Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

It's a sham. There was a government coverup to hide the evidence of international conspiracy, and to make it look like a lone nut killed the president. Have you forgotten that? You have been fooled by fake evidence.

After carefully studying a photograph of Oswald, Silvia Duran said that that he wasn't the guy who she'd met with. She said that that guy had blond hair and was short, something like 5' 4".

Consul Azcue always claimed the guy he saw wasn't Oswald. And also said the guy was blond.

Cuban intelligence said the guy wasn't Oswald.

J. Edgar Hoover said the guy wasn't Oswald.

You have been fooled by the cover up.

 

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

Marina's testimony is untrustworthy. She had to say what the WC asked her to say.

Evidence indicates that Inspector Holmes participated in the coverup, as did many others in the government, especially the FBI.

 

[Richard Booth]

55 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

You made some serious accusations. It would be fair to substantiate those before backing out

I stated my opinion. I've no requirement to justify it to you, or to anyone else. 

Besides, my opinion on this matter doesn't make any difference. It's not the least bit important. 

[Greg Doudna]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

J. Edgar Hoover said the guy wasn't Oswald.

Hoover never said Oswald wasn’t in Mexico City. He said a photo CiA gave FBI wasn’t Oswald. He told LBJ there might be an impersonator of Oswald in Mexico City. But I’m not aware that he ever said or expressed belief that Oswald himself was not in Mexico City.

Oswald wanted to get to Cuba more than anything according to Marina. Larry Hancock has convinced me the best and simplest way to make sense of Oswald’s ridiculous one-man FPCC show in New Orleans was he had learned or been told that was how he could have a credential to get into  Cuba (not that he was secretly anti-Castro and working for a US agency to take down the pro-Castro FPCC). (Then rudely surprised in Mexico City when told no.)

With all of his desire to get to Cuba, and with that objective as the best explanation of his New Orleans FPCC activity, why wouldn’t he go to Mexico City to try to get in, as Marina said he did (after initially denying that among other initial untrue denials of other things)? 

It wouldn’t rule out an imposter also in Mexico City. But more likely to me it seems the blond haired etc is either some different person by mistake confused in memory as Oswald, or witness error or both. Human error of some kind from months later in memory is a lot simpler explanation than massive faking and planting of disparate kinds of physical evidence and suborning perjuries under oath in a gigantic charade in which Oswald who wanted to get to Cuba never tried. Ockham’s Razor—where there is a choice, the simpler explanation is better. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I have studied that Kittrell mss rather thoroughly and it is clear she is conflating separate instances of two persons ... One was Oswald, and the other is not a mystery, it was Curtis Craford.

 

The second guy Kittrell spoke to could not have been Curtis Craford, for these reasons:

1. Kittrell opened the Oswald file when she spoke to the second guy. Obviously the guy had to have said he was Oswald.
2. Later, when Kittrell wondered if it had been Craford who had impersonated Oswald, she checked for and found his file at the TEC. She discovered that it was inactive. The Oswald file was still active. So she in fact did open Oswald's file when the imposter visited.
3. Kittrell said that the Oswald impersonator laughed boisterously. She saw that the impersonator had no missing teeth,* yet Curtis Craford had two missing front teeth. So he couldn't have been the impersonator. (Kittrell didn't know Craford had missing teeth because his mouth was closed in the photos of him that she saw.)

 

*Surely Kittrell would have noticed missing teeth if that were the case, and realized for sure that the guy wasn't Oswald. But she sill wasn't sure because he looked somewhat like Oswald. It was primarily his mannerisms that were different.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

51 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I've addressed Sandy about the flaws I've seen in his theory, as Greg has recently on this thread.

 

What flaws?

 

[Greg Doudna]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The second guy Kittrell spoke to could not have been Curtis Craford, for these reasons:

It clearly was Craford, based on three reasons: California employment history match; motorcyclist; and Laura Kittrell positively identified him as Craford from the color photo of Craford published in the WC exhibits.

(I am puzzled though by Crafords denial later to Peter Whitmey that it was he in TEC in the Kittrell story, also that front teeth detail. But Craford fits. Kittrell said there was a Craford file there at her office. And Craford was unemployed at the time. Ruby started paying him cash under the table in there somewhere but no legal employment in Oct. And the person Kittrell dealt with basically tried to scam TEC with a Teamster affiliation claim and that could be a possible mob link which agrees with Craford.) 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

[J. Edgar Hoover] told LBJ there might be an impersonator of Oswald in Mexico City.

 

Bingo!

And Silvia Duran said he was an imposter.

And Consul Azcue said he was an imposter.

And Cuban intelligence said he was an imposter.

There are no photos of Oswald visiting the consulates, even though there were a number of surveillance cameras that would have taken photos of Oswald had he gone there.

David Josephs has debunked the story of Oswald taking buses to and from MC. Why did the U.S. government hide the early (fabricated) reports that Oswald and associates traveled there by car?

Get a clue, Greg.

 

Also, why was Silvia Duran beaten by Mexican Police if there weren't VERY EARLY stories of her being involved in the assassination plot??

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And Silvia Duran said he was an imposter.

And Consul Azcue said he was an imposter.

And Cuban intelligence said he was an imposter.

There are no photos of Oswald visiting the consulates, even though there were a number of surveillance cameras that would have taken photos of Oswald had he gone there.

Not a single one of these points negates the possibility that the real Lee Oswald was actually in Mexico City at the time.

[Kirk Gallaway]

37 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

I stated my opinion. I've no requirement to justify it to you, or to anyone else. 

Besides, my opinion on this matter doesn't make any difference. It's not the least bit important. 

Oh come on Richard! I've counted nothing short of 13 posts from you here! Are you going to duck out like Di Eugenio?

I want to see if you  thought this thing out at all. These posts don't give me much confidence.

Richard: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.

 

You're obviously parachuting in here Richard because Max's film has been made reference to many times on this thread..Ok you can criticize the lengths of Greg's posts, but maybe you should review  the thread and make sure you're not saying a lot of stuff that's been said before.

 

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

 

Self evident?, So now you're Ben Franklin? (look it up!)That' just more nonsense Richard. Evidence does matter and  RP would  never get near being found guilty in a court of law., When Di Eugenio  laments that if Carol Hewitt could have lived she would have produced a result that would have put Ruth in jail, that's just another Di Eugenio innuendo pipe dream!

Another conspiracy whopper fish that got away turned legend!.

Just more arrogant bluster.

 

But I'll ask the question again.

 

Richard, taking this in a completely different direction than you and Greg. Let me ask a question that I asked before on this thread several times before to no answer from Jim,but in fairness the only one who answered is Sandy, with his explanation that I see as a rather hybrid, explanation that neither you, as I understand, or I would embrace. I've addressed Sandy about the flaws I've seen in his theory, as Greg has recently on this thread.

 

But here's what it seems your theory implies.

 

 

Under the normal practice  of spy craft,  Ruth having been an accomplice to the the killing of the POTUS, would have spent the rest of her life in seclusion, away from the public eye! She was told to do so by her CIA handlers, who could well have threatened her life! After all, these are the same people who killed a President, killed LHO and numerous others shortly after the assassination and then years later, when they became more sophisticated,  took down a sitting President from office ( Nixon) for knowing too much.Do you believe that Richard? If so, fine.

 

 

But when asked to retire, Ruth would have none of it, and told her handlers to got to hell! Because she was going to take on all comers who question the findings in the WR,  And then a decade later, anxious to return to the limelight, Ruth  insisted on continuing her spy activities in Nicaragua!, because she saw herself as indispensable to the agency, and no one was going to tell her differently!

 

To believe your account RP accomplished greatest public spy feat of the 20th and 21st century. She been taking on all comers ever since, open to every  interview , mockumentary and tv  shows for the next 60 years after the assassination and shuts down every tough interviewer.

Such an infamously stellar career, I would think has to be begrudgingly acknowledged by you.

 

Do you believe this story? Feel free to modify it.

 

[Miles Massicotte]

On 11/26/2023 at 12:00 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Miles thanks for this. But could I ask a question, not as disagreement or argument but as simple curiosity: when you say even though you thought Oswald in the Sport Shop rang true and was not fabricated, "I wasn't personally convinced  about Oswald borrowing Michael Paine's car ... I am wondering if perhaps they were brought there by a third party, but that is pure speculation."

Could you elaborate on what caused you caution, or reluctance, or however you want to term it, for the borrowing of Michael Paine's car detail?

It was a white over blue two-tone sedan older American car, and at the Furniture Mart Lee was seen pulling in and parking, then leaving again, driving a white over blue two-tone sedan older American car. Lee was seen driving in a car matching the description of Michael Paine's car which was parked at Ruth's house and, provided Lee and Marina found where Ruth kept her key to that car in a drawer somewhere, was means and opportunity.

Is it skepticism that Lee had sufficient driving skill or ability to drive local city blocks? But Lee was capable of doing that, even Ruth herself I believe said at one point that she believed Lee was capable of passing a driving test if he had taken it, he could drive well enough to that level. And to get to the Furniture Mart and nearby Sport Shop at all that morning of Nov 11, plus with a rifle, during the hours Ruth was gone definitely required a car, and Lee was seen driving with no other driver and no one else in the car (which looked like Michael Paine's car) other than Lee, Marina, 2-year old June, and the baby. 

Is it because you think Lee and Marina would not collude in lying to Ruth in that way, to borrow a car without telling her, had not done that kind of thing before, would not do that? Is it the driving ability of Lee issue? Is it the minor mismatches of make and model of the blue-over-white car remembered by the two women witnesses who saw Lee driving that car even though they got the colors right?

From my point of view it is a perfect explanation that explains everything, the borrowing of Michael Paine's car, then returning and parking it where it was before, locking it back up, returning the key to whatever drawer of Ruth's in the house they had obtained it, Ruth returns home later in the afternoon none the wiser, they don't tell her ... what about that, if you are willing to say, still nagged at you as not sold on the idea? (Not seeking to change your mind, but curious simply to know.) Thanks--

Also, I don't think it was the borrowing of Michael's car without telling Ruth, in itself, which would explain why Marina never reconnected with Ruth. That in itself would be an easy one to later confess and patch up, not a major big deal. My thinking has been that it was the purpose of the trip, not the mechanism of getting there, which was the real issue: the rifle. For Marina to reconnect with Ruth would necessarily require either actually confessing in full and being truthful about that (and that could not help but become public, with repercussions), or continuing living a lie to Ruth after reconnection about that rather major thing, and I can imagine someone like Marina preferring to stay disconnected without explanation rather than the psychological discomfort of either of those alternatives. That was my line of thinking on that.

Hi Greg, hope you are doing well.

From my perspective, it is not Lee's driving ability, nor Lee and Marina's willingness to lie to Ruth. 

As far as Lee's driving ability, I don't put much into that. As you correctly mention, Ruth mentioned that Lee could probably pass a driver's test. I personally don't think that driving is such a difficult task that, even if Lee was completely terrible at it, that he could make to the Furniture Mart for example, even if it was a bumpy ride.

I also have my reasons to suspect that both Lee and Marina would have their own perfectly sufficient reasons to lie to Ruth. Lee, because he was secretive. Because he was certainly hiding something. I have no doubt he lied even to Marina about that (i.e. the Walker shooting). Marina on the other hand, I feel it is a 50/50 scenario: 50% she would be willing to lie because she felt she had to be a good wife to Lee (as she told the press) and 50% because Ruth was physically attracted to her and it made her uncomfortable. That, at least, is the thesis of part of my own Oswald thesis. I don't believe Ruth Paine has lied about anything important, but I do have a feeling that she has kept something away from the public, and it is her inordinate kindness towards Marina which was ultimately born from physical attraction. If I had felt similarly, I probably would have acted the same way Ruth did. I think Ruth was a kind and sincere individual, but he letters to Marina hint at more than kindness and sincerity, in my opinion. 

In any case, no, I don't have any qualms about the Oswalds' ability to lie to Ruth, or about Lee's driving ability. 

Gertrude Hunter was insistent that she saw a Ford. As you know, the Paine's car was an Oldsmobile. If Mrs. Hunter's recollection was "it was some kind of older American car", then I would be with you. But she was quite sure it was a Ford.

Was it blue and white? Yes, but it's not like there was a massive range of colors in those days. A blue and white two tone car is not horribly specific. I tend to think that the positive identification of the car as a Ford outweighs the color.

I also take some issue with the following paragraph:

"It is not necessary to know exactly how Lee or (perhaps more likely) Marina knew where that key was and obtained it without Ruth’s knowledge, only that that is what happened. 
We know that happened, because the car was driven. Lee was seen driving it: the blue and white Olds, that car, the one parked in front of Ruth Paine’s house on the morning of Nov 11 before Lee drove it to the Furniture Mart."

For me, this is a bit circular. As I am not convinced that the same blue and white car is being referenced, I can't accept that it is not necessary to know exactly how the Oswald's got the key. In fact, such knowledge would ultimately aid in convincing me that perhaps Mrs. Hunter was mistaken in her identification of the car as a Ford. 

So, I'm not saying that your thesis is wrong by any means, just that I wasn't convinced by it, and this is why. It is entirely plausible. But I imagine if Ruth Paine herself wasn't convinced, it might be something along these lines. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

54 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And Silvia Duran said he was an imposter.

And Consul Azcue said he was an imposter.

And Cuban intelligence said he was an imposter.

There are no photos of Oswald visiting the consulates, even though there were a number of surveillance cameras that would have taken photos of Oswald had he gone there.

Expand  

54 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Not a single one of these points negates the possibility that the real Lee Oswald was actually in Mexico City at the time.

 

Oswald could have been anywhere, even in Mexico City. But he certainly didn't visit the Cuban Consulate.

 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

I stated my opinion. I've no requirement to justify it to you, or to anyone else. 

Besides, my opinion on this matter doesn't make any difference. It's not the least bit important. 

Yes, it is Richard, you are intelligent and knowledgeable.  A little bit younger perspective is appreciated by some of us older farts.  Who won't be here forever.  The forum needs you and others to continue to seek the Truth.

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

also that front teeth detail. But Craford fits.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

 

The second guy Kittrell spoke to could not have been Curtis Craford, for these reasons:

1. Kittrell opened the Oswald file when she spoke to the second guy. Obviously the guy had to have said he was Oswald.
2. Later, when Kittrell wondered if it had been Craford who had impersonated Oswald, she checked for and found his file at the TEC. She discovered that it was inactive. The Oswald file was still active. So she in fact did open Oswald's file when the imposter visited.
3. Kittrell said that the Oswald impersonator laughed boisterously. She saw that the impersonator had no missing teeth,* yet Curtis Craford had two missing front teeth. So he couldn't have been the impersonator. (Kittrell didn't know Craford had missing teeth because his mouth was closed in the photos of him that she saw.)

 

New information noted, correction made.

 

[Richard Booth]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Yes, it is Richard, you are intelligent and knowledgeable.  A little bit younger perspective is appreciated by some of us older farts.  Who won't be here forever.  The forum needs you and others to continue to seek the Truth.

Thank you very much, Ron.

My intent wasn't so much to be self-deprecating but rather to just make the point that "who cares what my opinion is" -- to say that others need not write so many paragraphs about this or ask me additional details because what I think about Ruth Paine just is not important (unless you're Ruth's self appointed circle of public defenders, to them I'm sure these are "serious allegations")