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

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

Well you do have things backwards and upside down as usual David. As does almost everyone else here. But for you I say, if Lee Harvey Oswald did this thing by himself it makes no sense that he would go and wait for third parties to get him into the Depository.  He wants to kill the president, he’s got to get a job in that building. he cannot take a chance. So then the question is who got him in there? I have no idea, but it had to be… A conspirator. So David you’ve disproved your own argument. Everybody’s been lying.

Boy, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? Oswald didn’t “wait for third parties to get him into the Depository” for the purpose of assassinating JFK. He’d already been working there for weeks before the motorcade route was even announced. Why you claim that “the question is who got him in there” is beyond me. Linnie Mae Randle heard that the TSBD might need seasonal help and told Ruth Paine, who then told Oswald. The end.

[Allen Lowe]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Boy, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? Oswald didn’t “wait for third parties to get him into the Depository” for the purpose of assassinating JFK. He’d already been working there for weeks before the motorcade route was even announced. Why you claim that “the question is who got him in there” is beyond me. Linnie Mae Randle heard that the TSBD might need seasonal help and told Ruth Paine, who then told Oswald. The end.

You really have no idea what I meant about the third parties, which doesn’t say much for your general reading comprehension. Jesus, learn to read. I was addressing the third parties point to people who think there wasn’t a conspiracy. OK? And you’re completely in space about what Randal said – she said she gave Mrs. Paine several options and had no idea what was going on after she told her that, but then at one point Mrs. Payne asked her to call the Texas book depository, which she wouldn’t do. This is completely opposed to the emphasis you were placing on it. Which makes me not trust much else that you’re saying.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

Well you do have things backwards and upside down as usual David. As does almost everyone else here. But for you I say, if Lee Harvey Oswald did this thing by himself it makes no sense that he would go and wait for third parties to get him into the Depository.  He wants to kill the president, he’s got to get a job in that building. he cannot take a chance. So then the question is who got him in there? I have no idea, but it had to be… A conspirator. So David you’ve disproved your own argument.

It's you who's got things backwards. The TSBD job came first. Oswald's desire to kill the President came second. It was entirely a murder of opportunity.

 

Quote

Everybody's been lying.

Typical silly CTer motto there. You should have it tattooed on your forehead.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Oh Allen! please pay attention! ( just mimicking your instructions to me.) You have a question i asked you on the previous page about your assertion about how Ruth helped the conspirators "move things around".!!  Please answer.

Allen:She was accused in Nicaragua by fellow Quakers of spying?

Jim was the  point man for this in the film, It was good to see Wheaton, but then we get this testimony from some guy whose actually disguising his voice and his face. So to this day, he's afraid the CIA will track him down after 60 years! He looks like a paranoid wacko case. Obviously this excerpt doesn't lend much credibility.

 

I didn't find this out until later myself.Are you aware Allen, that Ruth didn't come down to Nicaragua until the Contra War was just over? But it has become part of the folklore.

This is another question I've posed several times to no real response. Please answer.

*****

 

Here I'll just take this "unwitting accomplice" narrative and merge it with the story RP's alleged spy work in Nicaragua which is a story that has been recycled for maybe hundreds of times here in the past. 

 

To believe this story, you're supposing that Ruth retains her position as a CIA asset, even after you allege her being   an unwitting asset in what many believe here is the greatest coup ever engineered in the history of the U.S. If you really think RP was a spy. Do you have any idea what being that entails? It's actually a clandestine life style. Are you familiar with the term, "spycraft"?" Is the CIA wise to use such an asset with such a blown cover in their escapades to forward the Contra War in Nicaragua? If RP was somehow exposed in that role, as an asset of U.S. Intelligence, wouldn't it just a beeline to her involvement in the JFKA case, and open up that whole mess?

 

A mess that people, including Di Eugenio here are claiming the CIA brought down a U.S. President  over? Causing the first President in the history to resign because of his alleged knowledge of the JFKA? Why in the world would they take  a chance of letting Ruth Paine run amuck in Nicaragua? Would such an agent really be out in the open writing copious notes, particularly with her previous exposure? Or would she probably do so in her own private moments before she went to bed for example. What kind of spy does that? Doesn't that strike you as a little phony? So you think they were smart enough to a engineer coup to kill the POTUS? and stupid enough to let this accessory to the fact do this?

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

And I do think the direction of research over the coming years will be away from the Paines. As Simpich said in the film, researchers these days are evaluating Ruth as  an "unwitting" accomplice. So hard core ideologues  like you and Jim Di who believe RP was planting evidence, are becoming more fringe.   But to stay on point.

 

Kirk, Kirk, Kirk,

You are always right about things, as I have noted in the past. But I'm afraid you are wrong about this.

I recall several years ago when David Talbot was being interviewed for his new book by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Talbot didn't really want to talk about the JFKA conspiracy part of his book, but Matthews brought it up bluntly by asking how it could have possibly been a conspiracy given that Oswald just happened to get the job at the TSBD?

Matthews would have made mincemeat out of any of you conspiracy guys who are Ruth apologists.

Kirk... the idea of Ruth Paine as a CIA asset is not going to become more fringe as you say, but rather quite the opposite.

Let me explain.

It is just now becoming more accepted that Oswald was never actually in Mexico City. His roles were played by imposters, the most widely recognized one being the blond-haired one who visited the Cuban Consulate.

What I've discovered is this: When one accepts that none of the Oswald activities in Mexico City actually involved the real Oswald, and then one re-analyzes the evidence keeping that in mind, the more one's mind becomes uncluttered and the more one begins to understand the whole Mexico City incident.

It is my understanding the John Newman still assumes that Oswald was actually in Mexico City. Even though there are plenty of reasons to believe he wasn't. John Newman is going to have quite a surprise once he quits assuming that, IMO.

The following is what a researcher figures out once he accepts that there was no Oswald there, and he quits believing the WC narrative:

The purpose of the Mexico City trip was to make it appear to low-level CIA and the FBI that Oswald and some companions had traveled by car to Mexico City in order to conspire with the Cubans and Russians on assassinating Kennedy. Evidence was created to show that Oswald was pals with Sylvia Duran and other Cuban consulate  employees. That they had a twist party at the Duran's. That Oswald met with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov, at the Russian Embassy. And Oswald was paid a $6500 down payment for the hit by a red-haired black guy.

The whole thing was created by high-level CIA plotters. It was a false flag operation meant to create a prelude to a Cuban invasion.

The reason for involving Oswald in the plot was so that the assassination in Dallas could be linked back to the Cubans and Russians. The CIA plotters needed the FBI to discover the FAKE false flag plot right away after the assassination.

(There's much more to this, but I need to keep this brief. But the false flag operation apparently worked, at least at first. James Hosty, in his book, reported that American warplanes were sent to Cuba not long after the assassination, but were called back before arriving.)

Now, we know for a fact that Oswald worked at the place where the shooting took place. Either 1) the plotters wanted him there, and therefore put him there; or 2) he just happened to get a job there not long before the assassination. What a coincidence!

Does anybody really believe that Oswald just happened to get that job?

Since you, Kirk, think that Oswald just happened to get that job, then you must not believe that Oswald was an integral part of the plot. And you must believe that the Mexico City incident never occurred. Perhaps you believe that Hardway and Lopez fabricated the Mexico City incident in order to implicate the CIA in the JFK assassination. LOL

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

If you really think RP was a spy. Do you have any idea what being that entails? It's actually a clandestine life style

 

Kirk, not all spies are undercover. Ruth could have really been a Quaker but spied on people part time.

 

[Guest]

B.t.w. did LHO call Ruth about getting Abt as a lawyer ?

I think it was in Ruth's testimony, but I'm not sure it was checked with the telephone records in jail ?

Lee stated "I'm just a patsy", I suppose he must have been thinking about who framed him ?

Wouldn't Lee have pieced a number things together by that time ?

Edited October 24, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

The thing is, IMO there is no proove to call the Linnie-Ruth-TSBD "a set-up".

Yes, they got him a job there, etc

But proving it was for a single purpose, not with the current evidence.

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

The thing is, IMO there is no proove to call the Linnie-Ruth-TSBD "a set-up".

Yes, they got him a job there, etc

But proving it was for a single purpose, not with the current evidence.

 

It can be proved with circumstantial evidence.

 

For example...

Suppose someone took the last chocolate chip cookie from the cookie jar. There are no crumbs. No fingerprints. No witnesses. No evidence at all.

But I'm confident that Billy took the last one.

How do I know? The circumstantial evidence tells me so. Little Annie is too young to walk. Bobby hates chocolate chip cookies. And I know I didn't eat it.

I don't believe it's possible for a cookie to spontaneously disappear, and the odds that somebody broke into the house, took the cookie, and removed all signs of breaking in are so slim that I don't even entertain the thought.

Billy took the last cookie.

 

I don't know the details on how Oswald got the job. But anybody who claims they helped Oswald get the job either did so for the CIA or is lying. Because the only other alternative is that Oswald miraculously chose the right place to get a job, and I don't believe in miracles.

 

[Guest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't circumstantial evidence

(to the purpose of getting him that specific job)

require a single conclusion ?

IMO here we have 2 possible conclusions :

1) to help him earn a living

2) to get hem in the building to shoot the president

That's reasonable doubt, not ?

I just feel it is very hard to proof the purpose in this case, and that's because of Linnie (including Linnie to this single purpose is a lot harder).

It would have been different if Ruth single handedly called the TSBD for that specific job (w/o any others that proposed the opportunity)

It's just hard to proof that that part was deliberate to accomplish the 22nd events

Edited October 24, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

All I know for sure that it's a very complicated case, I tend to look at it as a disaster (my dictionary says a combination of hazards, conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce the negative consequences of risk).   

A whole lot of things went wrong that day, in each step mistakes were made (deliberate or not), it's a looooooooong list). 

Long enough to be very suspicious, I'll agree to that !   

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is just now becoming more accepted that Oswald was never actually in Mexico City. His roles were played by imposters, the most widely recognized one being the blond-haired one who visited the Cuban Consulate.

What I've discovered is this: When one accepts that none of the Oswald activities in Mexico City actually involved the real Oswald, and then one re-analyzes the evidence keeping that in mind, the more one's mind becomes uncluttered and the more one begins to understand the whole Mexico City incident.

It is my understanding the John Newman still assumes that Oswald was actually in Mexico City. Even though there are plenty of reasons to believe he wasn't. John Newman is going to have quite a surprise once he quits assuming that, IMO.

"Once he quits assuming that" ? Do you think John Newman just blithely "assumes" things about one of the most important and controversial aspects of this entire case?

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know the details on how Oswald got the job. But anybody who claims they helped Oswald get the job either did so for the CIA or is lying. Because the only other alternative is that Oswald miraculously chose the right place to get a job, and I don't believe in miracles.

Then you're just cosplaying as a real researcher. People who take this field seriously don't bury their heads in sand and start from a position that integral figures in the case are automatically CIA plants or li*rs.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Jonathan Cohen

[Sandy Larsen]

51 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't circumstantial evidence (to the purpose of getting him that specific job) require a single conclusion ?

IMO here we have 2 possible conclusions :

1) to help him earn a living

2) to get hem in the building to shoot the president

That's reasonable doubt, not ?

 

 

Jean Paul,

First, I'm assuming that you believe that the assassination was planned by the CIA, and that the plan called for Oswald to be the patsy.

If you don't believe that, then please disregard the remainder of my post.

If you're still with me, please follow my line of reasoning:

1. The plotters planned for Dealey Plaza to be the location for the assassination. The evidence proves this.
2. More specifically, the TSBD was singled out for a shooting or some other assassination-related activity. The evidence proves this.
3. Oswald got a job at the TSBD just weeks before the assassination. The odds of the patsy coincidentally getting a job right there at the assassination site are VERY slim. Therefore, the plotters VERY likely had a hand in getting Oswald a job there.
4. Therefore, if somebody assisted Oswald in getting a job there, they VERY likely were controlled by the plotters in doing so.

Please tell me where I make a mistake in my line of reasoning.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

24 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

"Once he quits assuming that" ? Do you think John Newman just blithely "assumes" things about one of the most important and controversial aspects of this entire case?

 

I think that nearly everybody has assumed that Oswald went to Mexico City, including John Newman. We know he still assumed so 20 years ago because he was still repeating the line in his presentations. I hope he has changed his opinion, but I've seen nothing to suggest he has.