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

[John Cotter]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Pot meets Kettle (yet again).

That couldn't happen, David, because that would be a conspiracy.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

(I added the bolding above. I respect your honesty in making that clear and acknowledging ambiguity, which many do not.)

But I would like to ask: what makes you think Ruth intended to break up Lee's and Marina's marriage? Serious question--why do you interpret that way? You are aware that several couples and women among the White Russians took in Marina for short periods of time in the fall of 1962 (before Marina met Ruth), when Lee and Marina were having marital difficulties. Do you characterize those White Russians' hospitalities as "efforts to separate the couple"? Ruth believing from the outset that Lee was preventing Marina from learning English and wanting to send her back to the USSR against her will (so Marina told Ruth) ... and Ruth offering to take Marina in as an alternative ... and when Lee and Marina were reconciled in the fall of 1963 Ruth showed no signs of badmouthing Lee to Marina, did not deny access to Marina or his children in Irving, Ruth wrote letters to her mother speaking of Lee and Marina imminently going to get an apartment together ... Ruth made Lee welcome in her home on weekends, made a birthday cake for him, watched television and talked with him, helped Lee learn to parallel park so he could get a drivers license, Lee liked Ruth and appreciated her help to Marina during the pregnancy and birth of their second child ... does that really sound to you like a third party trying to alienate affection and break up a marriage? I don't see how a fair-minded person could judge that way of Ruth Paine if there was no prior predisposition to interpret her in the worst way. A reasonable person would not interpret it that way.  

Minor point of fact: it wasn't de Mohrenschildt who set up an introduction of Marina to Ruth Paine (from any information I have seen), but rather Glover who invited both to a party. I believe Glover and Ruth were in the same madrigal singing group at Michael's Unitarian Church, and Glover also was friends with de Mohrenschildt. Ruth had a preexisting major interest in Russian and Russia so it is hardly surprising she would take an interest in Marina upon meeting her. Just saying.

I said Ruth Paine sought to “separate” the couple, similar to an effort orchestrated by the deMohrenschildt’s the previous autumn. I did not extend that thought to include an intention to “break up Lee’s and Marina’s marriage.”

Re: the “Magnolia Oil party” - the Oswald invitation was generated via the connection with deMohrenschildt, at the initiative, apparently, of Volkmar Schmidt. The name of Schmidt’s roommate and co-host Everett Glover appeared in Lee Oswald’s address book described as “Georges friend”.  It may be a coincidence that Glover thought to invite his Russian speaking friend (Ruth Paine) to the party as well, but there are a lot of coincidences in play with the Paines and that is why the application of deductive reasoning to consider this information is warranted.

[T Weier]

Consider this...if I was CIA, I would make sure there were a variety of scenarios to unfold depending on circumstances. Just like playing chess.  If Dallas was the target, I would set up several other patsies with handlers like the Paines (if they were).  The strategy for Oswald happened to pan out with some quick adjustment of plans once he had a job along the parade route.  And shoot, there may even have been other Paines and patsies in the making for the previous JFK cities...circumstances just didn't pan out.

Was Dallas the last planned JFK tour/parade?

Edited December 18, 2022 by T Weier

[David Von Pein]

Another Happenstance / Coincidence / Luck  Addendum....

Here's yet another "coincidental fact" regarding the topic of Ruth Paine:

The coincidence/luck/happenstance of Ruth Paine, Linnie Mae Randle, and Dorothy Roberts all knowing each other and wanting to get together at Dorothy's house for coffee on Monday, October 14, 1963.

Even though the Paine and Randle houses were only separated by one-half of one block (as we can see for ourselves in this photograph taken by the FBI in 1964), that close proximity of the two houses certainly didn't automatically mean that the people living in those homes would personally know each other or have any desire to know each other or have any desire to want to get together for a coffee klatch at another neighbor's house (Dorothy Roberts) on 10/14/63 (or any other day).

So, given these basic undeniable "coincidental facts", it makes me wonder if certain conspiracy theorists also want to pretend that the October 14th coffee klatch was somehow "pre-arranged" by someone connected with "The Plot", so that people like myself would later be able to make this assertion with some confidence:

There's no way everything connected with the way Lee Oswald got his TSBD job could have been planned in advance by a band of CIA-sponsored housewives on Fifth Street in Irving, Texas.
 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

So, given these basic undeniable "coincidental facts", it makes me wonder if certain conspiracy theorists also want to pretend that the October 14th coffee klatch was somehow "pre-arranged" by someone connected with "The Plot", so that people like myself would later be able to make this assertion with some confidence:

There's no way everything connected with the way Lee Oswald got his TSBD job could have been planned in advance by a band of CIA-sponsored housewives on Fifth Street in Irving, Texas.

 

The coverup artists (WC/FBI) wanted to prove that absolutely nobody beside Oswald was involved in the shooting. Since Ruth Paine had been instrumental in getting Oswald the job at the TSBD, it was essential to prove that she had nothing to do with choosing that particular workplace. How better way to do that than showing) it was somebody else who had suggested that workplace, and 2) she didn't even know the location of that workplace.

My Hypothesis

The coverup artists invented the story of Ruth and Linnie Mae Randle talking about where Oswald might get a job. Ruth and Linnie Mae were then asked to do their patriotic duty in preventing WW3, which was to say little lies before the WC supporting the fake story .

 

This is very similar to the fake second-floor Oswald/Baker story that initially involved only Officer Baker telling his story-supporting fib before the WC. But later it became complicated by Victoria Adam's testimony. This was rectified by the addition of Shelley and Lovelady telling their fibs to the WC. Again, their patriotic duties to help prevent WW3.

 

[Guest]

On 12/17/2022 at 8:05 PM, Matt Allison said:

I think the difference is that the Baron was obviously keeping an eye on LHO, whereas Ruth Paine's focus was clearly Marina.

We know the Baron, at a minimum, was asked to do this by Moore; AFAIK, we don't have any evidence Ruth Paine was wittingly steered towards Marina, IMO.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Gene Kelly]

Greg

I would recommend that you read George Michael Evica's book "A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups and Individuals in Two World Wars and the Cold War".  The use of the Paines - and hiding behind Quaker institutions and individuals- is a classic Allen Dulles strategy.  Evica notably wrote the following: 

Whoever masterminded the Oswald college action was knowledgeable about both the OSS's and the CIA's use of Quakers, officials of the World Council of Churches, and Unitarians as contacts, assets, and informants (often as double agents) and about the FBI's responsibility in tracking down and identifying Soviet illegals and double agents. Oswald was, therefore, a creature of someone in American counterintelligence who possessed precisely that double body of knowledge.

American Spymaster Allen Dulles, based in Switzerland, had abused religious (largely Protestant) individuals and institutions for U.S. intelligence through two World Wars and the subsequent "Cold War." His brother John Foster Dulles also used major religious groups (again, largely Protestant) from 1937 through 1959 to further both his own and the American establishment's political and economic goals.

The manipulation and subterfuge associated with the Paine's - and his close connections to their family - clearly has Dulles' imprimatur. 

Gene

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

This is a straightforward biography by a straightforward historian.

Well good for her. But none of what you wrote refutes anything said in my post.

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My Hypothesis -- The coverup artists invented the story of Ruth and Linnie Mae Randle talking about where Oswald might get a job. Ruth and Linnie Mae were then asked to do their patriotic duty in preventing WW3, which was to say little lies before the WC supporting the fake story.

This is very similar to the fake second-floor Oswald/Baker story that initially involved only Officer Baker telling his story-supporting fib before the WC. But later it became complicated by Victoria Adam's testimony. This was rectified by the addition of Shelley and Lovelady telling their fibs to the WC. Again, their patriotic duties to help prevent WW3.

Oh, brother. What a spectacular load of make-believe B.S. that was/is.

Sandy Larsen is so deep in his fantasy-based conspiratorial weeds, he'll likely never get out.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Jonathan Cohen]

35 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, brother. What a spectacular load of make-believe B.S. that was/is.

Sandy Larsen is so deep in his fantasy-based conspiratorial weeds, he'll likely never get out.

I think you can delete "likely" from that sentence, David!

[David Von Pein]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I think you can delete "likely" from that sentence, David!

True.

And Sandy above proposed a theory I don't think I had ever heard coming from the mouth of a CTer before --- this one:

"The coverup artists invented the story of Ruth and Linnie Mae Randle talking about where Oswald might get a job." -- S. Larsen

Which means, of course, that not only Ruth and Linnie Mae had to do their "patriotic duty in preventing WW3" (LOL), but Marina Oswald also had to go along with the "fake story" in her WC testimony too.

And if Dorothy Roberts had provided WC testimony, she too would have been added to Sandy's Li@rs List. But Dorothy wasn't called to testify by the Commission, so Sandy's list of lying Irving housewives is a little bit smaller than it could have been.

Sandy's theory goes a long way toward proving the longstanding motto/mantra of JFKA CTers---which is:

If you don't like the evidence (or the testimony) in the JFK and Tippit cases....just pretend it's all fake (or lies).

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, brother. What a spectacular load of make-believe B.S. that was/is.

Sandy Larsen is so deep in his fantasy-based conspiratorial weeds, he'll likely never get out.

 

David,

Do you not know that an ad hominem is a logical fallacy and that a logical fallacy is nonsense -  literally?

I would suggest that you and Jonathan Cohen, who has foolishly endorsed your nonsensical post, might benefit from reading and reflecting on the article “How to argue like a child”.

Here it is:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2019/11/10/how-to-argue-like-a-child/

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by John Cotter

[David Von Pein]

I'll argue in the way that pleases me, John.

And even though you're berating me and my "child"-like arguments (and thanks so much for that valuable link!), no reasonable person can possibly disagree with the crux of my last post. (Key word there---"reasonable".)

 

[John Cotter]

22 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I'll argue in the way that pleases me, John.

And even though you're berating me and my "child"-like arguments (and thanks so much for that valuable link!), no reasonable person can possibly disagree with the crux of my last post. (Key word there---"reasonable".)

 

Of course you will, David. However, that won't stop me from calling out nonsense when I see it.

[David Von Pein]

9 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Of course you will, David. However, that won't stop me from calling out nonsense when I see it.

Same here. Such as when I called out Sandy's latest batch of nonsense on page 28 of this thread.