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

[Jonathan Cohen]

8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Armstrong proves with his exhaustive research

that Oswald did not own the rifle or the revolver

placed into what he called the "so-called evidence"

against him.

He does absolutely nothing of the kind, nor does he even come close to proving his preposterous theory about two distinct Oswalds running amok all over the world for years.

[Matthew Koch]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm glad you see the problem there Sean. I was beginning to think I was the only one who could see it.

Greg refused to answer my question here, saying it was off topic. So I created a topic just for that one question.

I thought it is pretty obvious that the plotters would have had to do a good deal of planning to work everything out (how to get the weapons and shooters inside, where they could hide, how to get them out, etc). And that they would have to choose a place whose owners are friendly so they can get inside and set everything up, and get in some practice. But it looks like Greg seems to think that all they had to use whatever building Oswald got a job in, go inside, and shoot. LOL I don't think so.

 

The owner of the building is D.H. Byrd who is connected with Texas oil men & the Civil Air Patrol he was in Africa on Safari at the time with James Doolittle. The building was empty up until June/July of 63'. The points of Kirk and Matt make about Mrs Randle can easily be explained away if someone made Ruth Paine aware of the fact that a neighbor got a job at the building, Ruth goes over to talk to Mrs Randle about it to create a cutout. Later when asked she says "yes I told her my brother got a job there" and wallah she has an alibi. I really don't think Ruth and Michael Paine had direct knowledge of the plot just like I don't think most people involved with the assassination had direct knowledge of the plot. But I am sure that afterwards all these intelligence type people knew that had been used by malicious forces higher up the chain of command. We see in the transcript of the wire tap on Ruth and Michael said "We know who did this" it is said in a general way like John Connally because these people were aware enough of "Deep Politics" to be aware that forces other than the official person were to blame. 

My personal arm chair opinion is that Ruth Paine is a narcissistic person and fits in the altruistic narcissist type as opposed to the grandiose narcissist like Trump. I think the people who dislike her may be picking up on that. A narcicist is not going to do anything to hurt the public perception they has worked to create. That's why I think the film had to be as nuanced as it is because, upon further inspection on minutia Mrs Paine appears to glow, that glow is either coincidence from being from rich families or are low level domestic operatives. I think the weird circumstances and circumstantial evidence tips the scales toward the latter. 

[Max Good]

Ruth's answer to the questions about the "We both know who is responsible" phone call is that she and Michael were speaking generally about "right-wingers."  Ruth has thus acknowledged that the phone call did happen; the wiretap report is not something just made up out of thin air. 

The question remains about the timing of the phone call and if it was before LHO was announced publicly as a suspect.    The wiretap says that the Paines named LHO as the person who had killed JFK.  The FBI report admits that the phone call appears to have been at about 1pm on 11/22, not on 11/23 as the original informant allegedly stated.  Michael Paine was also only asked about conversations on 11/23 in his WC testimony.  Also, why would they have thought that Oswald was part of a right-wing plot?  They always maintained that he was a socialist loner.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

10 hours ago, Max Good said:

Ruth has thus acknowledged that the phone call did happen; the wiretap report is not something just made up out of thin air. 

So, her and Micael did know who was responsible?  Likely because of interactions with some who were?

[Cory Santos]

11 hours ago, Max Good said:

Ruth's answer to the questions about the "We both know who is responsible" phone call is that she and Michael were speaking generally about "right-wingers."  Ruth has thus acknowledged that the phone call did happen; the wiretap report is not something just made up out of thin air. 

The question remains about the timing of the phone call and if it was before LHO was announced publicly as a suspect.    The wiretap says that the Paines named LHO as the person who had killed JFK.  The FBI report admits that the phone call appears to have been at about 1pm on 11/22, not on 11/23 as the original informant allegedly stated.  Michael Paine was also only asked about conversations on 11/23 in his WC testimony.  Also, why would they have thought that Oswald was part of a right-wing plot?  They always maintained that he was a socialist loner.

 

 

Max this goes to my prior issue with her comment about not knowing which building he actually worked in.   If she thought it was the old building it was not on the parade route.   So it makes no sense.  If she thought it was him and knew it was the actual TSBD then she lied about not knowing which building he worked at.   Either way that is serious.  Your above information fits with this nicely and is important.  Can you add anything to the issue of her knowing where he worked?    Thanks.   

[Ron Bulman]

9 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Max this goes to my prior issue with her comment about not knowing which building he actually worked in.   If she thought it was the old building it was not on the parade route.   So it makes no sense.  If she thought it was him and knew it was the actual TSBD then she lied about not knowing which building he worked at.   Either way that is serious.  Your above information fits with this nicely and is important.  Can you add anything to the issue of her knowing where he worked?    Thanks.   

We know what building he worked in on 11/22/63.  Ruth's knowledge of which TSBD building he worked in is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Cory Santos]

16 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

We know what building he worked in on 11/22/63.  Ruth's knowledge of which TSBD building he worked in is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Thanks Ron but I disagree and would like to hear Max’s take on it.   

[Max Good]

Here's the transcript of when I asked Ruth about the TSBD job location:

Q: I read something about that there was confusion about there being two book depository buildings?

A: Well I was confused.  When Roy Truly answered the phone, he said, "Warehouse." Or something like that and I thought oh, I don't know where that is. Uh. Anyway, apparently there was another building off of Elm, further away uh, and, cause that's where Truly had answered, that's where I thought the job might be, but that's all I knew.

 

I also asked about the other job offer, which I never thought was a particularly convincing point, but I had to ask anyway:

Interviewer:    He could have taken a job somewhere else. This is something that they bring up, that there was supposedly another better paid job that you didn't tell him about? What was that?

Ruth:   I never heard of that.

Interviewer:    No?

Ruth:   No.

Interviewer:    It was just something I saw online.

Ruth:   There's a lot out there that's not right.

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Max Good said:

Interviewer:    He could have taken a job somewhere else. This is something that they bring up, that there was supposedly another better paid job that you didn't tell him about? What was that?

Ruth:   I never heard of that.

Interviewer:    No?

Ruth:   No.

Interviewer:    It was just something I saw online.

Ruth:   There's a lot out there that's not right.

 

Amen, Sister.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:05 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe Ruth Paine was a CIA asset and that she helped the CIA in their attempt to frame Oswald. That doesn't mean she's a bad person. Back then communism was considered evil by a lot of Americans, and I think that people who fought it considered doing so a patriotic thing. I think that Ruth thought it was patriotic to keep tabs on communists. And I think she was given some patriotic excuse for her helping to frame Oswald for the WC. Maybe to help prevent WW3. Whatever.

 

This would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly mad.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I believe that:

1. Oswald was a CIA agent.
2. Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA assets.
3. Ruth was probably baby sitting Marina for the CIA.
4. Oswald wasn't told that Ruth was CIA, and Ruth wasn't told that Oswald was CIA. But they probably all suspected that that was the case.
5. Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said.

So regarding the telephone tap, when Michael heard that a shooter at the TSBD had shot Kennedy, he guessed right away that that was the reason Ruth was told to get Oswald to work there. So he told Ruth he was sure Oswald had shot Kennedy. But then he added that they both knew who was responsible, because they figured that the CIA had put Oswald up to it. And so the CIA was responsible.

 

[Max Good]

A lot of Ruth defenders on here seem to think the suspicions around her are "simply ridiculous" or "utterly mad."  I guess the fact that she was raised in a liberal/socialist family that had a "general hostility to communism," and that her father worked for a CIA cover agency, USAID, and was "considered for use" by the agency in Vietnam, and that her sister actually did work for the CIA, is not enough to convince these people that the suspicions are anything beyond paranoid delusion.

It's a curious attitude.  Not one I would engage with.

[Matt Allison]

Just now, Max Good said:

A lot of Ruth defenders on here seem to think the suspicions around her are "simply ridiculous" or "utterly mad."  I guess the fact that she was raised in a liberal/socialist family that had a "general hostility to communism," and that her father worked for a CIA cover agency, USAID, and was "considered for use" by the agency in Vietnam, and that her sister actually did work for the CIA, is not enough to convince these people that the suspicions are anything beyond paranoid delusion.

It's a curious attitude.  Not one I would engage with.

You have to back up your suspicions with evidence.

I've proven that it was Linnie Mae Randle that was responsible for Oswald eventually getting the job at TSBD.

I've proven that the plan was for the motorcade to end a mile before Dealey Plaza, and that was only changed by the WH on November 14th.

At some point it becomes obvious you're skating on the edge of slander.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that:

1. Oswald was a CIA agent.
2. Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA assets.
3. Ruth was probably baby sitting Marina for the CIA.
4. Oswald wasn't told that Ruth was CIA, and Ruth wasn't told that Oswald was CIA. But they probably all suspected that that was the case.
5. Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said.

So regarding the telephone tap, when Michael heard that a shooter at the TSBD had shot Kennedy, he guessed right away that that was the reason Ruth was told to get Oswald to work there. So he told Ruth he was sure Oswald had shot Kennedy. But then he added that they both knew who was responsible, because they figured that the CIA had put Oswald up to it. And so the CIA was responsible.

 

Every single point you’ve listed is pure conjecture and is unsupported by actual hard evidence. Give it up already!

[Matthew Koch]

58 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

You have to back up your suspicions with evidence.

I've proven that it was Linnie Mae Randle that was responsible for Oswald eventually getting the job at TSBD.

I've proven that the plan was for the motorcade to end a mile before Dealey Plaza, and that was only changed by the WH on November 14th.

At some point it becomes obvious you're skating on the edge of slander.

Matt, would you say it was "Normal" in the 1960's to write letters in Russian to a Russian immigrant that you could stay at our house and we could claim you as a dependent AND.. we can even pay $10.00 a week the equivalent to $90+ dollars today to live at our house. Does that sounds like something any quaker woman would do in the 1960's?  
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=10 

 

Ruth's Letter: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_90.pdf