of you.  And btw name me another assassination witness/suspect who has so clinged to the public's attention over the years -  Marina? Harry Olson? Billy Lovelady (who moved and moved until he dropped dead)? Buddy Walthers (oh I forgot, he got shot)?; Michael Paine (no he rarely appeared)? Beverly Oliver (oh yes she's very credible)?

Why was Ruth an easy target? Because she mysteriously found evidence? Got LHO a job at the Book Depository and failed to report another offer? She was accused in Nicaragua by fellow Quakers of spying? Her husband reported that LHO was spying on political dissidents? She never saw the rifle, only an empty blanket?  Her sister and father were CIA connected? Her husband was related to Allen Dulles' mistress? Her leading advocate today (Alesi) did intelligence work?

Part of the problem is that you guys are so unaware of Cold War history. The CIA was regularly recruiting liberals and people on the left in the '50s and '60s to spy on their allies who might have been just a little too Left Wing for them. Ruth in her movements, manipulations, and equivocations fits this m.o. perfectly.

My suggestion? Read a book. It's American history.

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Denny Zartman]

@Allen Lowe, in my humble opinion, your analysis is sound and correct.

[Allen Lowe]

2 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

@Allen Lowe, in my humble opinion, your analysis is sound and correct.

thanks, I was beginning to think I was on the wrong forum.

[Denny Zartman]

5 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

thanks, I was beginning to think I was on the wrong forum.

I often feel the same way, so I empathize. For some reason a number of folks here are determined to defend Ruth and Michael Paine no matter what. I'm not sure the precise reason why. Their involvement seems obvious to me.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Denny Zartman

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Why was Ruth an easy target? Because she mysteriously found evidence?

Mysterious because she found it? 

2 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Got LHO a job at the Book Depository and failed to report another offer?

1. She didn't get Oswald the job at TSBD, she passed along the info from Linnie Mae Randle.

2. She didn't know a single thing about an offer that was "better". And she passed along earlier offers from the Employment Commission that Oswald followed up on.

2 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

She was accused in Nicaragua by fellow Quakers of spying? Her husband reported that LHO was spying on political dissidents? She never saw the rifle, only an empty blanket?  Her sister and father were CIA connected? Her husband was related to Allen Dulles' mistress? Her leading advocate today (Alesi) did intelligence work?

 

Your guilt by association claims are LAZY and you have no PROOF of any nefarious actions. NONE.

You've done nothing but subscribe to the decades-old dogma that Ruth Paine conspired to kill JFK which is complete BULLSHIT.

These lazy takes do nothing but make real JFKA research look like a joke; fringe tin foil hat stuff.

Do you think the 2020 election was stolen as well?  Because your bar for EVIDENCE is as low as the traitors that invaded the Capitol.

 

[Matthew Koch]

15 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

 

Your guilt by association claims are LAZY and you have no PROOF of any nefarious actions. NONE.

You've done nothing but subscribe to the decades-old dogma that Ruth Paine conspired to kill JFK which is complete BULLSHIT.

These lazy takes do nothing but make real JFKA research look like a joke; fringe tin foil hat stuff.

Do you think the 2020 election was stolen as well?  Because your bar for EVIDENCE is as low as the traitors that invaded the Capitol.

 

Thanks for validating Allen and that his argument has merit with the Ad Hominem! Matt is quite the extra cranky baby today!! Cussing and bring up Trump threads in other threads.. Tisk, Tisk Bringing up the Capital is a joke The January 6th committee is still going Matt rush to judgment much!! 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

For some reason a number of folks here are determined to defend Ruth and Michael Paine no matter what. I'm not sure the precise reason why. Their involvement seems obvious to me.

And somehow you can say that despite a complete lack of evidence to show the "involvement" of either of the Paines.

Or are we supposed to count "gut feelings" as "evidence" nowadays?

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Allen Lowe]

17 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And somehow you can say that despite a complete lack of evidence to show the "involvement" of either of the Paines.

Or are we supposed to count "gut feelings" as "evidence" nowadays?

 

Give it up Dave there’s tons of evidence you’re just too lazy to look at it.

[Matt Allison]

1 minute ago, Allen Lowe said:

Give it up Dave there’s tons of evidence you’re just too lazy to look at it.

You are rapidly becoming the best reason for people to suspect the Paines have been falsely maligned.