Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[Greg Doudna]

7 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Well, she was spying on Nicaraguans at the time the CIA was running a death squad there so forgive me if I'm suspicous of the poor innocent Quaker

You mean she was suspected in Nicaragua directly because of the unfounded allegations against her related to the JFK assassination. Ruth suffered from suspicions there but there was never any proof for those suspicions, and Ruth's behavior such as taking down notes from a bulletin board all have innocent explanations for those not predisposed to see the worst. (Also, minor point but I believe her time in Nicaragua postdated the contras civil war and the death squads activity to which you refer, horrors which there is no basis for supposing Ruth had anything to do with. The Friends Meeting at St. Petersburg of which Ruth was a part and I was too as Friends across America opposed US support of the contras and US complicity in death squad activity.) My earlier discussion of that: 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Richard Booth]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ruth apologia

 

Ruth Paine and Priscilla Johnson-McMillan are birds of a feather

Never thought I would see some write a disclaimer that they're against death squads, that's a first.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

 

Ruth Paine and Priscilla Johnson-McMillan are birds of a feather

Never thought I would see some write a disclaimer that they're against death squads, that's a first.

You’re the one who associated Ruth Paine and US supported death squads in the same sentence implying a relationship. Now the snark to a serious response to your wholly unfounded insinuation. I’m through talking with you.

[Richard Booth]

47 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You’re the one who associated Ruth Paine and US supported death squads in the same sentence implying a relationship. Now the snark to a serious response to your wholly unfounded insinuation. I’m through talking with you.

Unfounded?  Not exactly. A documentary has been made concerning the accusation and most who watch it reach the same conclusion.

There will, of course, always be Lancelots running around.

[Greg Doudna]

On a new accusation leveled against Ruth Paine: that she and Priscilla McMillan are birds of a feather. 

I’ve seen YouTube clips of Priscilla McMillan and I have her book Lee and Marina or whatever the correct title is. 

I haven’t studied her directly but from what I know, she applied to work for CIA and was turned down, but was regarded by CIA as a friendly asset to be utilized but with limits from her moral scruples. It is not clear at least to me whether she knew she was so regarded and used or if so how much, and I prefer to not leap to conclusions where there is uncertainty (not that I always live up to that). 

Now to turn to what she has done, her works and voice and if she is a good or bad person. The main voice I know of her is the Lee and Marina book, which is what I would call the 25%-strength Harlequin-lite version of Marina’s story with Lee. 

And Priscilla herself comes across as a bit naive and believing that Harlequin-lite story version, even though I believe she attempted not to embellish much and stick to facts from what Marina told her as the raw material. 

Yes, her book was funded and got great press and celebrated partly because Marina has always been an interesting figure to the American public and also because it bolstered up the mainstream Warren Commission narrative believed to be some combination of truth and useful myth for Americans to believe (who like children are so prone to believe daft ideas if left to themselves, so good to emphasize useful narratives that have some truth to them, I believe is an approximation of the thinking).

Now with all that, is she a bad person?

I don’t see it.

A bad person is someone who kills or slanders or knowingly falsely or recklessly smears, who is nasty and vindictive, who brutalizes or bullies others physically or verbally, who takes advantage of or exploits others weaker or less intelligent or poorer or disabled because they can, who assists or acts as apologist for horrendous human rights abuses and totalitarianisms either of left or right, who is racist, who mistreats animals, children, or elderly, who delights in the suffering of others, who does not care about a better world … (etc.)

I don’t see what I know of Priscilla McMillan as being a bad person. 

Now for the Ruth comparison. Some similarities, personality maybe, strong women, some idealism and naïveté, belief in the Oswald LN narrative, similar suspicions of being used by the agency, with the difference being some use of Priscilla as asset is verified whereas nothing in terms of verification or evidence of that for Ruth.

Ruth has denied she was ever CIA or dealt with anyone she knew was CIA and I believe her because there is no evidence to the contrary and because she said it, in the absence of evidence otherwise.

But as a thought experiment, what if Ruth was a bird of a feather with Priscilla.

So what? Priscilla wasn’t a bad person. Priscilla didn’t kill Kennedy and I strongly doubt would have wittingly covered up anything material related to its solution or Oswald’s innocence if she was convinced it was true.

Nor did Ruth kill Kennedy, cover up anything material to the case or known to her that would be exculpatory to Oswald, did not knowingly support misdeeds of the US govt or human rights crimes. The deep distaste, the smearing, the suspicion of Ruth of everything under the sun of some, is Rorschach Inkblot projection and not founded upon a foundation stronger than suspicion cited as its own evidence for itself. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Jean Ceulemans]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean, I really do not even want to reply to this.

Because it shows you have not even read Carol Hewett's milestone series in which she devotes a long essay to this subject. 

Do you even know who Carol is? She is the person who broke open the Paines, along with Barb LaMonica and Steve Jones.  If she had not gotten sick, who knows the case she could have made?  She was a practicing attorney in Florida with a degree from UT at Austin. She devoted years to this subject. 

I am not picking on you. I  am just trying to inform you of some things I don't think you know.

PS Nice job Sandy. 

Well, I checked, double checked, and I have read her series, and a little more.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I reject the idea those involved in Oswald's hiring were a necessary part of a plot.

I do so for a number of reasons.

Among these is that I had many conversations over the years with a life-long friend who rose to the level of LT. Col of U.S. Special Forces (the Green Berets). He spent years training Green Berets, and, for awhile, while he was in the reserve, SWAT officers. He trained them in tactics--how to create a plan, and how to execute that plan. His expertise--at least the one he would talk about--was in hostage recovery. In any event, he stressed over and over to the extent that it became a recurring joke between us, that the key to the successful execution of a plan was PACE. PACE is an acronym for Primary, Alternative, Contingency, and Emergency. In other words, he shared that the secret to a successful military plan was to have 4 plans, not one. 

So...if the assassination of JFK was a military operation, or one performed by people who had military training, there may very well have been 4 plans in motion at the same time. There may have been 4 potential snipers in 4 different cities, or even 4 different buildings in Dallas along the parade route, with 4 different patsies in place to take the fall. We just don't know. It seems likely we will never know. But the important conclusion to be drawn from this is that it could very well be that Oswald was supposed to be the contingency or emergency plan, but was moved up to the primary plan once other plans fell through, OR he got a job on the motorcade route. 

[Sandy Larsen]

@Greg Doudna @Pat Speer

You guys will never understand the true nature of the assassination till you take into account everything we know about the Mexico City incident. And how it was used to implicate Cuba and Russia in the assassination, with Oswald being their conduit to the assassins.

In addition, you'll each have to drop you preconceived biases. (e.g. anti-alterationism of photos for Pat, and pro-Ruthism for Greg.) These biases are holding you back.

The only thing you guys know (of great importance) is that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I reject the idea those involved in Oswald's hiring were a necessary part of a plot.

I do so for a number of reasons.

Among these is that I had many conversations over the years with a life-long friend who rose to the level of LT. Col of U.S. Special Forces (the Green Berets). He spent years training Green Berets, and, for awhile, while he was in the reserve, SWAT officers. He trained them in tactics--how to create a plan, and how to execute that plan. His expertise--at least the one he would talk about--was in hostage recovery. In any event, he stressed over and over to the extent that it became a recurring joke between us, that the key to the successful execution of a plan was PACE. PACE is an acronym for Primary, Alternative, Contingency, and Emergency. In other words, he shared that the secret to a successful military plan was to have 4 plans, not one. 

So...if the assassination of JFK was a military operation, or one performed by people who had military training, there may very well have been 4 plans in motion at the same time. There may have been 4 potential snipers in 4 different cities, or even 4 different buildings in Dallas along the parade route, with 4 different patsies in place to take the fall. We just don't know. It seems likely we will never know. But the important conclusion to be drawn from this is that it could very well be that Oswald was supposed to be the contingency or emergency plan, but was moved up to the primary plan once other plans fell through, OR he got a job on the motorcade route. 

More on Oswald's TSBD job and the location of the assassination

I agree with your reasoning Pat and there is this further in support. After Oswald was hired at TSBD Oct 15-16, he applied for other jobs elsewhere, all of which were on the likely parade route. These applications included the Adolphus Hotel on Commerce (inquired in person, October sometime before the 20th); the Statler Hilton Hotel on Commerce (wrote out job application and applied, Oct 31); the Allright Parking Garage on Commerce (inquired in person, ca early Nov, ca. 2-4 weeks before assass.) 

(There is something else that the late David Lifton found of great interest expressed to me privately: in the Laura Kittrell Texas Employment Commission story, she says Oswald told her early Oct when he was at the TEC with her that he wanted an office job in a building downtown, and included the word "downtown". Said he did not want a manual labor job. Laura Kittrell's story was not paid much attention with problems cited with it, and she was never called to testify. Laura Kittrell also said Oswald took an aptitude test in Oct 1963 and she discussed his scores with him and told him he would not have the physical aptitude to be a very good shot with a rifle from her experience with men with those scores. Oswald told her that that was true, he was not a very good shot from his testing in the Marines. If that detail held up--Kittrell claimed the paperwork would be at TEC for it, but there is no record of an attempt to find it--that could be standalone reason not to have Kittrell be credible or called to testify.)

Sandy, how do you interpret these at least three job inquiries/applications, all in tall buildings overlooking the likely parade route through downtown, that Oswald pursued after he started work at TSBD?

I'll say what it looks like to me. It could go two ways.

The innocent explanation (Oswald has no idea whether at TSBD or anywhere else that he was being set up and does not know an assassination is coming): Oswald took the TSBD job because he could get it and he was desperate, but it wasn't what he wanted, and he was trying to do better.

The assassination plot explanation: Oswald or someone advising him wants him on the parade route and Oswald tries to find some employment in a tall building directly on the parade route.

Was Oswald or someone interested in getting Oswald to a location with better access and opportunity for a sniper shot?

This would need to be rechecked, but I think those buildings faced Main as well as Commerce, located between those two artery streets. If the parade came down Main (which would be a very good guess or near-certainty?), an upper floor of one of those buildings (all were high-story buildings) could have a direct sniper shot that TSBD had no guarantee of having if the parade route went through Dealey Plaza via Main instead of Elm.

If there was an assassination conspiracy plot involving Oswald in some form--the plans might be fluid, with knowledge of the exact parade route in flux and uncertain at the time Oswald started his TSBD job. There was no certainty at that time that the parade would go past the TSBD on Elm.

Were Oswald's three job inquiries at high buildings overlooking Main Street where the parade was almost certain to go (unlike past Elm) some attempt to "improve upon" TSBD as Oswald's location by the time JFK came through?

Then when Oswald failed to get any of those jobs, a way was found to have the motorcade do the dogleg on to Elm, and the assassination then proceeded with TSBD/Elm Street logistics?

All of these three efforts of Oswald to relocate from TSBD closer to the expected parade route postdate Oswald's start date at TSBD, Oct 16.  

Vince Palamara probably has the information on when the motorcade was fixed or changed to go past the TSBD on Elm, but as I recall it was a lot later than Oct 16. For what it is worth, Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, JFK The Last Dissenting Witness  (1992), 113, speaking of motorcycle cop Billy Joe Martin who was at the left rear of the presidential limousine when JFK was assassinated:

 "He hesitated for a long moment. 'If I tell you about this, Norma Jean, you've got to promise me you'll never breathe a word of it to anybody,' he said softly. 'Not even to Mary or your mother or your kids. Not to anybody, understand?'

"'Okay, sure,' she said, a little taken aback by the gravity of his tone. 'I won't tell a soul, I promise.'

"'Well, when Kennedy was busy shaking hands with all the wellwishers at the airport, Johnson's Secret Service people came over to the motorcycle cops and gave us a bunch of instructions. The damnedest thing was, they told us the parade route through Dealey Plaza was being changed.'

"'Changed? How"?'

"'It was originally supposed to go straight down Main Street,' J.B. said, 'but they said for us to disregard that. Instead, we were told to make the little jog on Houston and cut over to Elm.'

"Jean felt her mouth drop open. 'My God,' she said in amazement, 'if you'd stayed on Main, Kennedy might've been completely out of range of whoever was shooting at him' (. . .)

"J.B. stared at her with a straight face. 'Maybe that's why they changed the route,' he said bluntly, 'but that's not all. They also ordered us into the damnedest escort formation I've ever seen. Ordinarily, you bracket the car with four motorcycles, one on each fender. But this time, they told the four of us assigned to the president's car there'd be no forward escorts. We were to say well to the back and not let ourselves get ahead of the car's rear wheels under any circumstances. I'd never heard of a formation like that, much less ridden in one, but they said they wanted to let the crowds have an unrestricted view of the president. Well, I guess somebody got an "unrestricted view" of him, all right.'"

 @Sandy Larsen, this suggests a different picture than your certainty that the TSBD location was selected by plotters as Oswald's location before Oswald was hired at TSBD and before there was knowledge the motorcade would go by the TSBD.

It suggests a different picture than your certainty that: Ruth Paine, upon instruction of a CIA handler, after learning from Linnie Mae of the TSBD job possibility, was caused by said handler to intervene at TSBD to make Oswald's job happen at TSBD by means of a cold call to building supervisor Roy Truly. Ruth's handler caused Ruth to cause Truly to hire Oswald by means of that cold-call phone call. (It was a good thing thing Truly was in a good mood that morning to listen to a strange woman calling him long-distance by phone from Irving on behalf of another stranger he never met--how could a building superintendent possibly say no to that? what could possibly go wrong with that planned method of CIA plotters to have Oswald placed there?)

Instead of the other possibility, Sandy, that Ruth made that phone call to Truly to, you know, try to be helpful with no guarantee of success, on her own initiative. 

Lee looked for jobs before and after his hiring at TSBD. And whatever the true explanation may be, the three known post-TSBD job inquiries by Oswald all appear to have been to locations with better sniper shot opportunity at JFK on the expected parade route at the time of those job inquiries.

Consideration of these facts should evaporate your certainty that Ruth Paine's phone call to Truly proves Ruth had a CIA handler. It proves no such thing.

[Ron Bulman]

Naushon Island.

[Greg Doudna]

 

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You guys will never understand the true nature of the assassination till you take into account everything we know about the Mexico City incident. And how it was used to implicate Cuba and Russia in the assassination, with Oswald being their conduit to the assassins.

On 12/1/2023 at 6:54 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

(. . .) after months of preparation, the CIA painting Oswald as a crazy communist out to kill the president, making it look like he'd met with KGB assassination chief Kostikov, and being given a $6500 down payment for killing Kennedy, etc., etc., 

Sandy two things. First, on Oswald in Mexico City. Oswald himself said he was in his own handwriting, wrote it, the Soviet embassy letter draft, Oswald's handwriting. Silvia Duran at the Cuban consulate said she wrote down her address and office phone for Oswald, and Silva Duran's address and office phone is in Oswald's address book.

Marina after initial lying told of Lee going to Mexico City. Postal Inspector Holmes overheard Oswald telling Secret Service agent Kelley about going to Mexico City--Holmes testified under oath to hearing Oswald tell of going to Mexico City in his Warren Commission testimony. Oswald is attested at the door of Silvia Odio's in Dallas early evening Wed Sept 25 in exact agreement with timing and means of getting to Houston in time for the bus believed to have taken Oswald that night on first leg leg to Mexico city, Oswald seen by Silvia Odio driven in a car with a driver. No evidence Oswald was elsewhere during the days of the Mexico City visit.

Anti-Castro Cubans who had been in contact with Oswald in New Orleans who called Mrs. Luce the evening of the assassination told her they knew of Oswald in Mexico City (see in the Boylan and Hancock Redbird Leads article). Paper artifacts from Mexico City such as the bullfight were later identified as among Oswald's belongings. Oswald's Cuba visa application found on file in Mexico City had a photo of Oswald.  

That's a lot of evidence to just handwave away and assert it all was variously faked, forged, and planted, and Mexico City never happened for Oswald.

People keep saying CIA would have produced a photo of Oswald if they wanted to prove he was there. Well, maybe it wasn't wanted to be proved, after LBJ and co. decided it was going to be LN instead of Cuba/USSR involved. I half suspect they would have denied Oswald was in Mexico City altogether if that could have gotten away with it successfully. Oswald in Mexico City had zero upside for the LN interpretation wanted and was 100% downside to having Oswald be LN--obviously there was no incentive for CIA post-LBJ orders to prove he was there, and the only reason it was admitted it at all probably was because too much was out there to successfully deny it. 

(And were there really no photos of Oswald in Mexico City or were there simply no photos produced? not the same question.)

People say two US informants inside the Cuban consulate said they didn't see Oswald there, but they weren't in the office with Duran when he was there so doesn't prove anything. I know there are conflicting witness reports on physical descriptions, but witnesses can vary. Silvia Duran has both said it was Oswald and that the man she said was Oswald was shorter than Oswald is. The three Soviet embassy persons said it was Oswald they saw in their embassy, Azcue at the Cuban consulate denied it was Oswald he saw on TV two months later. There is no verified photo or physical evidence of an Oswald impersonator either, other than the two or three variant witness descriptions. I don't want to say an impersonator of Oswald in Mexico City is impossible, but I think the varying witness descriptions are weak evidence in themselves for the impersonator idea and so far as I can tell, that is all there is in support of the idea (of an in-the-flesh Oswald impersonator in Mexico City).

There definitely was a voice impersonation of Oswald in a phishing phone call to the Soviet embassy, which is what I think that was, CIA phishing. They didn't know about Kostikov until learning the name from that phishing phone call. That's when they learned that name of Oswald's contact inside, the point of the phishing phone call by the voice impersonator in the first place, to try to find out what Oswald had been up to inside that embassy. The Russian on the embassy phone who blabbed Kostikov's name to the phishing caller was probably new at the job and breached tradecraft when he did that. Immediately after that he hung up on the phishing caller. I like to humorously imagine some supervisor standing by and scowling, got the phone hung up and chewed out his inept underling. Kostikov as Oswald's contact inside the Soviet embassy was no advance setup, it was a coincidence of who was there when Oswald walked in.

Second, I am skeptical of your assumption that Oswald was set up for a false flag assassination of Kennedy months in advance. The issue is evidence. You cited Kostikov and I have just explained why I reject that as a planned encounter in the Soviet embassy, though after they learned the name it was available for exploitation opportunistically (though it wasn't exploited probably due to the decision to go LN).

Then you mention the Nicaraguan Alvarado claim to have witnessed a $6500 cash discussion between Castro people and Oswald to kill Kennedy when Oswald was in Mexico City. But that claim of Alvarado only first becomes reported and known after the assassination. It is a claim post-Nov 22 of something involving Oswald earlier in September. But there is no contemporary evidence in September of that payoff allegation (to my knowledge). And we know there were multiple and serious attempts in the hours immediately following the assassination to show evidence that Castro did it, was linked to Oswald who did it (the Pedro Charles letters, the call to Mrs. Luce). We know ca. Nov 22 is when major false-flagging of Castro and Oswald is happening.

Therefore when Alvarado emerges with his single-witness story in Mexico City right after Nov 22 claiming he saw Oswald receiving money from Castro people (or whatever exact specifics) earlier, this is by definition questionable as being true. 

Short answer: there is no satisfactory basis to believe it happened, and I don't believe it happened. 

Apparently Alvarado was Nicaraguan intelligence (probably delivered the Oswald Cuban payoff story as a cutout for a cutout from CIA or something). Alvarado says the story after Nov 22. He gets questioned by Mexican police and tells them he made it up, it wasn't true (in agreement with US desire to go LN now and have no Castro allegations). Alvarado then says the Oswald payoff story really was true after all and the Mexican police coerced his recantation. Then later he says the recantation really was true a second time. He's all over the map. Silvia Duran says it wasn't true. No other witnesses corroborate the story. It fits perfectly into known Nov 22 creations of fabricated connections of Oswald to Castro in Miami and New Orleans. Too dodgy.

The one "early" possible indication of framing Oswald for the assassination of which I'm aware is the ca. Sept 27 phone call from "Leopoldo", one of the Cubans at Silvia Odio's door with Oswald on Sept 25, who told Silvia Odio that Oswald had criticized the Cubans for lacking nerve to kill Kennedy if they were so angry with him over the Bay of Pigs. "Leopoldo" also spoke of Oswald capable of killing Castro. I don't know whether that reflects Oswald acting, or was made up by "Leopoldo" and did not come from Oswald. It could be motivated by an attempt to set Oswald up for a future assassination of JFK, but I can imagine other plausible explanations that do not require that interpretation.  

[Richard Booth]

12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Naushon Island.

Right. No matter how many paragraphs of tedious Ruth and Priscilla apologia we get we're not going to be convinced.

Vince Salandria had it right so many years ago and he also knew how pointless it is to engage over tiny details that are not worth our time to engage over.

I'm reminded of a tactic used for infiltrating the left where it was advised to carry on long and diverging tedious arguments, to return to previously settled items and renew debate on them. We see the same things happening here, allthough I suspect with Mr. Douda he is legitimately white knighting for Ruth and not carrying out any sort of ulterior agenda. But the end result is the same, a waste of our time.

Priscilla was CIA and witting
Ruth was CIA and probably unwitting, but smart enough to have figured it out which is why she's always made sure to go through every last scrap of paper that came out with her name on it. She knows there might be one, eventually, that will reveal the order of things.

[Jean Ceulemans]

37 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Ruth was CIA and probably unwitting 

You say : probably an unwitting CIA girl.  Isn't that in conflict with the powers some have attibuted to her ? The alleged steering and directing of key-persons ? The alleged creating and planting of evidence ? And a bunch of other stuff she has been accused of doing.

IMO me thinks there is no hard evidence for any of that.

Garrison filed charges agains a dozen or so, I think Dean Andrews got convicted.

If he had ANYTHING on Ruth, he would have gone for it, again IMO

 

 

 

[Richard Booth]

1 minute ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

You say : probably an unwitting CIA girl.  Isn't that in conflict with the powers some have attibuted to her ? The alleged steering and directing of key-persons ? The alleged creating and planting of evidence ? And a bunch of other stuff she has been accused of doing.

IMO me thinks there is no hard evidence for any of that.

Garrison filed charges agains a dozen or so, I think Dean Andrews got convicted.

If he had ANYTHING on Ruth, he would have gone for it, again IMO

 

Well, sure it's in conflict with what some have attributed to her. I think that the most likely situation isn't in alignment with some of the more outlandish scenarios people have presented. However I also think that the "truth is rarely simple and never pure"

As for Garrison, don't think he had any evidence on Ruth. She sure wanted to find out if he did, though. 

Regarding Ruth Paine I think the truth is self-evident, regardless of what hard evidence exists or doesn't exist. 

It's also a situation I do not think is worthwhile to argue with people about. Though it might be a situation worth examining, as in the recent film The Assassination and Mrs. Paine which was well done and a worthy addition to the subject.

 

[Max Good]

@James DiEugenio

Jim, in one of your interviews with me, you said that:

Quote

on November 23rd, the first person to even mention Oswald's name in relation to the Walker shooting is Michael Paine, in the Houston Post. Now, if for seven months nobody ever mentions Oswald's name in relationship to the Walker shooting, but lo and behold out of nowhere, Michael Paine tells a reporter that it might have been Oswald, well, to me, that's kind of suspicious. Because at that time not even the FBI suspected that Oswald would have been involved in that case.

Is this correct?  Was it the Houston Post or the Chronicle?  I haven't been able to find a mention of this online.  Anyone have any info?

Interestingly, I also found a March 1964 article in the NYT where Ruth is the source linking Oswald to the Walker shooting. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/20/archives/oswald-is-linked-to-shot-at-walker.html