How did Oswald just happened to get a job at the place where he was needed to be the patsy?

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

The idea that Ruth Paine set up Oswald at the TSBD to shoot JFK is pure nonsense.

Whoever originally floated the idea in the 60s was either uninformed and misguided, or was trying throw out a red herring to lead researchers on a goose chase and ultimately into a dead end.

Whatever it was, it got repeated enough times to become dogma, and therefore anyone questioning it was deemed a heretic.

Yes well put Matt, and it's been dogma for years!

 

Have you given serious thought to the quality of spy we have been projecting on Ruth Paine? You are projecting on RP nothing less than the greatest recorded spy feat of all time! Period!

First, Could it get more big time? And longevity!, even lasting 60 years now! Going on television, appearing in countless films, attending conferences, giving talks.. All with the purpose of shielding a conspiracy to assassinate  a U.S. President!

 

 

Do you realize there is no middle ground in calling Ruth an "unwitting accomplice", If you subscribe to the idea that Ruth is lying about 1)her role in putting Lee in the  TSBD, (whether by turning down a higher paying job or not) or 2.  after the fact, lying about her  intentions about forwarding the Walker note to Marina, and  3). Lying about  her intention in copying and forwarding the alleged LHO  note to the  Soviet  Embassy in Mexico City..  She is an accessory after the fact to the killing of a U.S. President by lying about her involvement about any of these, whether it's before the fact or after the fact!

 

And if you don't think she did any of those things, why should she be involved or "witting" of anything?

[Ron Bulman]

Based on what we know now.  My belief is that Ruth befriended then took in Marina on request of one of Elmer Moore's employees to observe her and also kept tabs on Lee when he was around.  Remember how De Mohrenschildt said he never would have contacted Lee without Moore's prompting?  Then he handed them off to the Paine's and got the hell out of Dallas to Hati.

She was also likely later told to call Truly and have Lee come in and put in an application.

The whole trip to Virginia that summer to visit her sister who worked for the CIA (she couldn't remember where she worked at the Garrison trial) then out of her way to pick up pregnant Marina, the baby and the rifle she never saw blew it for me.  Among many other details.

Like the files in their garage and her couch.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/30/2022 at 10:28 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Based on what we know now.  My belief is that Ruth befriended then took in Marina on request of one of Elmer Moore's employees to observe her and also kept tabs on Lee when he was around.  Remember how De Mohrenschildt said he never would have contacted Lee without Moore's prompting?  Then he handed them off to the Paine's and got the hell out of Dallas to Hati.

She was also likely later told to call Truly and have Lee come in and put in an application.

The whole trip to Virginia that summer to visit her sister who worked for the CIA (she couldn't remember where she worked at the Garrison trial) then out of her way to pick up pregnant Marina, the baby and the rifle she never saw blew it for me.  Among many other details.

Like the files in their garage and her couch.

 

Actually Ron, it was De Mohrenschildt's CIA handler, J. Walton Moore (not Elmer Moore), who got got him to befriend Oswald.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/30/2022 at 10:09 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yes well put Matt, and it's been dogma for years!

 

Have you given serious thought to the quality of spy we have been projecting on Ruth Paine? You are projecting on RP nothing less than the greatest recorded spy feat of all time! Period!

First, Could it get more big time? And longevity!, even lasting 60 years now! Going on television, appearing in countless films, attending conferences, giving talks.. All with the purpose of shielding a conspiracy to assassinate  a U.S. President!

 

 

Do you realize there is no middle ground in calling Ruth an "unwitting accomplice", If you subscribe to the idea that Ruth is lying about 1)her role in putting Lee in the  TSBD, (whether by turning down a higher paying job or not) or 2.  after the fact, lying about her  intentions about forwarding the Walker note to Marina, and  3). Lying about  her intention in copying and forwarding the alleged LHO  note to the  Soviet  Embassy in Mexico City..  She is an accessory after the fact to the killing of a U.S. President by lying about her involvement about any of these, whether it's before the fact or after the fact!

 

And if you don't think she did any of those things, why should she be involved or "witting" of anything?

 

Sorry Kirk... as right as you usually are, you are wrong about this. As I showed you here a few days ago:
 

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/30/2022 at 8:19 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Sandy, Here is the exchange that contains Michael

Griffith's offensive post trying to stifle

free speech on this site. I included a note

to the moderators as a response. -- Joe McBride

 

Michael Griffith

• 
• Members
• •  283
• Gender:Male
• Location:Virginia
• Interests:religion, history, politics

• Author

Posted Tuesday at 03:55 PM

   On 10/25/2022 at 2:17 PM,  Joseph McBride said: 

Noam Chomsky -- who has claimed he would never write about

two subjects, the JFK assassination and 9/11, although he

actually has written two books about both -- writes in

his book attacking Oliver Stone's JFK that the US "won"

the war in Vietnam not in the military sense but in the

sense that the people who perpetrated it made out

like bandits, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower

warned about. Halliburton was a major player in Vietnam

as in the Iraq War, etc. Also, Stone's film mentions by name

Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics (both also Texas

firms). Wars are a way of ripping off the taxpayers

and funneling vast sums of money to the military

contractors who support those in power; the

profiteers don't care how many Americans or

foreigners are killed.

 

LBJ was put in power to expand the war in Vietnam.

He knew the war couldn't be won from the spring

of 1964 onward, at least, but felt powerless to stop expanding it. Around the time

JFK was being declared dead at Parkland, LBJ

was in a secluded part of the hospital making

a call to his tax lawyer in Houston, J. Waddy Bullion,

lamenting, "Oh, I gotta get rid of my goddamn Halliburton

stock." But ultimately LBJ did not have to do so, because

he monitored his so-called "blind trust" from telephone

lines in the Oval Office and the LBJ Ranch to deal

on trades involving his stock holdings. Waddy Bullion

was one of the trustees.

The US has not "won" a war since 1945 (when

we won World War II with the major help of the USSR and our other

allies), unless you count the farcical attack on the tiny island of Grenada

in the Reagan years. We lost in Korea and Vietnam

and in the Middle East, but the military-industrial complex

keeps getting richer. It is no concidence that the last

war we actually won in the conventional sense was

the last time we declared war. Since then all the wars we have

fought have been illegal under the Constitution, which is

routinely ignored.

If you want to share your far-left views about the Vietnam War, this is not the thread to do so. Chomsky is an abject loon. Anyway, we're talking about the point that if the plotters viewed the Vietnam War as a major motive to kill JFK, it is very hard to understand why they let LBJ so horribly mismanage the war effort. So, there are two possibilities: (1) Vietnam was not a vital issue for the majority of the plotters, or (2) the plotters were not powerful enough to control LBJ's handling of the war effort. 

I've answered many of your claims about the war in my "Oliver Stone's New JFK Documentaries and the Vietnam War" thread.

•  
• Quote

Joseph McBride

• 
• Members
• •  1.1k
• Gender:Male

 

Posted Tuesday at 04:55 PM (edited)

Note to Moderators: Michael Griffith is telling me I can't

share my political views on this thread. Naturally I will

keep doing so, as I always do, everywhere I am. But I object to his attempt to stifle free

speech on this forum. What will the moderators do

about that?

Edited Tuesday at 06:06 PM by Joseph McBride

•  

 

What???? I wasn't trying to "stifle free speech." I simply noted that the topic of the thread was not the merits of the Vietnam War and that the thread was not the place to argue about the war itself. I even told you about a thread where that discussion would be entirely appropriate.  I did not tell you that you could not share your political views in the thread. I have no such power anyway. How would I stop you from doing so? It's just common courtesy not to inject your political views when those views have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.  

It seems like you are the one who is trying to stifle free speech by making the phony complaint that I was telling you what you could and could not say, when I did no such thing (and have no power to do any such thing anyway).

Edited November 2, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Joseph McBride]

You are being disingenuous, Michael Griffith. My post you wanted

stifled or moved out of this Vietnam War discussion

is in fact about the VIETNAM WAR (as Casey Stengel

used to say, "You could look it up"). It just does not

conform to your ideological views about the war, so you tried to

smear it politically and stifle it.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Joseph McBride