Cliff Varnell Posted October 29 Posted October 29 Ruth Paine's mother-in-law was friends with Allen Dulles. Do we need a file to infer her connection to the CIA? To me, the question is would Paine sign up to host the family of a commie Kennedy killer knowing the plan was to blame Castro? Would Dulles sign up someone in that role with one degree of separation from himself?
Denny Zartman Posted October 29 Posted October 29 21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Ruth Paine's mother-in-law was friends with Allen Dulles. Do we need a file to infer her connection to the CIA? No, we don't. Her sister straight up worked for the CIA. Additionally, there's a line from J. Walton Moore to George de Mohrenschildt to Ruth Paine, which brings Oswald to Dallas and puts him in the Texas School Book Depository. As I see it, it's not hard to connect the dots, and I personally don't need it confirmed by a file. But there are some folks that wouldn't believe Paine was involved even if there was a picture of her holding a CIA paystub with her name on it.
Cliff Varnell Posted October 29 Posted October 29 27 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: No, we don't. Her sister straight up worked for the CIA. Additionally, there's a line from J. Walton Moore to George de Mohrenschildt to Ruth Paine, which brings Oswald to Dallas and puts him in the Texas School Book Depository. As I see it, it's not hard to connect the dots, and I personally don't need it confirmed by a file. But there are some folks that wouldn't believe Paine was involved even if there was a picture of her holding a CIA paystub with her name on it. My question is -- was she knowingly involved with the plot to kill Kennedy and blame Castro? That's a lot of heat to bring down on oneself.
Kevin Balch Posted October 29 Posted October 29 2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: An awful lot of people are comfortable with living in the Christian Fascist police state Trump and his advisors openly promise. The key word there is "awful." I don’t think Trump gives a F about the holy rollers and he will never need their votes again. At any rate, he can placate them by kissing Israel’s ass which he certainly will do. Of course Harris will do the same but she will temper her rhetoric about it. If we’re going to be Israel’s bitch, maybe it’s better to be over the top about it and have the consequences tied to the policies.
Kevin Balch Posted October 29 Posted October 29 (edited) 15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Great thinking there, Kevin... because owning the loony lib snowflakes is important, eh? 🙄 First the loony libs created Social Security, then they created Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. What'll they think of next-- climate change mitigation and restoring pre-2001 tax rates on billionaires? Yup! I guess it also means helping Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza. What would we ever do with liberal compassion? Edited October 29 by Kevin Balch
Kirk Gallaway Posted October 29 Posted October 29 1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said: Her sister straight up worked for the CIA. So did 5000 other members Denny . When we say the CIA killed JFK. Do you think we mean every person who worked at the CIA? Ok, she claimed she didn't know where her sister, 10 years older than her worked. I can see skepticism. I think the theorist that cite this and are big on "Ruth Paine has critical knowledge about the Kennedy assassination that's she's been hiding from us for 60 years" are probably big fans of the TV game show the "Family Feud!" So Dulles had it out to kill JFK and sought out from among his tremendous assets from his old haunts and couldn't get many takers so he asked his family and took a chance on inexperienced in law? Does that sound like good spycraft? Still lunging at low hanging fruit, just like the people who insist that GHW Bush, who was planning a run for Congress was actually one of the COO's in Dealey Plaza and was seen in a picture afterward shooting the sh-t with a bunch of yahoos. Again does that exposure sound like good spycraft? There's a reason we haven't solbed this in 60 years.
Cliff Varnell Posted October 29 Posted October 29 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: I don’t think Trump gives a F about the holy rollers and he will never need their votes again. They're his shock troops. He needs them to keep the rest of the citizenry intimidated. 32 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: At any rate, he can placate them by kissing Israel’s ass which he certainly will do. Of course Harris will do the same but she will temper her rhetoric about it. Harris is interested in placating Christian fascists? Do tell... 32 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: If we’re going to be Israel’s bitch, maybe it’s better to be over the top about it and have the consequences tied to the policies. Do you understand what Project 2025 is about? Women will have their menstrual cycles monitored by the State because Israel policy should be over the top? Do you understand the stakes of this election? Edited October 29 by Cliff Varnell
Cliff Varnell Posted October 29 Posted October 29 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: Yup! I guess it also means helping Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza. What would we ever do with liberal compassion? Student protests against Biden's Gaza policy so depressed his approval rating he had to give notice. Edited October 29 by Cliff Varnell
Kirk Gallaway Posted October 29 Posted October 29 31 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: At any rate, he can placate them by kissing Israel’s ass which he certainly will do. Of course Harris will do the same but she will temper her rhetoric about it. If we’re going to be Israel’s bitch, maybe it’s better to be over the top about it and have the consequences tied to the policies. Then..... 31 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: Yup! I guess it also means helping Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza. So by your own definition you yourself are Bibi's bitch right, Kevin? Are you as pro Ukraine War? i think i got it. Own the libs, try to shock the libs. Liberals are kind of elitist and always try to hit you with facts, like W. talking about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,Obamacare Etc. To you, those are just programs you've paid into and you've heard will be insolvent before you could get any benefit from? Right?
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29 Posted October 29 (edited) 2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: My question is -- was [Ruth Paine] knowingly involved with the plot to kill Kennedy and blame Castro? That's a lot of heat to bring down on oneself. Of course Ruth wasn't knowingly involved in the JFKA. She didn't have the need-to-know, and therefore in a compartmentalized project would not be told about it. Ruth had to have been CIA connected. I mean, how else can it be explained that Oswald, as patsy, just happened to work in the place from which shots were fired? (Or allegedly fired?) I think it is likely that Ruth was simply instructed by her handler to befriend Oswald. And that Oswald was instructed by his handler (de Mohrenschildt?) to befriend Ruth Paine. Edited October 29 by Sandy Larsen
Mart Hall Posted October 29 Posted October 29 10 hours ago, Gil Jesus said: I don't buy that the CIA is protecting sources and methods. First of all, all the sources are dead. Second of all, with all the technological advances in the last 60 years, I don't believe they're using the same methods. It's BS, IMO. Release the files, unredacted. 4 hours ago, Pat Speer said: First of all, we don't know if the human sources are all dead. A small number of people who were informants in their 20s and 30s could still be alive. And second of all, methods--which could very well involve secret relationships with foreign intelligence agencies--are almost certainly still extant after 60 years. Think about a recent situation. I seem to remember that some fool shared our intelligence on a certain region with an adversary, without realizing that it wasn't our intelligence at all, but the intelligence of an ally, and that in the process he had put numerous sources at risk. IF it were to be revealed that, say, Israel had assets in Russia in 1963, that fed us information, that could lead to a Russian round-up of the families of those involved, etc. It's a tricky situation. So, no, a release of all that's been redacted is not the best solution, IMO. Much more important, IMO, is that an effort be performed to corral documents never put in the archives--such as those recently discussed by Morley--and the interviews performed by Manchester and CBS. There is revealing info still out there, IMO, but I doubt much of it is in the archives. Let's not forget that the the process laid out in the JFK Act required the POTUS to certify and document the reasons for not releasing each record that was not released in 2017. If the contents of these last few thousand records are benign as far as implicating the government or contradicting the previous "investigations" then why has the law not been followed? What would be so harmful in certifying and documenting the reasons for witholding the remaining records? I agree with both of the cases you two have put forward, but there is a mechanism for dealing with both cases however the government/POTUS does not want to follow the law. I can't think of a single good reason why they would not follow the law, but I can think of plenty of bad reasons.
Pat Speer Posted October 29 Posted October 29 7 minutes ago, Mart Hall said: Let's not forget that the the process laid out in the JFK Act required the POTUS to certify and document the reasons for not releasing each record that was not released in 2017. If the contents of these last few thousand records are benign as far as implicating the government or contradicting the previous "investigations" then why has the law not been followed? What would be so harmful in certifying and documenting the reasons for witholding the remaining records? I agree with both of the cases you two have put forward, but there is a mechanism for dealing with both cases however the government/POTUS does not want to follow the law. I can't think of a single good reason why they would not follow the law, but I can think of plenty of bad reasons. I would put it down to contempt. "I'm a busy man. I can't be bothered with following the letter of the law if it distracts me from more important ventures, golf, etc." Biden was probably told it wasn't necessary and said okey doke. Trump would not have done it even if he'd been told it wasn't necessary. IMO, he would have sooner released all the records even if it meant people getting killed than lose a day of watching TV or playing golf.
Denny Zartman Posted October 29 Posted October 29 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: So did 5000 other members Denny . When we say the CIA killed JFK. Do you think we mean every person who worked at the CIA? No, I'm just saying there are verifiable connections between Ruth Paine and the CIA in addition to her family connection with Dulles. 4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: So Dulles had it out to kill JFK and sought out from among his tremendous assets from his old haunts and couldn't get many takers so he asked his family and took a chance on inexperienced in law? Does that sound like good spycraft? I'm not sure why my opinion on spycraft quality matters. I personally think actively experimenting with a long term program cultivating doubles sounds like excellent spycraft, but that idea is also routinely rejected here by many folks as being too far fetched. So, maybe I'm not the best judge of spycraft quality. That Dulles would spearhead the assassination while also enthusiastically accepting a key role in the official investigation is also unbelievable... ...or is it? (Paine did attend an expensive Russian language school, didn't she? Maybe she had a little more experience/value than your average Dallas Quaker housewife. I might be also bold enough to suggest that any cursory examination of Paine at the time would have likely revealed her name of Forbes. I'm aware she denies being part of the more famous and wealthy Forbes family, but I just have to wonder if the revelation of that particular name might have opened some doors for her, or quietly closed some uncomfortable lines of inquiry.) Still, the fact remains that Ruth Paine had at least two connections to the CIA: through her sister and through George de Mohrenschildt. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Paine selected the interpreter for Marina's police interviews, as well as sitting in on the interviews themselves. Some might argue that Paine was being used to monitor what Marina was saying, or maybe even filtering Marina's statements. Seems to me a person like that would be a valuable resource for conspirators looking to frame a patsy. Edited October 29 by Denny Zartman
Denny Zartman Posted October 29 Posted October 29 5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: My question is -- was she knowingly involved with the plot to kill Kennedy and blame Castro? That's a lot of heat to bring down on oneself. I think it's hard, maybe impossible, to say exactly what Ruth Paine thought what was going on before the assassination. That she and her husband were mainly monitoring local Communist activities is a reasonable guess imho. I'm sure information was compartmentalized, and that she was aware of that aspect of amateur spycraft. But the fact that Paine was onboard with the effort to frame Oswald almost immediately after the assassination indicates to me that she likely wouldn't have been opposed to the idea of being involved in such a high level operation with that specific goal. If she wasn't a CIA asset, it's just coincidence that she effectively performed many duties a CIA asset could have been expected to provide in the same situation. It's well known that Paine was questioned by the Warren Commission more than any other witness. Her importance is undeniable. It seems to me that the expensive language school Paine attended would certainly be on the radar of any competent intelligence agency. Just speculating here... maybe it was a little more than just a language school? Maybe the CIA found out her true political views and how compliant she would be in performing certain operations. With access to her sister, they would know practically everything about Ruth anyway. Something that's never mentioned here - isn't there a chance that the same personality traits that caused Ruth's sister to apply for the CIA (and be accepted) would also be present in Ruth as well?
W. Niederhut Posted October 30 Posted October 30 24 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: I think it's hard, maybe impossible, to say exactly what Ruth Paine thought what was going on before the assassination. That she and her husband were mainly monitoring local Communist activities is a reasonable guess imho. I'm sure information was compartmentalized, and that she was aware of that aspect of amateur spycraft. But the fact that Paine was onboard with the effort to frame Oswald almost immediately after the assassination indicates to me that she likely wouldn't have been opposed to the idea of being involved in such a high level operation with that specific goal. If she wasn't a CIA asset, it's just coincidence that she effectively performed many duties a CIA asset could have been expected to provide in the same situation. It's well known that Paine was questioned by the Warren Commission more than any other witness. Her importance is undeniable. It seems to me that the expensive language school Paine attended would certainly be on the radar of any competent intelligence agency. Just speculating here... maybe it was a little more than just a language school? Maybe the CIA found out her true political views and how compliant she would be in performing certain operations. With access to her sister, they would know practically everything about Ruth anyway. Something that's never mentioned here - isn't there a chance that the same personality traits that caused Ruth's sister to apply for the CIA (and be accepted) would also be present in Ruth as well? Denny, Your question made me think of that classic rock album by Spirit-- The Family That Plays Together. Ruth Paine's family were all CIA.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now