Letters from Russia

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This is remarkable, even by the standards of the internet. The same people who come here day after day and post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald, who always come to his defense like followers of a cult with the most spurious of rationales AND then remain absolutely silent when Ruth Paine and others are smeared with the charge of being traitors, of being behind the assassination of JFK are calling others hypocrites?

We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all.

Who are the phonies and frauds here again?

You can see just about anything on the internet, even the most ludicrous of things. This is one of those cases.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is remarkable, even by the standards of the internet. The same people who come here day after day and post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald, who always come to his defense like followers of a cult with the most spurious of rationales AND then remain absolutely silent when Ruth Paine and others are smeared with the charge of being traitors, of being behind the assassination of JFK are calling others hypocrites?

We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people. Again and again and again we cite this evidence. And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Yet the most absurd charges against others like Ruth Paine are not even questioned. Not the slightest of objection to the smears. You can accuse Ruth Paine of treason. And Michael. And dozens of others of going along with it. And you are not challenged at all.

Who are the phonies and frauds here again?

You can see just about anything on the internet, even the most ludicrous of things. This is one of those cases.

post thousands of irrational and anti-intellectual rants against the evidence against Oswald

Wow, somebody feels superior here..... What a pathetic joke, because a truly intelligent man would listen to other points of view  instead of instantly dismissing them as "irrational and anti-intellectual". You do understand that even the biggest fool considers himself to be the smartest person in the room, don't you?

We cite the volumes of evidence against Oswald. Multiple government investigations over several generations of people - Democrats and Republicans - and multiple news media investigations over several generations of people.

A pathetic appeal to authority. Otherwise known as "they told me so, and I believed it". You do understand you are talking about the same parties who lied to us about Watergate, Iran-contra, Nukes in Iraq etc etc?

Again and again and again we cite this evidence.

Yes, you do... Completely mindlessly and with never understanding, or being willing to understand, that that evidence is shallow, full of speculation and extremely weak.

Who are the phonies and frauds here again?

I would argue that it is those who blindly accept what they were told with no desire to scrutinize any of it.

And each time it's dismissed like we are some heretic challenging the orthodoxy of a religious sect. The Church of Lee.

Oh poor man. When evidence is dismissed it's simply because it isn't valid, authentic or doesn't support the conclusions the Warren Commission based upon it.

You're not a heretic. A fanatic, maybe. But most certainly you are a member of the cult defending your bible, called the Warren Report. No matter how irrational it's content, you will not have it questioned.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

We just had Tracy Parnell review this silly movie about Ruth Paine. In it, one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side, Vincent Salandria, accuses Michael Paine (and Ruth too) of being CIA agents involved in the assassination.

What was, in part, his evidence of Michael's involvement, of his intelligence work? He said this:

"His [Michael Paine's] father was George Lyman Paine, a leading Trotskyian of the West Coast. Michael Paine works for Bell Helicopter. That’s secret clearance! You don’t get that without a quid pro quo! He’s an agent! You know that immediately."

So Michael Paine's father - his father - was a Trotskyite. That's evidence. And he had a security clearance while working on helicopters at Bell. That's also the evidence of his being a agent.

That is nonsense, it's a smear, and it's obvious that it's baseless.

But we got not one single word of protest from the Oswald apologists, the same people oh-so-upset about accusations against him.

Who again are the hypocritical frauds?

[Martin Weidmann]

We just had Tracy Parnell review this silly movie about Ruth Paine. In it, one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side, Vincent Salandria, accuses Michael Paine (and Ruth too) of being CIA agents involved in the assassination.

What was, in part, his evidence of Michael's involvement, of his intelligence work? He said this:

"His [Michael Paine's] father was George Lyman Paine, a leading Trotskyian of the West Coast. Michael Paine works for Bell Helicopter. That’s secret clearance! You don’t get that without a quid pro quo! He’s an agent! You know that immediately."

So Michael Paine's father - his father - was a Trotskyite. That's evidence. And he had a security clearance while working on helicopters at Bell. That's also the evidence of his being a agent.

That is nonsense, it's a smear, and it's obvious that it's baseless.

But we got not one single word of protest from the Oswald apologists, the same people oh-so-upset about accusations against him.

Who again are the hypocritical frauds?

Who again are the hypocritical frauds?

You're one of them. Whining about how some people make claims against the Paines, whilst at the same time making similar claims about a dead man who never had the opportunity to defend himself.

I don't agree with any claims being made about anybody without evidence to back it up. That goes for the Paines as well as for Oswald. In either case, bring me conclusive evidence to back up your claim and I will accept it.

I don't think there is enough evidence to support the claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents, but, having said that, I do find there is circumstantial evidence to support at least a suspicion of them playing some part in this tragedy, in much the same way as there is about George DeMohrenschildt. Some things just don't add up and will never be explained when there are people like you who dismiss everything out of hand instead of having an open discussion about the subject.

Your posts are filled with hypocrisy.

Btw Vincent Salandria is not one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side. At least not for me. There is in fact no conspiracy side in the way you seem to think there is. Salandria is just a guy with an opinion. Just like you and me. He doesn't speak for anybody else just as you don't speak for all LNs. Your generalizations are pathetic.

[John Iacoletti]

You are ranting, insulting other posters, and behaving completely inappropriately. 

Wow. Talk about pots and kettles.

[John Iacoletti]

Once again, Steve Galbraith confuses righteous indignation with evidence.

By the way, I haven’t seen anybody here call Ruth Paine a traitor who was behind the assassination of JFK. Sounds like a strawman.

You don’t “cite volumes of evidence against Oswald”. You cite garbage rhetoric and call it evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

We just had Tracy Parnell review this silly movie about Ruth Paine. In it, one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side, Vincent Salandria, accuses Michael Paine (and Ruth too) of being CIA agents involved in the assassination.

Have you even seen the movie? I doubt it.

[Bill Chapman]

Who again are the hypocritical frauds?

You're one of them. Whining about how some people make claims against the Paines, whilst at the same time making similar claims about a dead man who never had the opportunity to defend himself.

I don't agree with any claims being made about anybody without evidence to back it up. That goes for the Paines as well as for Oswald. In either case, bring me conclusive evidence to back up your claim and I will accept it.

I don't think there is enough evidence to support the claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents, but, having said that, I do find there is circumstantial evidence to support at least a suspicion of them playing some part in this tragedy, in much the same way as there is about George DeMohrenschildt. Some things just don't add up and will never be explained when there are people like you who dismiss everything out of hand instead of having an open discussion about the subject.

Your posts are filled with hypocrisy.

Btw Vincent Salandria is not one of the "deans" of the conspiracy side. At least not for me. There is in fact no conspiracy side in the way you seem to think there is. Salandria is just a guy with an opinion. Just like you and me. He doesn't speak for anybody else just as you don't speak for all LNs. Your generalizations are pathetic.

"You're one of them. Whining about how some people make claims against the Paines, whilst at the same time making similar claims about a dead man who never had the opportunity to defend himself."
_Neither did Kennedy nor Tippit.