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

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/15/2022 at 8:38 PM, Allen Lowe said:

Not to mention that whichever way you look on her family tree, the branches say “CIA.” Please get real. How many CIA agents are in your family?

None of Michael's family was CIA, and in Ruth's family the only known CIA employee was her older sister Sylvia out of three siblings, and I doubt her sister’s CIA employment even was known to Ruth at the time of her Garrison grand jury questioning, if Sylvia had not told her. That Sylvia's employment with CIA was overt not covert is established by a simple fact: that Sylvia Hoke turned up in a published city directory listing her as employed by CIA. I investigated how city directory information was obtained and found that it was obtained primarily from door-to-door canvassing but could also include information obtained from neighbors or public domain records. When the Falls Church, Va. city directory listed Sylvia Hoke as CIA employment, that means it was not covert. When an internal CIA document noted Sylvia Hoke’s city directory listing, that had the effect of putting Sylvia’s name on an internal database ruling out Sylvia for consideration for covert use because it would be assumed foreign intelligence agencies would have access to public records such as a city directory. That is, CIA’s awareness of a public record that Sylvia had overt employment with CIA is an argument against Sylvia having been used covertly.    

There is no evidence Sylvia’s husband was employed by CIA although there is evidence he applied and was turned down several times, and that he was liaison with CIA from his non-CIA job involving a security clearance. Sylvia Hoke and her husband lived in the D.C. area in which most CIA employment was overt. Overt CIA employment in the D.C. area was (so I have read) considered desirable employment in terms of pay, benefits, credit reference, and social status. However (so I have also read) many overt CIA employees have not liked to broadcast the fact. My wife worked for several years as a TSA airport security screener here in Bellingham, Washington. Because TSA airport screeners have been widely disliked, many of her coworkers used euphemisms when asked where they were employed. If Sylvia did not tell Ruth her CIA employment even though it was not legally secret or classified, something similar would be operable.  

I believe Friends were used symbiotically by CIA/State Department in the Soviet-U.S. exchange programs in which Ruth was involved in the 1950s. How many and which Friends involved in those programs were wittingly involved with CIA is unknown, I doubt a high percentage but I also suspect the percentage was higher than 0%. Although CIA was regarded unfavorably among all Friends circles I have known, I also know from Friends history and dynamics that there is a history of cooperating with kings and despots when they carry out good programs which benefit people, such that I could see by analogy some Friends wittingly cooperating with State Department/Cold War-motivated Soviet-US citizen exchanges, out of support for the idea of better relations between American and Soviet-bloc people on grassroots levels in principle. However there is no evidence Ruth was in witting relationship with CIA in those US/Soviet exchange programs and she has denied that she was. 

Therefore in terms of evidence there is one many-years-older, not necessarily close, older sister of Ruth out of three siblings of Ruth, and that one instance is the only known CIA employment in either Ruth's or Michael's families. Now you can suspect this and suspect that and go two degrees of separation logic, but that is the logic of McCarthyism which hurts innocent people. And all of that does not add up to Ruth was involved in the serious crimes of fabrication and planting of physical evidence to frame Oswald believed by some, for which there is no proof or plausibility at all. 

What are the ethics of making accusations of persons with no proof?

 

[Matt Allison]

I think the Paines were low-hanging fruit, and it's unfortunate that it became dogma to be suspicious of them. JMO

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

No... I'm asking if you personally are aware of Dr. Newman changing his mind about Oswald physically being in Mexico City since he gave this presentation.

That  avoids the point of my question about what has happened in the last 20 years.

But I know John fairly well and I have worked with him.  On this subject he is well aware that there are some critics who think Oswald was not there.  And at times he will begin a thought or line of evidence with that allowance.

[Allen Lowe]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

None of Michael's family was CIA, and in Ruth's family the only known CIA employee was her older sister Sylvia out of three siblings, and I doubt her sister’s CIA employment even was known to Ruth at the time of her Garrison grand jury questioning, if Sylvia had not told her. That Sylvia's employment with CIA was overt not covert is established by a simple fact: that Sylvia Hoke turned up in a published city directory listing her as employed by CIA. I investigated how city directory information was obtained and found that it was obtained primarily from door-to-door canvassing but could also include information obtained from neighbors or public domain records. When the Falls Church, Va. city directory listed Sylvia Hoke as CIA employment, that means it was not covert. When an internal CIA document noted Sylvia Hoke’s city directory listing, that had the effect of putting Sylvia’s name on an internal database ruling out Sylvia for consideration for covert use because it would be assumed foreign intelligence agencies would have access to public records such as a city directory. That is, CIA’s awareness of a public record that Sylvia had overt employment with CIA is an argument against Sylvia having been used covertly.    

There is no evidence Sylvia’s husband was employed by CIA although there is evidence he applied and was turned down several times, and that he was liaison with CIA from his non-CIA job involving a security clearance. Sylvia Hoke and her husband lived in the D.C. area in which most CIA employment was overt. Overt CIA employment in the D.C. area was (so I have read) considered desirable employment in terms of pay, benefits, credit reference, and social status. However (so I have also read) many overt CIA employees have not liked to broadcast the fact. My wife worked for several years as a TSA airport security screener here in Bellingham, Washington. Because TSA airport screeners have been widely disliked, many of her coworkers used euphemisms when asked where they were employed. If Sylvia did not tell Ruth her CIA employment even though it was not legally secret or classified, something similar would be operable.  

I believe Friends were used symbiotically by CIA/State Department in the Soviet-U.S. exchange programs in which Ruth was involved in the 1950s. How many and which Friends involved in those programs were wittingly involved with CIA is unknown, I doubt a high percentage but I also suspect the percentage was higher than 0%. Although CIA was regarded unfavorably among all Friends circles I have known, I also know from Friends history and dynamics that there is a history of cooperating with kings and despots when they carry out good programs which benefit people, such that I could see by analogy some Friends wittingly cooperating with State Department/Cold War-motivated Soviet-US citizen exchanges, out of support for the idea of better relations between American and Soviet-bloc people on grassroots levels in principle. However there is no evidence Ruth was in witting relationship with CIA in those US/Soviet exchange programs and she has denied that she was. 

Therefore in terms of evidence there is one many-years-older, not necessarily close, older sister of Ruth out of three siblings of Ruth, and that one instance is the only known CIA employment in either Ruth's or Michael's families. Now you can suspect this and suspect that and go two degrees of separation logic, but that is the logic of McCarthyism which hurts innocent people. And all of that does not add up to Ruth was involved in the serious crimes of fabrication and planting of physical evidence to frame Oswald believed by some, for which there is no proof or plausibility at all. 

What are the ethics of making accusations of persons with no proof?

 

Give me a break, please do you think the CIA posts personnel online? She was up to her ears in it as was her husband and his whole damn family as was their relationship with  Dulles as was her sister etc. etc. etc. You got to get real on this Greg; you’re so far behind on this important aspect that you’ll never catch up if you don’t start to be realistic.

[Greg Doudna]

 

23 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

She was up to her ears in it as was her husband and his whole damn family as was their relationship with  Dulles as was her sister etc. etc. etc.

John Newman doesn't say anything about Ruth Paine in his work. Is he "far behind" too? Or is it because he sticks to evidence. You are so fixated on hostility to Ruth Paine, going way beyond an unverified but reasonable inquiry into whether she was asked to be helpful to or look after Marina (denied by Ruth Paine that she was asked by an agency). You go way beyond that question into wild and deep theories about her which have no proof.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

This avoids the AID connection from her father.

But what really stands out to me is what she told Garrison before the grand jury.

She somehow could not recall the city where her sister lived, even the state. 

After drawing a blank, she then let him assume an answer that was wrong.

Greg can post all he wants about an Arthur Miller/Donald Trump type witch hunt.  But we are dealing with facts.  Its what Carol Hewett first did decades ago. And I hope Chris Newton continues to do so, with what I think is an utterly crucial piece of evidence.

I mean everyone should read the thread that Ron and Sandy put up.

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

Ruth Paine in her summer 1963 trip drove to an address of her sister in Falls Church, Virginia, never been to that address before, never after. Probably following interstate and street directions given by notes by phone. For all we know it could have been an arrival after dark. I have followed driving directions in strange and unfamiliar destinations at night including in a tristate area quite a few times in earlier years. All I used to care about was getting there. So what if she didn't remember the name of the city or the state. So what. That is "what really stands out" to you as sinister. 

As I recall, when Ruth could not remember the things about her sister's address Garrison was asking, Ruth volunteered she could get the information for Garrison he wanted.  

You see sinister significance in things which have mundane explanations, like the witchhunter in the cartoon.

Garrison then flummoxed Ruth by saying there were I forget how many hundreds or whatever of cubic feet of classified documents about Sylvia Hoke--Garrison told that to Ruth and demanded Ruth explain. Ruth had no idea what Garrison was talking about.

Neither did Garrison have any idea what he was talking about. He was using a cubic square feet number which was a reasonable estimate of the cubic square feet for ALL documents related to the entire JFK case which were being withheld from release at the time. Garrison told Ruth that number of entire cubic square footage of all withheld documents was the quantity of square footage of documents classified for Ruth's sister Sylvia! What an idiot. Telling Ruth there were a gazillion cubic square feet of boxes of classified documents about her sister and demanding Ruth to explain. When the true quantity was something like a few dozen pages or whatever, now all known, many of those relating to some crazy investigation undertaken of Sylvia Hoke in the mid-1950s to try to find out whether she was a communist at the height of McCarthyism, which has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. 

And Ruth wrote a letter initially expressing willingness to help Garrison in his investigation and you mock and ridicule Ruth for that.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Also, you have referred several times now to what you characterize as an "utterly crucial piece of evidence" having "utmost importance" in which you see near-apocalyptic scale significance in Ruth Paine having misspoken in her Warren Commission testimony concerning the location of a sofa in her living room.

Ruth Paine in April 1964 to the Warren Commission told of her sofa the previous Nov 22 being on a different wall from where a photo of Nov 22 has it. From that has been originated a brand-new Ruth Paine conspiracy theory in which it was darkly urged that Ruth never moved her sofa and desk on Sun Nov 10 as she claimed (which was the occasion of her obtaining Oswald’s draft of the Soviet embassy letter). Instead an elaborate theory is urged that Ruth fabricated the whole sofa move claim as part of her role in a Soviet embassy letter plot. The evil Ruth Paine just brazenly, wilfully perjured on the location of her sofa in her living room, so the theory goes, despite knowing gazillions of police and news photographers had taken pictures and had memories of the true location of the sofa in her living room. This will really nail Ruth Paine. They've got her on that one!  

I did some digging and found that Ruth was moving the sofa because of sun in the eyes in late pm/early evening when watching the television located at the southwest corner of the living room, with the sun coming through her southern exposure living room picture window. The move of the sofa from the north wall (less desirable “fishbowl” location, but out of the late-sunset rays of the sun) to the east wall (more desirable, more private and comfy, no sun in the eyes there in the winter with early sunset) location of the sofa on Nov 10 (when two men were there to do the heavy lifting at Ruth’s direction) closely followed the change to Daylight Savings Time some days earlier. Ruth had Michael and Lee switch the positions of the sofa (on the north wall) and a desk (on the east wall) to vice versa on Nov 10. The sofa was returned to its preferred position on the east wall since the sun would no longer be in the eyes of persons on the sofa in early evenings in that position. The move of the sofa was not more complicated than that.

By the time of her Warren Commission testimony the sofa had been moved back again to the north wall in her living room—this sofa moving would be twice-annually based on this sun in the eyes factor—and those moves simply got Ruth mixed up on where her sofa was on Nov 22 in her testimony. You call this non-argument "of utmost importance" because you think it proves Ruth wilfully perjured over getting the wrong wall where her sofa was. In the thread in which Chris Newton showed the photo proving the sofa was on the east wall on Nov 22 instead of the north wall as Ruth said in her WC testimony and concluded from that that Ruth had lied in claiming the sofa had been moved at all on Nov 10, I wrote that it was moved because of the sunlight and explained the mundane explanation. What I wrote seemed to do no good, nobody addressed the mundane explanation I gave. Chris Newton never responded. However Chris Newton never pursued the subject further either after I wrote that.  

Edited October 19, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Allen Lowe]

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Also, you have referred several times now to what you characterize as an "utterly crucial piece of evidence" having "utmost importance" in which you see near-apocalyptic scale significance in Ruth Paine having misspoken in her Warren Commission testimony concerning the location of a sofa in her living room.

Ruth Paine in April 1964 to the Warren Commission told of her sofa the previous Nov 22 being on a different wall from where a photo of Nov 22 has it. From that has been originated a brand-new Ruth Paine conspiracy theory in which it was darkly urged that Ruth never moved her sofa and desk on Sun Nov 10 as she claimed (which was the occasion of her obtaining Oswald’s draft of the Soviet embassy letter). Instead an elaborate theory is urged that Ruth fabricated the whole sofa move claim as part of her role in a Soviet embassy letter plot. The evil Ruth Paine just brazenly, wilfully perjured on the location of her sofa in her living room, so the theory goes, despite knowing gazillions of police and news photographers had taken pictures and had memories of the true location of the sofa in her living room. This will really nail Ruth Paine. They've got her on that one!  

I did some digging and found that Ruth was moving the sofa because of sun in the eyes in late pm/early evening when watching the television located at the southwest corner of the living room, with the sun coming through her southern exposure living room picture window. The move of the sofa from the north wall (less desirable “fishbowl” location, but out of the late-sunset rays of the sun) to the east wall (more desirable, more private and comfy, no sun in the eyes there in the winter with early sunset) location of the sofa on Nov 10 (when two men were there to do the heavy lifting at Ruth’s direction) closely followed the change to Daylight Savings Time some days earlier. Ruth had Michael and Lee switch the positions of the sofa (on the north wall) and a desk (on the east wall) to vice versa on Nov 10. The sofa was returned to its preferred position on the east wall since the sun would no longer be in the eyes of persons on the sofa in early evenings in that position. The move of the sofa was not more complicated than that.

By the time of her Warren Commission testimony the sofa had been moved back again to the north wall in her living room—this sofa moving would be twice-annually based on this sun in the eyes factor—and those moves simply got Ruth mixed up on where her sofa was on Nov 22 in her testimony. You call this non-argument "of utmost importance" because you think it proves Ruth wilfully perjured over getting the wrong wall where her sofa was. In the thread in which Chris Newton showed the photo proving the sofa was on the east wall on Nov 22 instead of the north wall as Ruth said in her WC testimony and concluded from that that Ruth had lied in claiming the sofa had been moved at all on Nov 10, I wrote that it was moved because of the sunlight and explained the mundane explanation. What I wrote seemed to do no good, nobody addressed the mundane explanation I gave. Chris Newton never responded. However Chris Newton never pursued the subject further either after I wrote that. 

I'm an experienced window cleaner. Sun direct on glass is the bane of window cleaners. I know a lot about southern exposure picture windows and working around hours of the day when there is not direct sun on glass. That is how I realized what was going on with Ruth having the sofa moved on Nov 10, just after onset of Daylight Savings Time.  

Filibustering doesn’t prove your point. But since you’ve given me a headache with all that prose, I guess you win the argument.

[Greg Doudna]

Just now, Allen Lowe said:

Filibustering doesn’t prove your point. But since you’ve given me a headache with all that prose, I guess you win the argument.

I was talking to DiEugenio.

[Allen Lowe]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I was talking to DiEugenio.

Correct, but this is an open forum and anyone can read your posts.

[Greg Doudna]

31 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

Correct, but this is an open forum and anyone can read your posts.

You've expressed your distaste several times. I wish it were different, I don't want you as an enemy. You can ignore what is not to your taste, you don't have to read everything.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

I have Greg D on ignore. Mainly based on his cry for allegiance to--drum roll and trumpet solo please-- Paul Hoch; and Greg's  attempt to implement a Hoch inspired  exorcism of  what Greg termed "Garrisonism", in the critical community. 

But every once in awhile I have to read his stuff, like when someone else posts it.

Chris did post after Doudna's daylight savings time excuse.  

And if you read what he actually wrote, that was not what Chris was suspicious about.

Shortly after this Chris sort of went off the grid in his attempt to move from Florida--"people are crazy here"--to Northern California.

He encountered some severe problems in the move.  But he did tell me, words to the effect: a day does not go by that I do not think of Ruth Paine.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have Greg D on ignore. Mainly based on his cry for allegiance to--drumroll and trumpet solo please-- Paul Hoch; and Greg's  attempt to implement a Hoch inspired  exorcism of  what Greg termed "Garrisonism", in the critical community. 

These allegations are fabrications. I make no cry for allegiance to Paul Hoch, or anyone else for that matter, that is nonsense. I respect Paul Hoch, he has been nice to me but he is no Svengali. What I think and write is my own thinking, as on the Tippit case.  

It is a grotesque distortion to say my negative view of Garrison's methods and their continuing legacy was inspired by Paul Hoch. My view on Garrison draws from a number of sources of which Paul Hoch is not the most influential, and my view preceded acquaintance with Hoch. Its the Marcello/mob angle on the JFK assassination with testimonies that Garrison went after everybody except the elephant in New Orleans, Marcello, because Marcello on some level owned Garrison. As John Davis, Mafia Kingfish, 374, put it after discussion of the origins of the Garrison investigation: "Garrison's counterfeit investigation of the Kennedy assassination accomplished what its instigators hoped it would. It all but wrecked the movement to get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination, and it successfully diverted attention from Carlos Marcello" (p. 374). While avoiding the elephant in New Orleans, Garrison damaged innocent people by his methods and prosecuted a person for the assassination who had not the slightest thing to do with killing Kennedy, Clay Shaw.

This is just James DiEugenio smearing. 

[Greg Doudna]

Alesi responds to baseless smearing

Joe Alesi sent me two emails today and gave permission to post, which I am in full and analtered except for the boldings which are added. They contain information relevant to the topic under discussion. 

[start email #1]

"I wanted to point out a couple of things, not all that important but just for the record. I actually met Ruth Paine before Michael when she gave a talk in Sonoma in 2013. I found out sometime later that Michael Paine was also living in Sonoma County. I spoke to Ruth and I asked her if it would be OK to send some photos for his signature. I did, but they never came back so I gave him a call and to my surprise he picked up and started talking about the Kennedy assassination. Later I met with Michael and his son Chris was there also. That was before he moved to friends house in a separate apartment from Ruth of course. I knew Ruth but I wouldn’t say we were friends at first. I was actually visiting Michael more than Ruth. Anyway, over time I became more acquainted with Ruth. When Michael died she invited me to the service for him at friends house. And then of course later in 2019 the two of us traveled to Dallas two times for different events. So at this point I would definitely say we were friends.

"The other point that needs correction is about the agency I worked for, the defense investigative service. After working there for a number of years they changed the name to the defense security services but it was exactly the same job and consisted only of doing background investigations on individuals for security clearances. It never became the defense criminal investigative service. I never did any kind of criminal work and certainly not intelligence work despite what Di Eugenio would like to portray. 

"Later on the defense security services was disbanded and the operation was taken over by the office of personnel management. They called it the federal investigative services. It was no longer a function of the department of defense. Nevertheless it was the same job as always doing background investigations for Security clearances, knocking on doors asking questions checking records etc. etc. I get a kick out of Di Eugenio saying that I was doing work for Ruth. It’s absolutely nonsense and laughable. 

"Max Good has insinuated that I could be her handler. Max Good should know better. He’s pandering to his audience trying to promote his film. He knew my relationship with Ruth at the time he interviewed me and nothing has changed. I actually had no beef with Max until then because he did not misrepresent me in any way in the movie. Di Eugenio has also called me Ruth’s “aide- de-camp”. This guy is whacked out. After posting about Ruth on the Facebook group “ JFK Truth Be Told” one idiot referred to me as Ruth’s neighbor, guardian angel and disinformation specialist. It doesn’t bother me at all.

"On a final note I think I should mention that the Jack Ruby notes I have are absolutely authentic. I’m quite familiar with his hand writing and I would see no reason why they would have been forged."

[end email #1]

[start email #2]

"The other thing DiEugenio said in an interview is that I did work for Ruth going out and finding these filing boxes. Nonsense. She did ask me to see if I could find anything on the internet about CE 458 which she later gave to me. It’s all in the film. Where would I look for filing boxes? What filing boxes? There are none.

"In the same interview he says I’m wearing a hat that says Defense Intelligence Service which I take off to show Max. I’ve never owned any such hat and showed Max a plaque that says Defense Investigative Service. The guy is a real dope . You can quote me on that and anything else from my previous email." 

[end email #2] 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Greg Doudna