Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[Kirk Gallaway]

6 hours ago, Max Good said:

People might want to take a close look at the wording of Ruth's answers to some of my questions.  Here are some excerpts from my transcripts:

 

Q: And your sister? (regarding CIA connections)

A: I think she worked briefly with an outfit. All I really know, that she's told me about it, is that she was helping develop questionnaires for non-English speakers to try to figure out who would be bright and capable and they were looking for employers, employees for oil rigs. That's about all I knew and that was maybe for a year or two. It came out of a job that she had at college and then she was a stay at home mom from mid-50s on.

Q: So, yeah, it seems these conspiracy people claim that your sister was in the CIA but I've never seen a document.

A: Well, it’s possible, but I think unlikely that some of the contracts she may have been working on could have been something that CIA wanted, but I don't know.

---

(A later interview, after I found the document)

Interviewer:    This is some sort of CIA declassified document about your sister.

Ruth:   Yeah. Okay, it's possible.  What I know of what she did in a brief job she had in Washington, that she told me about ... She had studied psychology, I guess, and she was helping to develop tests of intelligence that didn't involve language, because they wanted to get bright people working on the oil fields. That's all I know about what she did.

Interviewer:    This document does basically say that she had been employed by the CIA at one point.

Ruth:   Mmmm. She wasn't employed for very long, in her whole life.

Interviewer:    I don't know if that's anything people talk about when they work with the CIA.

Ruth:   What?

Interviewer:    I don't know if people talk about that when they work for the CIA, but is that something that your sister ever discussed with you, what kind of work she was doing?

Ruth:   No, just that one time.

 

 

Interviewer:    Oh.

Ruth:   That didn't identify the agency.

Interviewer:    Do you see why people take these connections as being suspicious?

Ruth:   Sure, yeah.

 

 

---

 

Q: And another one they bring up is the fact that Michael worked for Bell helicopter and you guys were pacifist or at least you were.

A: Yeah.

Q: I don't know about Michael.

 

A: I was. Yeah. He went to, he was a draftee for the Korean War. He went to Korea.

Q: Was it a conflict with your values?

A: We were pretty close on values. We really didn't talk much about that, about his service. He's a very. . . he thinks about what's the right thing to do. One of the things he told me was when he was being inducted into the Army they have. . . they read off something and then they say, "If you swear to this, take a step forward."  He said it included saying I will follow the officer's orders whatever they are and he was still thinking about that when everybody else stepped forward. So, he had to go up later and say, "I'm not sure I'm inducted because I can't agree to following the orders of my superior no matter what they might be." Which, of course, actually you're not supposed to follow the orders if you seriously consider them wrong. So, in terms of outlook on the world, we're pretty close.

 

 

Q: Was it. . . did you feel bad that he was working for a, I don't know, is that a defense contractor or did they just make helicopters?

A: Well, he had been working for his father, my father-in-law, his step-father on inventing, building, a model for a vertical take-off and landing machine. His step-father had been a major person in developing the first licensed helicopter license to fly, you know, an inventor and recommended Michael to Bell Helicopter, who developed the helicopter. That's where my father-in-law went with his model, was to Larry Bell, and they built a full-size model of the helicopter. That's how it got started. The Bell Helicopter was Michael's step-father's vehicle and. . . where was I going with that? Anyway.

 

Q: I guess they were used widely in Vietnam. . .

A: That was it. Yeah. Okay. It was his first major paid job, for Michael, and he was glad to get it, I think. It was a steady paycheck, working with machine tools that he loved to do, and building parts, and talking with the engineers. So he really enjoyed that, but he told me, not too long ago, that they wanted him to become more of a desk person. A manager? And he really didn't want to do that. And I never heard him talk about how he felt whether this was contributing to killing or war, but he did only work there about ten years.

 

 

Max, when i saw your post with quotes of Ruth. I was actually expecting more. I do think it's a bit weak.

First off, just an anecdotal story,

As I recall, Ruth's sister is 8 years older than her. I can speak from some experience being the youngest and having a sister and brother 12 and 10 years older. than me. I never took a more than a passing interest in what they were doing and being the youngest, they didn't take a lot of interest in me. I think it would be very easy to not mention specifics about her employment, and i don't think Ruth would have much reason to be probing. There's nothing unusual there. And as i recall, Ruth stopped by her sister's place while passing through D.C. I've done the same while passing by my siblings locations.

Arthur Young was a brilliant person who was into a lot of things, he perfected the helicopter which was a design that was bandied about by brilliant thinkers for centuries and maybe even  millennia if you believe some of these ancient accounts. and pictures. You spend all your life working on the concept, finally perfect it and the Government sees it and orders 100,000 of them  and makes a grand offer. My guess is you wouldn't turn it down. Michael's employment there was given by his family and was a job he had some aptitude for. I find it believable.

We can talk about an alleged penchant of Ruth for secrecy. But I'm not sure any more that we can for you Max. I would find it fascinating to hear your personal thought about how you navigated through this film. You probably weren't lying to Ruth about your intentions in making this film about her. But you weren't entirely truthful , and it's obvious from her reaction to reports about your film that she would never have let you into her life if she knew the film you were trying to make. What did you specifically tell her to get into her good graces, and how did you portray yourself  and the movie you wanted to make?

As  I noted earlier, you got to see Ruth and Michael and their lives at their retirement  home. I would imagine if you hadn't had that experience before, wasn't it quite sobering.?

I understand the film wouldn't be complete if you didn't also have a small clip of Michael, who was after all also there. Though his presence seemed a bit tentative , he did recount his feeling that Oswald was guilty yet it looked to me he may not remember anything  else about it, and now may be only adapting to expectations, maybe like Mark Felt when he finally came out. I saw this sort of adaptation without  remembrance going on in the last year's of my Father's life. What is your interpretation of Michael's response?

At the Retirement home, there was  Ruth and that younger man whose name I've forgotten who  had taken it upon himself to help Ruth with her life. (Who i think some people here alluded to him being Ruth's "handler" and I think it was Jim who brought up his military service and a government agency he had worked at that aroused his suspicion.)

When Ruth and that man got wind of exactly how you portrayed Ruth in your film. As I recall Ruth didn't choose to watch it? (I think Greg would know.) and Ruth's assistant did and both of them were interviewed about what they thought and it seemed to me both of  them, were certainly not happy with it, but were relatively kinder  in their thoughts about you, than I would have been.

Ok maybe to put it bluntly , did you ever have any doubts along the way about your mission under false pretenses and feel like a pos, (not that I insist you should!) Or were you always completely convinced that of the rightness of your cause, and  that your mission was clear?

As I've said before, I liked your movie.

[James DiEugenio]

Jean,

If you really want to see some evasiveness look at the interview Garrison did with Ruth before the grand jury.

In that one, she could not even remember the proper city or state that her sister lived in!

In fact, she ended up misleading Garrison on that score.

The point is simple I think and Max did a nice job on this in his film, which is still playing.

As per Marguerite, she was the only person who actually tried to tell the truth about her son.  Marina, Robert and Ruth and Michael all decided to go along with the tidal wave and discard Lee.  Marina Oswald's testimony was so bad, that the junior lawyers on the Commission did not want to use her. If you want to read something funny read what Marina said about how Oswald got the rifle to the Walker home and how he hid it after. Even funnier is how Bugliosi tried to support this BS story.

Then read Marina's first interview with the SS and you will see how she eventually succumbed to the FBI pressure and the threat of deportation. And let us not forget about that mysterious trust over a film that never happened from which she made quite a bit of money.

Marina, Ruth, Michael and Robert were the people who decided to go along to get along.

Marguerite stood up for her son and to get Mark Lane to defend him. And for that Aynseworth got a very good novelist to write a very vicious book about her.  And Specter threatened Jean Hill with, if you do not cooperate, we will do to you what we did to Marguerite.

So please, let us be clear about these characters and what they did and did not do.

Edited December 1, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jean Ceulemans]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean,

If you really want to see some evasiveness look at the interview Garrison did with Ruth before the grand jury.

In that one, she could not even remember the proper city or state that her sister lived in!

In fact, she ended up misleading Garrison on that score.

The point is simple I think and Max did a nice job on this in his film, which is still playing.

As per Marguerite, she was the only person who actually tried to tell the truth about her son.  Marina, Robert and Ruth and Michael all decided to go along with the tidal wave and discard Lee.  Marina Oswald's testimony was so bad, that the junior lawyers on the Commission did not want to use her. If you want to read something funny read what Marina said about how Oswald got the rifle to the Walker home and how he hid it after. Even funnier is how Bugliosi tried to support this BS story.

Then read Marina's first interview with the SS and you will see how she eventually succumbed to the FBI pressure and the threat of deportation. And let us not forget about that mysterious trust over a film that never happened from which she made quite a bit of money.

Marina, Ruth, Michael and Robert were the people who decided to go along to get along.

Marguerite stood up for her son and to get Mark Lane to defend him. And for that Aynseworth got a very good novelist to write a very vicious book about her.  And Specter threatened Jean Hill with, if you do not cooperate, we will do to you what we did to Marguerite.

So please, let us be clear about these characters and what they did and did not do.

So Ruth was evasive on questions about her sister ? IMO she was fully entitled to do so, if she knew her syster had nothing to do with the case.  I would do the same, given the fact there was no connection between Ruth and her sister within the JFKA case. Garrison tried making a connection, to sketch Ruth, she defended herself rightfully so IMO

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I notice here you use the colour of the station wagon as evidence to debunk. You have just trapped yourself. 

No, let me clarify. The discrepancy between Shasteen’s claim of a white top (over lt green or lt blue) of a station wagon of similar or same make as Ruth’s, whereas Ruth’s wagon’s top was dark green (over light green), is NOT a decisive negative argument against an identification (because witnesses can make minor mistakes). That is not what I meant.

Rather, the car similarity is a weak positive case for identification, because there would be many similar colored Chevy wagons without being Ruth’s, which other evidence, such as Ruth’s testimony, establishes that this one was NOT. And Ruth’s testimony is very strong evidence due to her credibility.

And yet as I think further, the white versus dark green top discrepancy (both over light green lower color), actually may be some weight against the identification viewed in itself; here is why. 

It is that Shasteen’s testimony indicates Shasteen made his Oswald/ coveralls customer identification not only from Oswald on TV, but even more because Shasteen remembered the customer’s station wagon, and remembered that Ruth Paine had a similar looking wagon, and that was the “aha!” connection he made when he saw Oswald on the news after the assassination, told to have lived at Ruth Paine’s.

Shasteen said he did not know Ruth personally but he had seen her Chevy wagon parked at her house and remembered it.

And until that moment he hadn’t put that together with his coveralls customer’s similar car, but he did now. That must have been Oswald, was his logic.

He told that to his fellow barbers and customers and decided to get in his own car and drive by Ruth’s house to confirm a match to the car of the coveralls customer. Here is the point: Shasteen was consistent—both WC and HSCA—that coveralls man’s Chevy wagon was white over light green or light blue, WHITE over. I think Shasteen had that accurate, that was what he noticed and remembered of the customers car.

I don’t think he remembered more of Ruth’s car than the light green mid-1950’s Chevy wagon similarity.

If Shasteen had succeeded in his intent to verify the car identity by driving by Ruth’s house to take another look at her Chevy wagon, I think there is a good chance his mistaken Oswald identification of his coveralls customer would not have happened. For I think he did accurately remember a white top, but he would have seen Ruth’s had a dark green top, and would have realized it was not the same car, close but not the same.

But what happened was traffic was piled up around the street where Ruth lived, police cars and other cars, and he could not physically get to it so was unable to see Ruth’s station wagon.

Shasteen then returned to the barbershop and they talked some more and he decided the cars must have been a match even though he had been unable to verify that when he tried that evening. 

I don’t think Shasteen remembered that white top color wrong and Ruth lied. I think instead Ruth did not lie, Shasteen’s memory of the white top on the customer’s wagon was correct, and it wasn’t Ruth’s station wagon.

The customer must have looked a little like Oswald but many men were remembered as such according to those who did not know Oswald well; that’s why so many mistaken claims to sightings of possible Oswalds came in after the assassination and seeing Oswald on TV. 

There ISN’T a positive match ID of the cars; and the coveralls customer cannot have been Oswald due to the number of haircuts, frequency of haircuts, style of hair, clothing worn, lack of frequent barbershop visits of Oswald, implausibility that Oswald would want to go to a barbershop in Irving instead of relax with Marina and his two children, and last but not least, the very strong evidence of Ruth’s testimony, which alone and in and of itself overpowers Shasteen’s Oswald identification claim in terms of weight.

The 14-yr old (Shasteen’s account) (or 15 if Shasteen was mistaken by a year) kid as Hootkins ONLY comes into play if you first have the coveralls man established as Oswald. If you don’t have the coveralls man as Oswald first, then the kid is the coverall man’s son in Irving and Hootkins remains in faraway Dallas where he logically was anyway, and has nothing to do with any of this. 

There were three barbers in Shasteen’s shop. Two, Shasteen and Glover in talking together remembered the same coveralls customer whose hair Glover too had cut at least once and Glover too thought it was Oswald. Greg Parker agrees that Glover’s identification of Oswald in the shop  was wrong, Glover illusorily thinking some other man had been Oswald who really wasn’t.

The third barber, who had also cut Shasteen’s coveralls customer’s hair at least once (Shasteen witnessed him on that occasion) told the FBI he didn’t remember any Oswald ever in the shop. 

The evidence for is therefore weak and not compelling, against extremely strong evidence against, including the stand-alone decisive testimony of Ruth Paine against. 

There is no good reason why Ruth would lie about Oswald going to a barbershop if it were true, or have loaned her car to Lee routinely to drive if she was so intent on covering that up later. But the fact is Ruth was not a li-ar in her testimony, no WC, HSCA, or FBI investigator thought she was, all regarded her as highly credible and accurate, there has never been evidence shown that she was a perjurer that has convinced any reasonable majority who have studied the matter. And she wasn’t massively lying here to cover up repeated prior lending of her car to Lee to drive to a barbershop.

I do have Lee and Marina driving Michael Paine’s car from Ruth’s house on Nov 11, but Ruth was gone at the time and did not know that. So that driving of a Paine car by Lee on his own happened that once but it was unusual and not with Ruth’s knowledge or permission.

These interpretations make a lot more sense on the assumption that Ruth is truthful in describing everyday life details in Irving than to suppose without convincing positive evidence that Ruth was lying to cover up a local barbershop plot. 

Another thing: The 14-yr old kid who Shasteen wanted to smack because Shasteen thought he had communist unamerican ideas, that was on a week night, a school night, when Shasteen’s coveralls customer wasn’t there with him (Shasteen had seen the kid with the coveralls customer at the shop an earlier time). 

The reaction or scene of Shasteen and the kid is a satisfactory explanation of why Shasteen never saw the kid or the coveralls man there again: the kid would have told his father (the coveralls man) in colorful terms what a jerk Shasteen was; the kid probably shared similar political views as his father or parents, and they weren’t going back to the scene of that scene again.

That 14-yr old instead of brought by his father that evening—the coveralls man driving the Chevy wagon—was brought that evening by a woman driving a car of unknown make but Shasteen said it was not the Chevy wagon. That woman and car waited for the kid outside the shop until the kid left the shop and she drove him away. 

That would be the kids mother. 

If that had really been 15-yr old Hootkins far from his home in Dallas on a school night and without his mother knowing he was all the way in Irving when he was missing for dinner at home in Dallas, WHO was that woman and car that drove the kid away? It was not Hootkins. This was an Irving family and kid and that was his mother.

I cannot believe people are just enmeshed in this Hootkins and Irving barbershop conspiracy and coverup business. This is as bad as the Harvey and Lee doppelganger business, where people go that route and there is imperviousness to reason showing otherwise.

Shasteen also separately saw Lee and Marina for real in a store which Greg P has correctly I believe identified as Sat Oct 5 when Lee and Marina and June walked to get ice cream. I interpret that as Shasteen did see and remember Marina but did not pay attention to Lee even though he was there too, sufficient to know he was not the coveralls customer when Shasteen later thought back about it.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Jean:

You ignored everything else in my post, and you did not even look up the testimony did you?

Do you really think she did not know where her own sister lived?

The reason Garrison asked the question was that they were keeping her occupation secret from him.  And he said that to her and asked her why they would do such a thing.

Well, now we know why they did it since, as Greg Parker discovered, her sister worked for the CIA for seven years.

When you tie that in with all the other things about her family, inlcuding the Allen Dulles connection that Dulles kidded about afterwards, then that becomes interesting.  Because it could explain why the Hootkins affair happened--before the assassination-- and why she cooperated with the FBI to disguise the Oswald MInox camera, after the assassination. And why the Buddy Walters files disappeared.

Also, let me ask, Jean do you think Oswald was in Mexico City and at the Russian Embassy?  Do you think he had a right to an attorney?  Do you think that he felt he was a little man who could now be a big man after shooting JFK?  If so why did he never say he did so?  Why did he say he was a patsy?  And why did his brother suspect the Paines were involved?

 

As per Greg, he has become embarrassing on this issue.  I mean if I had met David Phillips in 1975 before all the controversy with the HSCA, i probably would have thought he was a suave, sophisticated, debonair gentleman.  But I would not think that after learning something about him.  But apparently Ruth had a Beyonce style halo over her head when he met her.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, let me clarify. The discrepancy between Shasteen’s claim of a white top (over lt green or lt blue) of a station wagon of similar or same make as Ruth’s, whereas Ruth’s wagon’s top was dark green (over light green), is NOT a decisive negative argument against an identification (because witnesses can make minor mistakes). That is not what I meant.

Rather, the car similarity is a weak positive case for identification, because there would be many similar colored Chevy wagons without being Ruth’s, which other evidence, such as Ruth’s testimony, establishes that this one was NOT. And Ruth’s testimony is very strong evidence due to her credibility.

And yet as I think further, the white versus dark green top discrepancy (both over light green lower color), actually may be some weight against the identification viewed in itself; here is why. 

It is that Shasteen’s testimony indicates Shasteen made his Oswald/ coveralls customer identification not only from Oswald on TV, but even more because Shasteen remembered the customer’s station wagon, and remembered that Ruth Paine had a similar looking wagon, and that was the “aha!” connection he made when he saw Oswald on the news after the assassination, told to have lived at Ruth Paine’s.

Shasteen said he did not know Ruth personally but he had seen her Chevy wagon parked at her house and remembered it.

And until that moment he hadn’t put that together with his coveralls customer’s similar car, but he did now. That must have been Oswald, was his logic.

He told that to his fellow barbers and customers and decided to get in his own car and drive by Ruth’s house to confirm a match to the car of the coveralls customer. Here is the point: Shasteen was consistent—both WC and HSCA—that coveralls man’s Chevy wagon was white over light green or light blue, WHITE over. I think Shasteen had that accurate, that was what he noticed and remembered of the customers car.

I don’t think he remembered more of Ruth’s car than the light green mid-1950’s Chevy wagon similarity.

If Shasteen had succeeded in his intent to verify the car identity by driving by Ruth’s house to take another look at her Chevy wagon, I think there is a good chance his mistaken Oswald identification of his coveralls customer would not have happened. For I think he did accurately remember a white top, but he would have seen Ruth’s had a dark green top, and would have realized it was not the same car, close but not the same.

But what happened was traffic was piled up around the street where Ruth lived, police cars and other cars, and he could not physically get to it so was unable to see Ruth’s station wagon.

Shasteen then returned to the barbershop and they talked some more and he decided the cars must have been a match even though he had been unable to verify that when he tried that evening. 

I don’t think Shasteen remembered that white top color wrong and Ruth lied. I think instead Ruth did not lie, Shasteen’s memory of the white top on the customer’s wagon was correct, and it wasn’t Ruth’s station wagon.

The customer must have looked a little like Oswald but many men were remembered as such according to those who did not know Oswald well; that’s why so many mistaken claims to sightings of possible Oswalds came in after the assassination and seeing Oswald on TV. 

There ISN’T a positive match ID of the cars; and the coveralls customer cannot have been Oswald due to the number of haircuts, frequency of haircuts, style of hair, clothing worn, lack of frequent barbershop visits of Oswald, implausibility that Oswald would want to go to a barbershop in Irving instead of relax with Marina and his two children, and last but not least, the very strong evidence of Ruth’s testimony, which alone and in and of itself overpowers Shasteen’s Oswald identification claim in terms of weight.

The 14-yr old (Shasteen’s account) (or 15 if Shasteen was mistaken by a year) kid as Hootkins ONLY comes into play if you first have the coveralls man established as Oswald. If you don’t have the coveralls man as Oswald first, then the kid is the coverall man’s son in Irving and Hootkins remains in faraway Dallas where he logically was anyway, and has nothing to do with any of this. 

There were three barbers in Shasteen’s shop. Two, Shasteen and Glover in talking together remembered the same coveralls customer whose hair Glover too had cut at least once and Glover too thought it was Oswald. Greg Parker agrees that Glover’s identification of Oswald in the shop  was wrong, Glover illusorily thinking some other man had been Oswald who really wasn’t.

The third barber, who had also cut Shasteen’s coveralls customer’s hair at least once (Shasteen witnessed him on that occasion) told the FBI he didn’t remember any Oswald ever in the shop. 

The evidence for is therefore weak and not compelling, against extremely strong evidence against, including the stand-alone decisive testimony of Ruth Paine against. 

There is no good reason why Ruth would lie about Oswald going to a barbershop if it were true, or have loaned her car to Lee routinely to drive if she was so intent on covering that up later. But the fact is Ruth was not a li-ar in her testimony, no WC, HSCA, or FBI investigator thought she was, all regarded her as highly credible and accurate, there has never been evidence shown that she was a perjurer that has convinced any reasonable majority who have studied the matter. And she wasn’t massively lying here to cover up repeated prior lending of her car to Lee to drive to a barbershop.

I do have Lee and Marina driving Michael Paine’s car from Ruth’s house on Nov 11, but Ruth was gone at the time and did not know that. So that driving of a Paine car by Lee on his own happened that once but it was unusual and not with Ruth’s knowledge or permission.

These interpretations make a lot more sense on the assumption that Ruth is truthful in describing everyday life details in Irving than to suppose without convincing positive evidence that Ruth was lying to cover up a local barbershop plot. 

Another thing: The 14-yr old kid who Shasteen wanted to smack because Shasteen thought he had communist unamerican ideas, that was on a week night, a school night, when Shasteen’s coveralls customer wasn’t there with him (Shasteen had seen the kid with the coveralls customer at the shop an earlier time). 

The reaction or scene of Shasteen and the kid is a satisfactory explanation of why Shasteen never saw the kid or the coveralls man there again: the kid would have told his father (the coveralls man) in colorful terms what a jerk Shasteen was; the kid probably shared similar political views as his father or parents, and they weren’t going back to the scene of that scene again.

That 14-yr old instead of brought by his father that evening—the coveralls man driving the Chevy wagon—was brought that evening by a woman driving a car of unknown make but Shasteen said it was not the Chevy wagon. That woman and car waited for the kid outside the shop until the kid left the shop and she drove him away. 

That would be the kids mother. 

If that had really been 15-yr old Hootkins far from his home in Dallas on a school night and without his mother knowing he was all the way in Irving when he was missing for dinner at home in Dallas, WHO was that woman and car that drove the kid away? It was not Hootkins. This was an Irving family and kid and that was his mother.

I cannot believe people are just enmeshed in this Hootkins and Irving barbershop conspiracy and coverup business. This is as bad as the Harvey and Lee doppelganger business, where people go that route and there is imperviousness to reason showing otherwise.

Shasteen also separately saw Lee and Marina for real in a store which Greg P has correctly I believe identified as Sat Oct 5 when Lee and Marina and June walked to get ice cream. I interpret that as Shasteen did see and remember Marina but did not pay attention to Lee even though he was there too, sufficient to know he was not the coveralls customer when Shasteen later thought back about it.

You make some good points in there, and I appreciate the depth of your reply.

I am hoping you will also give consideration and a comprehensive reply to the following;

There are three (3) different witnesses in New Orleans, that testify that the station wagon they saw, associated with Ruth Paine's visits to New Orleans, was a colour other than green.

Murrett, Rogers and Garner.

By your standards, this station wagon differs from the station wagon you have parked at 2515 West 5th St Irving, after the assassination.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Tony Krome

[Greg Doudna]

45 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

You make some good points in there, and I appreciate the depth of your reply.

I am hoping you will also give consideration and a comprehensive reply to the following;

There are three (3) different witnesses in New Orleans, that testify that the station wagon they saw, associated with Ruth Paine's visits to New Orleans, was a colour other than green.

Murrett, Rogers and Garner.

By your standards, this station wagon differs from the station wagon you have parked at 2515 West 5th St Irving, after the assassination.

 

Tony, I know nothing of any claims you mention that Ruth’s station wagon was described as a different color than green by the three witnesses you name. Would you be able to summarize those descriptions? The dark green over light green two-tone of Ruth’s 1955 Chevrolet Belair wagon, in 1963, is certain. The car is known and exists today and its history is known. I did a lot of research on that car at an earlier stage and there is no question on its two colors, both green, dark over light green. Any other descriptions must be wrong, still I would like to know what they were to try to understand them. 

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Tony, I know nothing of any claims you mention that Ruth’s station wagon was described as a different color than green by the three witnesses you name. Would you be able to summarize those descriptions? The dark green over light green two-tone of Ruth’s 1955 Chevrolet Belair wagon, in 1963, is certain. The car is known and exists today and its history is known. I did a lot of research on that car at an earlier stage and there is no question on its two colors, both green, dark over light green. Any other descriptions must be wrong, still I would like to know what they were to try to understand them. 

Mrs. Murrett describes the station wagon as brown and tan

Mrs. Garner describes the station wagon as blue and tan, but mentions that as well as blue and white.

Mr. Rogers describes the station wagon as "a kind of grey"

Taken as a whole, the main thrust is that the station wagon's light colour related to a shade of brown, maybe tan, but there were also other colours on the car.

No green.

The Blue from Garner could have come from a tarp or similar that enveloped the items on the station wagon's roof rack. It's possible she saw the car as tan and remembers the blue.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Tony Krome

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Greg, he has become embarrassing on this issue.  I mean if I had met David Phillips in 1975 before all the controversy with the HSCA, i probably would have thought he was a suave, sophisticated, debonair gentleman.  But I would not think that after learning something about him.  But apparently Ruth had a Beyonce style halo over her head when he met her.

The difference between David Phillips and Ruth Paine is Phillips was employed by the CIA, was despicably involved in the destabilization and overthrow of the Chilean government, and I believe the Arbenz government in Guatemala as well. And no doubt a lot of other spooky ops directly interfering in other nations.

Ruth did none of those things, nor is there any sign she supported any of those actions, and for you to suggest that as a comparison is outrageous. 

On Ruth being questioned by Garrison re her sister, the confusion over in which state in the map Falls Church was (likely she had never been there before and was following directions to get to her sister’s place for the first time) I don’t buy that as sinister as you do, but that aside, I do partly agree with you on one thing: I think she was trying to avoid if possible putting her CIA employed (but not in the least way JFK assassination involved) sister into Garrison’s witch-hunt crosshairs. It’s how her answers look to me. And from what I know of Garrison I don’t blame her. 

Jean is right: Ruth’s sister’s employment, so what. It’s Ruth that matters, not her older sister. 

And on Sylvia Hoke’s CiA employment, I studied that a bit earlier, with some back and forth Q and A with Robert Reynolds who is expert on such and interpretation of CIA documents, in addition to some digging of my own.

And I found that Sylvia Hoke was not working for CIA in the mid-1950s as has been claimed, no evidence of that, when she was working for the Air Force and through some McCarthyism genre mistake was ridiculously investigated on suspicion of being a communist (she was cleared).

I think Sylvia Hoke originally applied to work for CIA ca 1959 reflected in CIA opening a 201 file on her that year and a lengthy investigation routine for a CIA employment application.

Her application then succeeded and she became employed in some overt capacity in CIA employment in the D.C. area, considered at the time in D.C. circles a solid respectable job with govt benefits.

She wasn’t involved in murdering and foreign overthrows etc. I don’t know what exactly Silvia did but Ruth’s testimony has mentioned psychological testing in Human Resources dept type stuff.

A key point I found was it was overt not covert CIA employment for Sylvia. The reason I know Sylvia was overt (non secret) employed with CIA is because of Sylvia’s appearance in the 1961 Falls Church, Va. city directory listing her as CIA employed. I went to some work to verify that. Those city directories were compiled from door to door canvassing. If she was covert, it would not have ended up published there in that way.

But I have also read that many CIA overt employed, from their own choice not imposed, would use a euphemism, working for “the government” rather than naming CIA, because the non-CIA public often has bad views of the CIA. So the euphemism.

I experienced that phenomenon of the use of euphemism for employment with my own Danish wife newly imported to America who, after she became a US citizen, became employed as a TSA airport security screener half-time for several years. Because TSA screening and patdowns were widely hated, she told me how fellow TSA screeners, and she herself, did not like to tell people they worked for TSA, to avoid dealing with all the reactions, etc. Her coworkers would find other ways of answering where they worked when asked, “government”, etc. I thought of that when reading Ruth’s answers to Garrison of her sister’s “government” work. 

I would not work for the CIA even in the “peaceful” sectors jobs (e.g. economic data analysis). Or the military either. But I have a sister-in-law who is career Air Force (nurse and medical administrator). I think of that with Ruth’s sister working in human resources type work for the CIA in D.C. 

John Hoke, Sylvia’s husband, apparently wanted to attain CIA employment too, applied but was turned down a couple times in the 1960’s, maybe later succeeded or maybe not, I don’t remember, but from the little I read about him he was a maverick, into inventing solar powered cars or things of that nature, not killing people or destabilizing foreign governments.

Again, that’s siblings. How is that much different from my Air Force sister-in-law.

Ruth is now 91 and in all this time none of your allegations have been proven. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean:

You ignored everything else in my post, and you did not even look up the testimony did you?

Do you really think she did not know where her own sister lived?

The reason Garrison asked the question was that they were keeping her occupation secret from him.  And he said that to her and asked her why they would do such a thing.

Well, now we know why they did it since, as Greg Parker discovered, her sister worked for the CIA for seven years.

When you tie that in with all the other things about her family, inlcuding the Allen Dulles connection that Dulles kidded about afterwards, then that becomes interesting.  Because it could explain why the Hootkins affair happened--before the assassination-- and why she cooperated with the FBI to disguise the Oswald MInox camera, after the assassination. And why the Buddy Walters files disappeared.

Also, let me ask, Jean do you think Oswald was in Mexico City and at the Russian Embassy?  Do you think he had a right to an attorney?  Do you think that he felt he was a little man who could now be a big man after shooting JFK?  If so why did he never say he did so?  Why did he say he was a patsy?  And why did his brother suspect the Paines were involved?

 

As per Greg, he has become embarrassing on this issue.  I mean if I had met David Phillips in 1975 before all the controversy with the HSCA, i probably would have thought he was a suave, sophisticated, debonair gentleman.  But I would not think that after learning something about him.  But apparently Ruth had a Beyonce style halo over her head when he met her.

 

Whew! Bow wow!   Mad dog on the loose!

Yuck, another childish outburst.

Same old unfocused gish gallop debating tactic, throwing everything out there but the kitchen sink. For years Jim's minions thought this was Jim winning an argument!

Jim to Jean:you did not even look up the testimony did you?

Hmm,Do i see a pattern here? this is similar to his  commands to Jonathan earlier

Jim:Can you show me any investigation into Ruth and Michael done by the HSCA?

Jim:Can you show me where Ruth was even questioned by the HSCA?

Jim:Can you show me any interview by the ARRB of Ruth Paine?

Jim:Let me know when you find this stuff!

Jim:Now with what happened to the HSCA, go ahead and show me her examination. 

Jim:Let me know Jonathan when you find those HSCA and ARRB inquiries.

 

Hey back off pops! They don't have to do anything they don't want to.

Uh, let's see, 7 Jim commands! Can we admit Jim used to bossing people around here?

And then this paragraph! 6 questions!

Jim: Also, let me ask, Jean do you think Oswald was in Mexico City and at the Russian Embassy?  Do you think he had a right to an attorney?  Do you think that he felt he was a little man who could now be a big man after shooting JFK?  If so why did he never say he did so?  Why did he say he was a patsy?  And why did his brother suspect the Paines were involved?

 

This is such childish nonsense. This is what I meant earlier about trying to have an intelligent discussion with Jim.

Jim handles the slightest disagreement by accusing Jean of being an LN!!!

Jim earlier said that Max didn't go far enough in going after Ruth. But I think with the amount of evidence Max had, he did a good job.

Just imagine Jim being in the presence of Ruth Paine. He'd probably have a heart attack, and it would be the 91 year old calling the ambulance for Jim!

 

heh heh

[Jean Ceulemans]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean:

You ignored everything else in my post, and you did not even look up the testimony did you?

 

Euh...it was about 2 am here in Belgium and I went to sleep !

No reason for the suggestive "and you did not even look up the testimony did you?" ???

I just now got back up again and had a little breakfast, will do some work (for a living) and this evening I'll be back

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Mrs. Murrett describes the station wagon as brown and tan

Tony I can't find that reference, have tried both Murret women, tell the reference please?

 

[Tony Krome]

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Tony I can't find that reference, have tried both Murret women, tell the reference please?

 

pp 157

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40390#relPageId=206

[Sean Coleman]

 

Chevybelairgate…..blue,green,tan, two tone…..?

Edited December 13, 2023 by Sean Coleman

[Greg Doudna]

18 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

pp 157

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40390#relPageId=206

Thanks. That timeline of your link has "brown and tan" but is misquoted from the Secret Service report which says Mrs. Murrett saw "a brown or tan colored station wagon bearing Texas plates". But never mind that, it sounds to me like Lillian Murrett had a form of red-green color-blindness, protanopia, in which greens look brown or tan (https://www.healthline.com/health/eye-health/what-do-colorblind-people-see#visual-differences-in-images).

Mrs. Jesse Garner:

 Mrs. GARNER - In this station wagon, that lady from Texas, that it had a Texas license, blue and tan station wagon or blue and white, something like that, 

This also could be a colorblindness issue. Blues and greens are difficult to distinguish in all forms of color-blindness (which differ in other ways but all have that) according to this article, https://www.color-blindness.com/2007/05/18/mixing-up-blue-and-green/. 

And Mr. Rogers who saw Lee pack belongings in and on top of Ruth Paine's car:

Mr. ROGERS. The station wagon was visible. I called my wife. I said, "Well, he must be leaving." They were packing all the things. (. . .) Kind of a gray station wagon. He was putting the packing, everything in that himself. (. . .) Well, they packed that night

It was dusk or night when vision is impaired. Could the reduced light have affected his seeing the light green of the main body of the station wagon as gray? (With the darker green top maybe largely covered with things packed overhead?) 

For sure Ruth Paine's station wagon was two tones of green, not brown or blue or gray, no matter what these three said they saw.

I suppose these cases illustrate that witness-reported colors are not always decisive in excluding identifications of cars or objects, and forms of color-blindness may be a factor.