Ruth Paine remembers the Assassination

[John Iacoletti]

Yes it is. It takes place at her old house that has been renovated to look like it did in 1963 and turned into a museum of sorts. Definitely worth a look.

The Paine House museum is definitely worth a visit if you’re ever in the Dallas area.

I made a couple of videos when I was there a few years ago.

[Charles Collins]

The Paine House museum is definitely worth a visit if you’re ever in the Dallas area.

I made a couple of videos when I was there a few years ago.

Thanks, I plan to visit there the next time I get to Dallas. I noticed the guitar in your video. It was probably there in the interview video when they did a similar tour of the house. But I hadn’t noticed it before.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

One thing for certain is that Paine was one of Oswald's handlers. So anything she did/said must be looked at with that in mind.

Yeah, all the “suspicious behavior” like playing the guitar for her kids when putting them to bed on the eve of the “big event.” And taking her daughter to the dentist on the morning of the “big event.” It’s “so obvious” that she takes the responsibility of her “handling” of LHO very seriously...

A Quaker pacifist housewife with three (or was it two?) small children is a CIA handler for operatives operating out of Ft. Worth, Texas.

This is what they believe.

There is no evidence whatsoever that she was a "CIA handler" for Oswald. None. No documents indicate this, no eyewitnesses have even suggested it. It's complete fantasy. All we get is this "But her sister...!"

Paine testified in the WC and HSCA. At no time did she ever implicate Oswald in the assassination. She never said he expressed hatred towards JFK (in fact, she said she never heard him say anything about JFK). She never said she found his rifle in the garage. She never said she saw him leave that morning with a package. And on and on and on.

If Paine was part of this conspiracy to frame Oswald she could have said far more damaging things than she did. But she didn't. Why?

The Oswald defenders don't like these type of questions. If I was one of them I wouldn't either. Because they can't answer them. They can't even consider them. For if they do their entire fantasy is exposed for what it is.

[Gary Craig]

"JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE
Why He Died And Why It Matters"
By James W. Douglas
p.177

-snip-

"On October 9, 1963, one week before Lee Harvey Oswald began his job at a site overlooking the president's future parade route,
an FBI official in Washington, D.C., disconnected Oswald from a federal alarm system that was about to identify him as a threat to
national security. The FBI man's name was Marvin Gheesling. He was a supervisor in the Soviet espionage section at FBI headquarters.
His timing was remarkable. As author John Newman remarked in an analysis of this phenomenon, Gheesling "turned off the alarm switch
on Oswald literally an instant before it would have gone off."

[Sean Kneringer]

Poor woman. The only thing she's "guilty" of is being a mushy headed leftist.

[Jack Trojan]

Poor woman. The only thing she's "guilty" of is being a mushy headed leftist.

She also blatantly lied about how many back yard photos she took. Someone needs to ask her if any G-men came around snapping photos of Lee posing with the murder weapons and holding up commie lit. (BAAA!)

When Roscoe White developed the photos of Oswald taken with the Imperial Reflex camera, he noticed that none of the headlines could be made out on the commie lit. So he sent his boys back to take the money shot, CE-133A probably with Lee's Minox spy camera. The lenses on each camera have very different spherical aberration, which is evident in the following graphic:



CE-133A & CE-133B,C,D,E,F,G,... were shot with different lenses (cameras). Did that slip Marina's mind?

[John Iacoletti]

CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

How could you possibly know that for a fact?

[Jack Trojan]

Bad shot. Slightly blurred all over. No one in his right mind believes the Roscoe White story.

Are you commenting as a qualified photo analyst? Didn't think so.

Roscoe White was an expert in the darkroom. He joined the DPD Oct 7, 1963, where he was employed in the photo section of the Crime Lab. It was the HSCA that claimed a previously undocumented back yard photo of Oswald was found with Roscoe's widow. She told them Roscoe said it would be very valuable some day. So why wasn't this photo (CE-133c) not admitted into evidence with the rest of them? And what happened to all the negatives? The HSCA only recovered 1 negative of the BYPs, CE-749. And why did the DPD do a re-enactment of CE-133c and then make a cutout of it?



There is no good reason to be doing re-enactments and creating darkroom cutouts of photos that were never admitted into evidence. Explain that one if you are in your right mind.

You think that would make a superior negative? CE-133A was the last of the shots Marina took and she was more confident holding the camera, so it was steadier.

LOL. Superior negative? Last of the shots? Held the camera steadier? Don't embarrass yourself.

LOL! How do you expect anything to match if you don't have parts of Oswald's body that are the same distance to the camera in the two photos compared? In fact, there may not even be parts of his body the same distance to the camera in any two of the photos. The backgrounds aren't necessarily the same distance to the camera in the shots.

Since Oswald was standing within a step or 2 of the same spot in both photos, and his image size on the prints was the same on both negatives, the camera was the same distance from Oswald in both shots. Besides, do you even know how that would distort Oswald's image w.r.t. distances from the camera between CE-133a & c, or do you want me to tell you?

Camera tilt is doing a number on the perspective which in turn distorts proportions of common elements in each picture. Using a tripod or fixed camera position is the most-reliable way to get consistent shots.

You can easily measure the camera tilt from the prints, which puts Oswald's head a few degrees higher in the frame for CE-133c. This slight tilt would be negligent if you were comparing 2 photos shot with the same lens. Instead, the superior quality of the lens that took the "in focus" money shot (CE-133a) was evident compared to all the rest. As a matter of fact the spherical aberration for CE-133b,c,d,etc. all match up to each other perfectly even though there were some tilt differences between them. Check and mate.

Same lens. Differing camera angles and subject positions/posture, and even slightly-differing camera positions.

As if you would know. LOL.

ps. I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion with you about this stuff if you'd take that chip off your shoulder and stop attacking everything I post merely because you are a LNer and you consider me the enemy.