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

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

"Who we know was a CIA asset as part of a false defector program" ? You have absolutely ZERO hard evidence that this is true. Oswald's behavior in Russia also shows no evidence of him being complicit in such a thing.

Jonathan, are you a Warren Commission advocate?

There is a lot of evidence to say that Oswald was a CIA asset and part of a false defector program.  Starting with Betsy Wolf, including Otto Otepka, and also REDSKIN.

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Yes indeed, Matt, the conspirators were just so lucky that the building from where JFK was purportedly shot was the same building in which the man they’d been sheep-dipping for seven months worked.

1. Let's kill Kennedy.

2. Let's kill Kennedy and make it look like the Cubans and/or Russians did it.

3. Who do we have in Chicago? Who do we have in Miami? Who do we have in any number of cities Kennedy is expected to visit in the near future, including Dallas? 

4. Aha! There's a guy in Dallas who will make a perfect patsy who, get this, works in a building on the parade route. 

 

Number 4 wasn't decided at the same time as number 1. If the last 58 years of research has shown us anything it is that there were other Oswalds--other potential patsies--who could have been introduced into the plot. it could be that Randle/Paine's getting Oswald the job was just bad luck, for everyone involved.

 

[John Cotter]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. Let's kill Kennedy.

2. Let's kill Kennedy and make it look like the Cubans and/or Russians did it.

3. Who do we have in Chicago? Who do we have in Miami? Who do we have in any number of cities Kennedy is expected to visit in the near future, including Dallas? 

4. Aha! There's a guy in Dallas who will make a perfect patsy who, get this, works in a building on the parade route. 

 

Number 4 wasn't decided at the same time as number 1. If the last 58 years of research has shown us anything it is that there were other Oswalds--other potential patsies--who could have been introduced into the plot. it could be that Randle/Paine's getting Oswald the job was just bad luck, for everyone involved.

 

Pat, you've left out the sheep-dipping part - the part that gives the game away - again.

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, John Cotter said:

Pat, you've left out the sheep-dipping part - the part that gives the game away - again.

Nope. There is no evidence Oswald was the only patsy considered, and that the only purpose he served was as patsy. Some who have looked into this believe Oswald was part of a mole hunt, and that whoever set Oswald up as the patsy was privy to info he/she knew would lead the CIA to sweep it all under the rug. 

I think Phillips alluded to something like this in his unpublished novel. Maybe he was telling the truth. 

[John Cotter]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Nope. There is no evidence Oswald was the only patsy considered, and that the only purpose he served was as patsy. Some who have looked into this believe Oswald was part of a mole hunt, and that whoever set Oswald up as the patsy was privy to info he/she knew would lead the CIA to sweep it all under the rug. 

I think Phillips alluded to something like this in his unpublished novel. Maybe he was telling the truth. 

The fact that you've yet again deflected from the seven months of sheep-dipping Oswald says it all.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Yes indeed, Matt, the conspirators were just so lucky that the building from where JFK was purportedly shot was the same building in which the man they’d been sheep-dipping for seven months worked.

And what does Ruth Paine have to do with that? She made a cold-call phone call to Truly asking him to consider Lee. Meanwhile Buell Wesley Frazier, who actually worked there and had standing, also inquired on behalf of Lee. But it all depends on Truly doesn't it? You can't have an advance plot to get a hapless Oswald into the TSBD unless you control Truly too. Because Truly could have said, "we'll keep it on file, thanks ma'am, we have all we need at this moment".

And planning on having a lady in Irving make a cold-call phone call to Truly on this critical point, as the way to ensure it happens?? Seriously? Makes no sense. Whereas what does make sense is Ruth making that phone call to try to be helpful to Lee and Marina.

This focus on Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae as villainesses, instead of Truly, is downright bizarre. If there was a plot, you have to control Truly. And you have to control either Oswald himself or all of the previous employers he applied to, to ensure they would say "no". But if you control Truly to ensure he will say "yes" when Oswald applies, then you don't need Ruth Paine to call him! 

Unfortunately these smears of well-meaning people--Ruth and Linnie Mae (and I don't think Truly and all of Oswald's prior potential employers who turned down Oswald for a job before Truly were being run by the CIA either)--have just taken root and become fixated as if they are "facts" in CT-land. And there will be a life forever of these things, repeated and repeated, forever and forever, as long as this forum exists and there are CTs who have not solved the JFK assassination.

Someday may there be repentance for the damage done to innocent people such as Ruth Paine.

By superstitious villagers who have had a crop failure, don't know what caused it, and fixate upon a suitable nearby witch as the cause. The crop failure being the JFK assassination, and the suitable witch being Ruth Paine, in the analogy. Not a shred of evidence that she did any nefarious deed. "But just look at her, how suspicious we say she is, therefore she IS evil" logic. Witchhunter logic. Fingers pointing at the accused, mob participants feeding off each others' energy...

"No good deed goes unpunished".

Ruth Paine calling Truly ... to try to help a man with a wife about to have a second baby find a job. 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The conspirators who, for example, accompanied and/or chaperoned Oswald on at least some of the sheep-dipping capers or at least organised those capers on which Oswald was accompanied.

Are you denying that those capers ever occurred?

Oh, yes. You bet I deny it. None of that so-called "sheep-dipping" ever occurred. And I think 99% of all other Lone Assassin believers would join me in denying such nonsense too.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The fact that you've yet again deflected from the seven months of sheep-dipping Oswald says it all.

Wrong, For all we know, there were a hundred potential patsies and Oswald drew the short straw. If, and I say if, it was decided that JFK must go they wouldn't have waited seven months to make him go. JFK was right about a lot of things, but one thing he was right about is that it was no mean trick to kill a public figure such as himself. 

The decision to kill JFK may not have been made until a few weeks before the assassination, and the decision to use Oswald as a patsy may not have been made until a few days before the assassination. 

I mean, what if Oswald got a cold, or got fired, or Frazier said no, and Oswald couldn't go to Irving on the 21st? Would the assassination have been called off? Maybe. Maybe not. It could be there were other patsies on standby. And this demonstrates that it could also be that someone else was supposed to be the patsy, and that Oswald was an alternate on standby.

I mean, almost no one believes Ruby's killing Oswald was a primary part of the plot--they believe it was an emergency plan designed to silence Oswald. So why should we think Oswald's being the patsy was part of the plot as first proposed seven months before? Or even two months before? We just don't know. 

 

[David Von Pein]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The decision to kill JFK may not have been made until a few weeks before the assassination, and the decision to use Oswald as a patsy may not have been made until a few days before the assassination. 

What a bunch of malarkey.

There was, of course, no "patsy" at all. Merely a very strange man named Oswald (who had already established himself as a would-be political assassin in April of '63 when he tried to kill Edwin Walker) and who owned a rifle and realized on November 19th or November 20th that he would have a perfect opportunity to smuggle his own gun into his own place of employment on the day when JFK came to town in order to make an attempt on the life of yet another political figure.

No "sheep-dipping" required.

No "conspirators" required.

No Grassy Knoll gunmen required.

Just a guy named Lee and his very own Carcano weapon (plus a couple of "curtain rod" lies told to Buell Frazier).

~~Mark VII~~

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Cotter writes:

Quote

the conspirators were just so lucky that the building from where JFK was purportedly shot was the same building in which the man they’d been sheep-dipping for seven months worked.

Pat's scenario makes a lot of sense. The simplest solution is usually the most credible solution.

Here, the simplest solution is that the conspirators made use of the fact that a suitable patsy already happened to be working in a building on the motorcade route.

There's no need to assume the extra complication that Oswald's "sheep-dipping" - in particular, his creation of a false persona as a Castro sympathiser - was done specifically with the assassination in mind, even though Oswald's apparent pro-Castro sympathies were utilised after the event.

The same goes for Ruth Paine's involvement with the Oswald family, as well as her and Linnie Mae Randle's (and Roy Truly's) role in getting Oswald a job at the book depository.

The simpler the explanation, and the less complex the conspiracy theory, the more likely it is to be correct.

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

It could be there were other patsies on standby.

Any serious plot to kill JFK during a motorcade would not have put all its eggs into one Oswaldian basket. There must have been a Plan B, and no doubt a Plan C, as in the case of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in which a succession of shooters lined the route.

I understand that Pat and Greg Parker have had their differences, but Pat might be interested to read Greg's suggestions about alternative patsies:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2643-shoe-shopping#40737

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The simplest solution is usually the most credible solution.

Exactly. (See my last post above.)

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan, are you a Warren Commission advocate?

There is a lot of evidence to say that Oswald was a CIA asset and part of a false defector program.  Starting with Betsy Wolf, including Otto Otepka, and also REDSKIN.

No, I'm not a Warren Commission advocate. But I refuse to blindly accept conspiracy theorist canards that are not built on any actual EVIDENCE. In this case, just because the CIA handled Oswald's files (or lack of them) in a suspicious manner DOES NOT mean Oswald was part of a false defector program. There is also no evidence Oswald's Russia episode was urged on by anybody or anything other than his own imagination, and even less evidence he was acting as an agent of the American government once he actually was in Russia, considering he was under near constant KGB surveillance. Do false defectors and/or government agents write long (and sure to be intercepted) letters to their families in the U.S. defending their decisions and ideologies?

[Tom Gram]

16 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

No, I'm not a Warren Commission advocate. But I refuse to blindly accept conspiracy theorist canards that are not built on any actual EVIDENCE. In this case, just because the CIA handled Oswald's files (or lack of them) in a suspicious manner DOES NOT mean Oswald was part of a false defector program. There is also no evidence Oswald's Russia episode was urged on by anybody or anything other than his own imagination, and even less evidence he was acting as an agent of the American government once he actually was in Russia, considering he was under near constant KGB surveillance. Do false defectors and/or government agents write long (and sure to be intercepted) letters to their families in the U.S. defending their decisions and ideologies?

The issue is that the CIA had to specifically arrange for any incoming files on Oswald to go to the OS in advance of his defection. How do you think the CIA knew Oswald was about to defect? If Oswald was a genuine defector, how would you explain the altered dissemination of his files? The official story of Oswald’s travel into Russia is fraught with problems too. 

And yes, any false defector would have a detailed cover story to tell his family, and everyone else. What the hell would you expect, for him to tell everyone “hey guys, I’m a CIA agent there’s nothing to worry about?” 

It’s a miracle we have as much information as we do on the defection, and we’re still missing a ton of documents like CIA cable traffic and travel information for Oswald’s entry. Basically, we have exactly the type of evidence trail one would expect if Oswald was a false defector and it was covered up. Do you think this kind of thing would be written up on a memo? Do you really think there is no reason at all to suspect that Oswald was a false defector? You say you need “actual evidence”, but considering what we have I’m surprised how credulous you are towards the official story on this one. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The issue is that the CIA had to specifically arrange for any incoming files on Oswald to go to the OS in advance of his defection. How do you think the CIA knew Oswald was about to defect? If Oswald was a genuine defector, how would you explain the altered dissemination of his files? The official story of Oswald’s travel into Russia is fraught with problems too. 

Who says they "knew" he was going to defect?

4 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

And yes, any false defector would have a detailed cover story to tell his family, and everyone else. What the hell would you expect, for him to tell everyone “hey guys, I’m a CIA agent there’s nothing to worry about?” 

I would expect the defector, false or otherwise, to keep his or her mouth shut so as to not attract a tremendous amount of undue attention. Oswald did the exact opposite. Do you believe officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow were purposefully duped by conspirators back in Washington as to the true nature of Oswald's arrival in Russia?

7 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Do you really think there is no reason at all to suspect that Oswald was a false defector? You say you need “actual evidence”, but considering what we have I’m surprised how credulous you are towards the official story on this one. 

You can "suspect" it all you want, but the fact remains that Oswald's actions in Russia are thoroughly inconsistent with him being a part of a U.S. intelligence program, as are his well-documented fears that he would face prosecution from the U.S. government once he returned to the country.

[Matt Allison]

7 hours ago, John Cotter said:

The fact that you've yet again deflected from the seven months of sheep-dipping Oswald says it all.

I don't think you understand the extent to which assets were cultivated for various nefarious purposes.

I don't think you grasp the numbers. At all.

Oswald wasn't a unicorn.

 

e

Edited November 7, 2022 by Matt Allison