Someone Created a FAKE "Confession" Interview with Ruth Paine

[Paul Brancato]

Oops - meant the previous post 11 times NO

[Paul Brancato]

Most likely the 2024 election will be testing ground for deep fakes 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Most likely the 2024 election will be testing ground for deep fakes 

There are plenty of deep fakes on Instagram already, notably Elon Musk ones. 
 

Ask yourself why the government would permit such technology? 
 

 

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Oops - meant the previous post 11 times NO

All in her testimony - the only thing about that night was she claims the garage light was on, and could not remember leaving it on.  The sum total of evidence that he retrieved the rifle, put it in a bag, unassembled, retrieved it at some point and left in the morning.

If the Paine's were CIA they sure didn't help much when they easily could have, with no cross examination, no one to say otherwise.  Just sayin'

Mrs. PAINE - I was arrested by the fact that the light was on.
Mr. JENNER - The light where?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage.
Mr. JENNER - The overhead light?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - That headlight is approximately in the center of the ceiling of the garage, is it not?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, I believe it is.
Agent HOWLETT - It may be slightly to the center.
Mr. JENNER - It is roughly to the center and the socket instrument looks like a porcelain socket that extends out from the ceiling and hangs downwardly, as a matter of fact, perpendicular to the floor or the ceiling; is that not right?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - That bulb that's in there now, Mrs. Paine, was that bulb in place on the night in question?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, I believe so.
Mr. JENNER - And the ceiling fixture is unshaded, is it not?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - So, that, the bulb itself is bright and glaring?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - John Joe, would you take a look at that bulb and see what watt it is?
Agent HOWLETT - It is a 100-watt bulb, I just looked at it.
Mr. JENNER - And it is quite bright, is it not?
Agent HOWLETT - Yes, sir; especially with the white reflection off of the white walls.
Mr. JENNER - Oh, yes; this garage is painted white, is it not?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - The garage door is a medium shade of grey, and when I say "garage door" I mean the overhead door, which is now in place, the inside facing, which I see from this doorway?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You noticed that the light was on?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Why was that something that drew your attention?
Mrs. PAINE - I knew that I had not left it on.
Mr. JENNER - Had you had any habit in that respect?
Mrs. PAINE - It's my habit to turn the light off.
Mr. JENNER - And frugality, if not appearance, had dictated you in that direction, had it?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, more appearance than frugality.
Mr. JENNER - And had Marina come to be aware of your habit? In that direction, that is, of seeing that the light was off when you weren't using the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - I would suppose so.
Mr. JENNER - Is that your best present impression, Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - I believe you testified that it was your opinion that at that time that it had not been Marina who had left the light on?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right--it was definitely not Marina at that time.
Mr. JENNER - But it was who--had left the light on?
Mrs. PAINE - That Lee had left the light on.
Mr. JENNER - From that, you concluded that he had what?
Mrs. PAINE - Been in the garage

==

Mr. JENNER - Did he take a shower, to your recollection, in the mornings when he was here?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall his having done so.
Mr. JENNER - Do you have any recollection as to whether he took a shower in any event on the morning of November 22?
Mrs. PAINE - I have no recollection of him at all on the morning of November 22d, except an empty coffee cup.
Mr. JENNER - I take it that, and I should say in the presence of yourself and Mr. Howlett, that the bathroom is located on the north side of the house in between the wall of the northeast bedroom and the back wall of the combination kitchen and dining room area.

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Am I correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - And when a shower is taken and you are in your bedroom where you were as I recall on November 22 in the morning, it makes a noise and it's quite noticeable to you, is it?
Mrs. PAINE - If I'm asleep, there are many things that are not noticeable to me. I do leave my room door open.
Mr. JENNER - Well, apart from whether you were asleep, I just wanted to get that--whether you could hear it.
Mrs. PAINE - I would certainly hear it.
Mr. JENNER - And does it make enough racket or noise so that it might well awaken you if it's turned on?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; especially that close to morning.
Mr. JENNER - And you were not awakened this morning by any shower?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Do you have a recollection as to whether you noticed, when you performed your own ablutions that morning as to whether the shower had been employed, that is, was the shower curtain moist or wet?
Mrs. PAINE - I made no notice such as that.
Mr. JENNER - Is it likely that had the shower been used you would have noticed it?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I can't say as it is.
Mr. JENNER - You had, I gather, no sense of his presence that morning and his leavetaking that morning at all until you arose and he was then gone?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - You heard no moving about on his part prior to your awakening?
Mrs. PAINE - No moving about on his part at all when I looked when I awoke.

[Paul Brancato]

2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

There are plenty of deep fakes on Instagram already, notably Elon Musk ones. 
 

Ask yourself why the government would permit such technology? 
 

 

That’s a good question Chris. 

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

There are plenty of deep fakes on Instagram already, notably Elon Musk ones. 
 

Ask yourself why the government would permit such technology? 
 

 

Chris - in this case can you define who you mean by "the government" ? 

Who would be responsible for oversight and regulation of that technology?

edit:  we don't even have rules for the entire internet/www let alone specific things on it

Edited May 9, 2023 by David Josephs

[Paul Brancato]

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Chris - in this case can you define who you mean by "the government" ? 

Who would be responsible for oversight and regulation of that technology?

edit:  we don't even have rules for the entire internet/www let alone specific things on it

I was thinking similarly. Somebody - government - got social media to censor alternative Covid views. It’s getting to the point where I’m thinking that everyone who posts anything anywhere needs to be accountable - real names. Like gun ownership. 

[Guest]

Just now, David Josephs said:

Chris - in this case can you define who you mean by "the government" ? 

Who would be responsible for oversight and regulation of that technology?

In the UK it would be something that was put forward for debate, and on the back of that debate may result in vote and legislation. Its along the lines of fraud and impersonation. With the relatively new and ever expanding creation of new technologies, we need laws that cover things that never were envisaged before. Thats not me crying out for more laws, only when inaction is extremely damaging to society. 
 

The web may be an international sphere but, you can prosecute based oh the jurisdiction. Yasha Levine’s “Surveillance Valley” exposed how even things like Tor are compromised. 
 

Abstract, but didn’t the US government unstably buy up the company that originally released the first Trump deep fakes?
 

Can there be a higher ideal than truth? Without it you don’t have a functioning society, you have dystopia. 
 

I see where you are going. If you have a fox or foxes in the hen house, how can you rely on a state body to act honestly or not abuse the power. They could authenticate something as real that isn’t and another thing that is fake as real. 
 

This opens up a wider conversation. AI in general. Human-replacement / human augmentation. Musk and Co. talk about AI being a runaway danger and I take that on board with the singularity. That might be scary. My mind is thinking, are you telling me that DARPA & Co would create this without a way to manipulate it, pretending its runaway AI?! I think a bias has already been hard wired into chat GPT, which some podcasters have demonstrated. The people that rule the world today, would in no way jeopardise their power, or ability to generate wealth in perpetuity. Just to cover another base; I don’t believe the countries developing this are competing. 

It’s certainly as valid a topic to talk about as any. I am by no means an authority on it. 
 

Chris

[Jeff Carter]

Some thoughts -

Maybe someone is doing a beta test, seeing how quickly the problems are identified I.e. “something clearly ‘off’” about the voices.

Otherwise, Is it not the case that the “former American intel agent going by the name of ‘Mac’” is rather discredited by this stunt?

Basic critical thinking skills aid in discerning the credibility of sources, and a healthy skepticism properly greets such a “scoop” to begin with.

Audio and video are certainly a more sophisticated level of fakery, but fake documents have made their way through the research community in the past. Prouty called these “golden apples” - too good to be true but tempting to believe.

There is, of course, the claim the BYP are fakes, and also what to make of the autopsy photos which seem to have been deceptively staged? The introduction of deceptive materials, if exposed, is severely damaging to credibility. But without exposure…

Didn’t the CIA create pornographic films with a double standing in for a South Asian leader? That’s also a use of audio-visual fakery from six decades ago.

Unfortunately, this current moment is not short of media-driven moral panics and rushes to judgment and deep fakes could drive such events.

Orson Welles’ hybrid documentary “F Is For Fake” has a lot to offer in thinking about these issues.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Paul... it's me...  

Kidding...  yes, it's real.  Marina winds up personally meeting both Webster and Oswald within months of each other.

If you look at her "diplomas" and birth certificate info you'd be in for a surprise.

Then there's this guy named MOHAMMAD we can talk about, if you like.

.63-01-09 REGGAB MEMO DETAILING RELATIONSHIP WITH MARINA docid-32342127.pdf

 

David, this one confuses me (easily done sometimes says the wife).  Top left corner Orig(in) John M Whitten.  Date: 9 January 1963.  Below this, right side of page 9 January 1964.  Reggab recognized Marina from a picture in the paper of Oswald's widow.  I.E., after the assassination.  1963, an honest mistake by Whitten or the typist, missed by them, the CIA?  Confusing.

[David Von Pein]

"Regardless of how many of Ruth's family members were charter members of the CIA, just how much direct influence do [conspiracy theorists] think Mrs. Ruth Paine actually had over the actions of one Lee H. Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination?

And when we eliminate the silly idea that Ruth had anything whatsoever to do with "planting" Oswald in the Book Depository in order to frame him for President Kennedy's murder (which is exactly what many conspiracy theorists firmly believe DID happen in 1963, despite the fact we know that Ruth could not possibly have had any knowledge of the motorcade route through Dealey Plaza at the time she helped Oswald secure his TSBD job in mid-October), then what would be left for Mrs. Paine to do with Lee Oswald in any type of "frame-up" plot?

What "role" did Ruth Paine supposedly play as Oswald's alleged "handler" in October and November of 1963? From the paper-thin arguments I've heard from some CTers over the years, it's never really fully defined as to just what purpose Ruth Paine served in the "Oswald Frame-Up" theory endorsed by conspiracists. Once we remove the "Planted In The Depository" nonsense, what's left?

I'd like to know what Ruth's specific tasks and functions were in October and November of '63 as she supposedly served as Lee Harvey Oswald's "handler"? Because merely being friends and roommates with a person's wife doesn't seem to me to be enough to qualify Mrs. Paine as "handling" or "guiding" Lee Oswald in any manner whatsoever.

And I'd also like to know what MOTIVE Ruth Paine would have had for participating in the evil DOUBLE plot of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the President AND to frame an innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald for that murder?

In short, shouldn't a little more EVIDENCE be required before conspiracists feed Ruth Paine to the lions?

[...]

Plus, are ALL "CIA employees" supposed to automatically be looked at as potential bad people? Or is the ENTIRE Central Intelligence Agency supposedly the scum of the Earth in the eyes of conspiracy theorists?

Talk about painting things with a very wide brush.

I also find it quite humorous to see how CTers treat Ruth Paine, whom the CTers have no evidence against whatsoever. They treat her as much more of a criminal than they do Lee Oswald, who [per the sum total of evidence in the case] is the man who took the life of JFK.

I guess the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" motto that CTers SAY they live by goes flying out the window when the discussion turns to Mrs. Paine. Because in the minds of many conspiracists, Ruth Paine IS guilty--of something.

Irony at its best."

-- David V.P.; September 2014 [Original Post]

------------------------

More:

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

David, this one confuses me (easily done sometimes says the wife).  Top left corner Orig(in) John M Whitten.  Date: 9 January 1963.  Below this, right side of page 9 January 1964.  Reggab recognized Marina from a picture in the paper of Oswald's widow.  I.E., after the assassination.  1963, an honest mistake by Whitten or the typist, missed by them, the CIA?  Confusing.

One is a stamp generating the date/time, the other typewritten, so I'd guess the 1963 is incorrect/typo.

HERE IS another report - the original from Berlin to CIA HQ - yet my version is verbatim with the below added and the one I have was sent to:
FBI, Bundy & Mr. Alexis Johnson State Dept from 11/26/63 (fwiw there were 214 hits in a search for "REGGAB" on MFF)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109325#relPageId=1&search=reggab

7. REGGAB SAYS THAT HE HAS A PHOTOGRAPH AND LETTER FROM MARINA, DATED
JUNE OR JULY 1961, WITH HIS PERSONAL BELONGINGS IN CASABLANCA. IN THE LETTER MARINA SAYS THAT SHE HAS HEARD FROM BOURLAKOVA THAT REGGAB WAS IN MOROCCO ON VACATION. SHE SAYS THAT SHE STILL LOVES REGGAB AND ASKS HIM TO BRING HER A GIFT ,•300, REGGAB SAYS THAT TO FIND THE LETTER AMONG HIS BELONGINGS IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN CASABLANCA WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE OFFICIAL ASSISTANCE.
8, TO THE BEST OF REGGAB'S KNOWLEDGE AID JUDGEMENT, MARINA WAS GENUINELY
OPPOSED TO THE REGIME AND WAS NOT A MEMBER OF KOMSOMOL, HE SAID THAT HE KNEW THAT MANY OTHER GIRLS. ESPECIALLY KOMSOMOL MEMBERS, HAD MISSIONS TO REPORT OH FOREIGN STUDENTS AND THAT SUCH GIRLS WOULD BE INSTRUCTED TO VOICE ANTI-REGIME SENTIMENTS TO INGRATIATE THEMSELVES, HOWEVER, HE.SAYS THAT HE NEVER NOTED ANY INDICATION
OF THIS IN MARINA'S CASE.
9, REGGAB HAKES A FAVORABLE IMPRESSION AND IS AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING.

END OF MESSAGE

WE INFO BASED ON XXXX BRLN 4936 (IN 68184)

64-01-06 REGGAB CONNECTION TO MARINA - 104-10020-10006.pdf

Edited May 10, 2023 by David Josephs

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

HE SAID THAT HE KNEW THAT MANY OTHER GIRLS. ESPECIALLY KOMSOMOL MEMBERS, HAD MISSIONS TO REPORT OH FOREIGN STUDENTS AND THAT SUCH GIRLS WOULD BE INSTRUCTED TO VOICE ANTI-REGIME SENTIMENTS TO INGRATIATE THEMSELVES, HOWEVER, HE.SAYS THAT HE NEVER NOTED ANY INDICATION
OF THIS IN MARINA'S CASE.

Thanks for more!

[David Josephs]

7 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks for more!

Sure thing Ron...  I'm not going to bet my life on the validity of the man - just that he was compelling enough to those who might have to warrant further investigation.

Marine - it is said and I paraphrase - was not really a post!tute, but would basically do whatever she was asked, willingly, in support of her country

Reggab says he "knew her as Marina Nikolaeva" {sic}

This report https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10015-10159.pdf from the CIA says she was a Dental Technician in Minsk.

The date of issue of her "duplicate" birth certificate is JULY 19, 1961... With no Father listed

Just some background - nothing should be implied to impeach her good name.  

. 

[James DiEugenio]

This reminds me of the Stanley Kubrick fake interview concerning the moon landing.

They got a really hirstute guy who looked like Kubrick in his old age.

he said he actually directed the moon landings.