JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on February 19, 2025, 01:54:46 PM
-
In my JFKA meditations as I drift off to sleep, I like to ask simple “What’s the deal?” sort of questions.
To wit: Why is Ruth Hyde Paine still alive?
She’s 92, for God’s sake.
Despite being one of the primary monsters in any number of conspiracy theories, there she still sits. Poor Lee Bowers and umpteen others were rubbed out because they knew too much and simply could not be allowed to live, but there sits Ruth.
And doesn’t just sit, mind you. This woman has participated in mock trials and TV programs and given interviews to the point of being accused of being a bit of a publicity hound.
As she has advanced into her 70s, 80s and now 90s, no one has been concerned that she might slip up and spill the beans? I’ll be 75 in two weeks and my wife is a bit concerned about what outlandish thing I might say next, but no one worries about Ruth. As far as anyone can tell, she’s not surrounded by aged CIA handlers disguised as residents of the nursing home.
How do we fit this inconvenient fact into our conspiracy theories, my fellow CTers?
They “got to her,” some of us say. They “know she can be trusted,” some of us say.
But this is my whole point: At 92 and still going strong, how do “they” know she can be trusted? How did they know this when she was 52, 62, 72 and 82? This is a woman who, by most CT accounts, could blow the LN narrative completely out of the water.
Seriously, what’s the deal?
I personally believe there is only one solution. It does require a leap of CT Logic, but that’s OK.
Ruth is so obviously not a part of any conspiracy, so obviously just an ordinary woman thrust into history, that this itself is the proof that she’s a shadowy CIA operative who can be trusted at 92 because she was programmed by MK Ultra types at the age of 18 and has essentially been a walking CIA zombie ever since.
Yeah, that’s it. Isn't it?
-
Is my explanation accepted by the CT community, or does someone have a more plausible one as to why this woman who is among the Keys to It All is still with us? As good CTers, we can't simply ignore the fact that Ruth lives while umpteen others were whacked - can we? Our conspiratorial heroes whacked Lee Bowers and Dorothy Kilgallen but let Ruth not only live but speak freely into her dotage? Highly implausible, no?
-
In my JFKA meditations as I drift off to sleep, I like to ask simple “What’s the deal?” sort of questions.
To wit: Why is Ruth Hyde Paine still alive?
She’s 92, for God’s sake.
Despite being one of the primary monsters in any number of conspiracy theories, there she still sits. Poor Lee Bowers and umpteen others were rubbed out because they knew too much and simply could not be allowed to live, but there sits Ruth.
And doesn’t just sit, mind you. This woman has participated in mock trials and TV programs and given interviews to the point of being accused of being a bit of a publicity hound.
As she has advanced into her 70s, 80s and now 90s, no one has been concerned that she might slip up and spill the beans? I’ll be 75 in two weeks and my wife is a bit concerned about what outlandish thing I might say next, but no one worries about Ruth. As far as anyone can tell, she’s not surrounded by aged CIA handlers disguised as residents of the nursing home.
How do we fit this inconvenient fact into our conspiracy theories, my fellow CTers?
They “got to her,” some of us say. They “know she can be trusted,” some of us say.
But this is my whole point: At 92 and still going strong, how do “they” know she can be trusted? How did they know this when she was 52, 62, 72 and 82? This is a woman who, by most CT accounts, could blow the LN narrative completely out of the water.
Seriously, what’s the deal?
I personally believe there is only one solution. It does require a leap of CT Logic, but that’s OK.
Ruth is so obviously not a part of any conspiracy, so obviously just an ordinary woman thrust into history, that this itself is the proof that she’s a shadowy CIA operative who can be trusted at 92 because she was programmed by MK Ultra types at the age of 18 and has essentially been a walking CIA zombie ever since.
Yeah, that’s it. Isn't it?
Unless she's a KGB agent, of course.
You do know, don't you, that true defector KGB Major Pyotr Deriabin wrote a couple days after the assassination that Marina had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry Oswald and leave the country with him, and that in the early 1970s, CIA Counterintelligence analyst Clare Edward Petty read some WW II VENONA decrypts and came to the conclusion that George DeMohrenschildt was very likely a long-term KGB "illegal"?
-
The whole Ruth Paine was involved or a secret agent is beyond ridiculous. Ruth was a humanitarian who took in Marina because Ruth was a kind soul.
If Ruth wanted to screw over Oswald, she was possibly the best witness to do so.
Ruth could have said Oswald hated Kennedy.
Ruth could have said Oswald kept his rifle in the garage.
Ruth could have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd.
But she said none of that!
JohnM
-
Prove that she is still alive using the CTer/contrarian standard of proof. All you have are claims, allegations, and circumstantial evidence.
-
The whole Ruth Paine was involved or a secret agent is beyond ridiculous. Ruth was a humanitarian who took in Marina because Ruth was a kind soul.
If Ruth wanted to screw over Oswald, she was possibly the best witness to do so.
Ruth could have said Oswald hated Kennedy.
Ruth could have said Oswald kept his rifle in the garage.
Ruth could have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd.
But she said none of that!
JohnM
Ruth could have said Oswald kept his rifle in the garage.
How could she do that, when she claimed she didn't even know there was a rifle in her garage?
Ruth could have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd.
How could she do that when she said she didn't see Oswald leave on 11/22/63?
-
Ruth could have said Oswald kept his rifle in the garage.
How could she do that, when she claimed she didn't even know there was a rifle in her garage?
Ruth could have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd.
How could she do that when she said she didn't see Oswald leave on 11/22/63?
But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.
And if Ruth Paine had been on a "Frame Oswald" mission throughout November of 1963 (as many CTers seem to believe), why wouldn't Ruth have wanted to pad her many alleged post-assassination lies with two more that would certainly have helped "Frame The Patsy" a good deal?
-
Ruth could have said Oswald kept his rifle in the garage.
How could she do that, when she claimed she didn't even know there was a rifle in her garage?
Ruth could have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd.
How could she do that when she said she didn't see Oswald leave on 11/22/63?
Exactly Martin, Ruth just told the truth, and you may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of CT's who paint Ruth Paine in a very unfavourable light, from being the sinister reasoning behind Oswald getting the job at the TSBD, her sister worked for the CIA, Michael her husband worked for Bell Helicopter, evidence that came to light through Ruth and ETC.
Let me elaborate on some of these;
• As for Ruth getting the job at the TSBD, the only reason that Ruth rang Truly for the job was because the local ladies got together for tea at a nearby neighbour and Linnie Mae who also happened to be there had a brother who worked at the Depository which prompted the phone call, how silly is a conspiracy that relies on so many random events?
• Oswald applied for many jobs through October 1963 and could even had been successful at Padget Printing, but Oswald's past of being a troublemaker followed him like glue but just say that Oswald omitted that previous employee, what then?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qx6rMZjm/padgett-job-application1.jpg)
• Oswald's TSBD application didn't have an easily tracible past. But this application did include a number of lies.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnT1TVgX/LHO-TSBD-job-App-101563-docx1.jpg)
• Ruth's sister if I remember correctly was a research assistant with the CIA but where does that go? Did some higher up at the CIA say "hands up if anyone has a relative willing to house our Patsy"? It's just absurd and If it was me, there would be no way I would I would expose a close sibling to so much danger and a potential lifetime of scrutiny, ala Ruth.
• As for Michael working at Bell Helicopter made him compliant in this plot? Give me a break.
• Then there is the evidence that came to light after Ruth discovered it, like iirc the walker note and a letter also written by Oswald to the Russian Embassy. What was she supposed to do, burn it?
So getting back to original questions, if Ruth was coerced into being a participant, what she actually did added very little to Oswald's guilt but if she really wanted to fulfil her "mission" then her evidence could have been some of the most incriminating of them all! Muhaha!
JohnM
-
But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.
And if Ruth Paine had been on a "Frame Oswald" mission throughout November of 1963 (as many CTers seem to believe), why wouldn't Ruth have wanted to pad her many alleged post-assassination lies with two more that would certainly have helped "Frame The Patsy" a good deal?
But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.
True, except for the fact that Oswald was still alive on Day 1 and she had no way of knowing what would happen if he had lived and there was a trial.
And if Ruth Paine had been on a "Frame Oswald" mission throughout November of 1963 (as many CTers seem to believe), why wouldn't Ruth have wanted to pad her many alleged post-assassination lies with two more that would certainly have helped "Frame The Patsy" a good deal?
I don't know if she was on a "Frame Oswald" mission, nor am I aware of he alleged post-assassination lies. What I do wonder about is what Marina Oswald instantly distanced from Ruth and why would tell the DPD officers who came to her house on Friday afternoon that she had been expecting them. At best, it seems a strange thing to say, doesn't it?
But I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator, regardless how useful she may have been in some instances.
-
Exactly Martin, Ruth just told the truth, and you may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of CT's who paint Ruth Paine in a very unfavourable light, from being the sinister reasoning behind Oswald getting the job at the TSBD, her sister worked for the CIA, Michael her husband worked for Bell Helicopter, evidence that came to light through Ruth and ETC.
Let me elaborate on some of these;
• As for Ruth getting the job at the TSBD, the only reason that Ruth rang Truly for the job was because the local ladies got together for tea at a nearby neighbour and Linnie Mae who also happened to be there had a brother who worked at the Depository which prompted the phone call, how silly is a conspiracy that relies on so many random events?
• Oswald applied for many jobs through October 1963 and could even had been successful at Padget Printing, but Oswald's past of being a troublemaker followed him like glue but just say that Oswald omitted that previous employee, what then?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qx6rMZjm/padgett-job-application1.jpg)
• Oswald's TSBD application didn't have an easily tracible past. But this application did include a number of lies.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnT1TVgX/LHO-TSBD-job-App-101563-docx1.jpg)
• Ruth's sister if I remember correctly was a research assistant with the CIA but where does that go? Did some higher up at the CIA say "hands up if anyone has a relative willing to house our Patsy"? It's just absurd and If it was me, there would be no way I would I would expose a close sibling to so much danger and a potential lifetime of scrutiny, ala Ruth.
• As for Michael working at Bell Helicopter made him compliant in this plot? Give me a break.
• Then there is the evidence that came to light after Ruth discovered it, like iirc the walker note and a letter also written by Oswald to the Russian Embassy. What was she supposed to do, burn it?
So getting back to original questions, if Ruth was coerced into being a participant, what she actually did added very little to Oswald's guilt but if she really wanted to fulfil her "mission" then her evidence could have been some of the most incriminating of them all! Muhaha!
JohnM
Exactly Martin, Ruth just told the truth, and you may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of CT's who paint Ruth Paine in a very unfavourable light, from being the sinister reasoning behind Oswald getting the job at the TSBD, her sister worked for the CIA, Michael her husband worked for Bell Helicopter, evidence that came to light through Ruth and ETC.
I don't think I have ever said anything about Ruth Paine, simply because I don't know and don't care to speculate without evidence.
Having said that, I, to this day, still find it odd that she told Detective Rose, on Friday afternoon, she has been expecting DPD officers to show up.
In the same vein, I've never understood (or have been giving a plausible explanation for) why Michael Paine suddenly decided to leave work early and drive to Irving "to see if he could help".
-
I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator, regardless how useful she may have been in some instances.
Glad to hear you say that, Martin. (Is this the very first thing you and I have ever agreed on? Or is it the second?)
Anyway, Martin's comment above ("I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator") is a breath of fresh air after having argued with conspiracy theorists for years in an effort to demonstrate how utterly preposterous it is to believe that Mrs. Paine was part of some kind of plot against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizgj3GI0J2b82_1a1eXWI0q3NPbwgMTINEZ4Dm1_o83fDiU5pN7qblhJlFDR-Lh7W-6UuPCIDyrKkQDstTtFP2xn-0KyfBhFNN4vAQPG_DfEUoLrzwEN0wg7eRZ1YbnERj5bLV00C8_PbLoXOGk3qSC_Hk7zxQqW6GT45wl1wAXt11V1TjZ5bCY2_F/s642/Defending-Ruth-Paine-Logo.jpg) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html)
-
Glad to hear you say that, Martin. (Is this the very first thing you and I have ever agreed on? Or is it the second?)
Your comment above ("I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator") is a breath of fresh air after having argued with conspiracy theorists for years in an effort to demonstrate how utterly preposterous it is to believe that Mrs. Paine was part of some kind of plot against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.
🡻 🡻 🡻
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizgj3GI0J2b82_1a1eXWI0q3NPbwgMTINEZ4Dm1_o83fDiU5pN7qblhJlFDR-Lh7W-6UuPCIDyrKkQDstTtFP2xn-0KyfBhFNN4vAQPG_DfEUoLrzwEN0wg7eRZ1YbnERj5bLV00C8_PbLoXOGk3qSC_Hk7zxQqW6GT45wl1wAXt11V1TjZ5bCY2_F/s642/Defending-Ruth-Paine-Logo.jpg) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html)
The thing you and other LNs have never understood is that I am not a CT.
-
The thing you and other LNs have never understood is that I am not a CT.
But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.
-
But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.
Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!
JohnM
-
But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.
That's just LN paranoia.
All I do is question the evidence and ask questions LNs seem to be unable to answer in a credible manner.
-
Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!
JohnM
Typical LN thinking.
It's really very simple, yet a clown like Mytton simply doesn't understand. There are basically two possibilities; either Oswald did it alone or there must have been a conspiracy.
So, when I question the evidence against Oswald and the LNs come up short in answering my questions (as they frequently do) the likelihood of a conspiracy increases.
It's the inability of the LNs to prove their case against Oswald that actually makes a conspiracy more likely.
The post that I am replying to is a perfect example. I've have never said that my theory is that there was a conspiracy. That's just something Mytton made up, because he desperately needs something to attack me with, when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate. He doesn't do that because he knows just how weak the case against Oswald really is, so he tries to divert attention away by playing silly games.
-
All I do is question the evidence and ask questions LNs seem to be unable to answer in a credible manner.
Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"?
-
Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"?
The only book I have ever read about the assassination is the WC report.
I'm not really interested in the opinion of some biased (either pro or contra) writer and prefer to form my own opinion based on actual evidence, instead of somebody telling me what that evidence means.
-
Typical LN thinking.
It's really very simple, yet a clown like Mytton simply doesn't understand. There are basically two possibilities; either Oswald did it alone or there must have been a conspiracy.
So, when I question the evidence against Oswald and the LNs come up short in answering my questions (as they frequently do) the likelihood of a conspiracy increases.
It's the inability of the LNs to prove their case against Oswald that actually makes a conspiracy more likely.
The post that I am replying to is a perfect example. I've have never said that my theory is that there was a conspiracy. That's just something Mytton made up, because he desperately needs something to attack me with, when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate. He doesn't do that because he knows just how weak the case against Oswald really is, so he tries to divert attention away by playing silly games.
when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate.
Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails, can you please explain, so I know what standard is required to satisfy a standard of guilt or innocence!
And then explain to the me in your own words, what you believe is the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt".
JohnM
-
Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails, can you please explain, so I know what standard is required to satisfy a standard of guilt or innocence!
And then explain to the me in your own words, what you believe is the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt".
JohnM
Oh boy, where to begin.....
Why don't you try by presenting evidence that's selfexplanatory without the long winded explanations about what you think it means (when it usually doesn't) and stop misrepresenting the actual details of the case?
Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails,
You really don't know what conclusive evidence is? Wow! That explains a lot.
-
Oh boy, where to being.....
Why don't you try by presenting evidence that's selfexplanatory without the long winded explanations about what you think it means (when it usually doesn't) and stop misrepresenting the actual details of the case?
Since I really don't know what your personal definition of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" entails,
You really don't know what conclusive evidence is? Wow! That explains a lot.
Oh boy, where to being.....
Yes, I'm eagerly awaiting!
Why don't you try by presenting evidence that's selfexplanatory without the long winded explanations about what you think it means (when it usually doesn't) and stop misrepresenting the actual details of the case?
And as expected it appears you haven't the foggiest. This is not a good start.
You really don't know what conclusive evidence is? Wow! That explains a lot.
Exactly I have no idea what you believe to be "conclusive evidence", that's why I asked the question!
So without further ado, please tell me what you think is your definition of "conclusive evidence" and then instead of the endless roadblocks maybe we can forge ahead and together we solve this case, K?
JohnM
-
But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.
If she had, how would you distinguish between Ruth lying to frame Oswald and Ruth telling the truth because Oswald really did all that?
This is another example of the LN-faithful trying to have it both ways.
-
Yes, I'm eagerly awaiting!
And as expected it appears you haven't the foggiest. This is not a good start.
Exactly I have no idea what you believe to be "conclusive evidence", that's why I asked the question!
So without further ado, please tell me what you think is your definition of "conclusive evidence" and then instead of the endless roadblocks maybe we can forge ahead and together we solve this case, K?
JohnM
I have already told you. Conclusive evidence is selfexplanatory and doesn't require long winded explanations and assumptions
-
In the same vein, I've never understood (or have been giving a plausible explanation for) why Michael Paine suddenly decided to leave work early and drive to Irving "to see if he could help".
Not to mention the "we both know who is responsible" phone call.
-
Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!
Neither one of us have a conspiracy theory. This is just the usual "Mytton" misinformation.
"Conspiracy theorist" is a euphemism among the LN-faithful to mean "dares to question any aspect of our theology".
-
Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!
JohnM
even though his theory is there was a conspiracy
Where and when exactly did I tell you this?
Or did you make it up?
-
I have already told you. Conlusive evidence is selfexplanatory and doesn't require long winded explanations and assumptions
I'm still not clear what you believe is "Conclusive Evidence"?
Btw, I would still like to know the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt", and the level and type of evidence required for each standard?
JohnM
-
I'm still not clear what you believe is "Conclusive Evidence"?
Btw, I would still like to know the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond all doubt", and the level and type of evidence required for each standard?
JohnM
What part of;
Conclusive evidence is selfexplanatory and doesn't require long winded explanations and assumptions
don't you understand?
-
You have a typo.
Thank you for pointing it out!
-
Thank you for pointing it out!
Not to be picky, but there is another.
JohnM
-
The contrarians have taken another thread deep down the rabbit hole wherein we have learned that "conclusive evidence" is "self explanatory." In addition, someone can participate on an Internet forum for years discussing the JFK assassination and interpreting the evidence in tens of thousands of posts in only the most favorable light to Oswald and "not care" who did it or consider themselves a CTer! LOL. That's called eating your cake and having it too. Applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts that you do not want to accept, entertaining baseless counter possibilities, and then refusing to take any position because of the obvious difficulty in defending that position with any facts or evidence much less the standard applied to Oswald's guilt. Round and round we go down the drain of another rabbit hole.
-
The contrarians have taken another thread deep down the rabbit hole wherein we have learned that "conclusive evidence" is "self explanatory." In addition, someone can participate on an Internet forum for years discussing the JFK assassination and interpreting the evidence in tens of thousands of posts in only the most favorable light to Oswald and "not care" who did it or consider themselves a CTer! LOL. That's called eating your cake and having it too. Applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts that you do not want to accept, entertaining baseless counter possibilities, and then refusing to take any position because of the obvious difficulty in defending that position with any facts or evidence much less the standard applied to Oswald's guilt. Round and round we go down the drain of another rabbit hole.
Did somebody just say anything of significance?
-
If Ruth was a conspirator, it might have been just as an informer. The CIA director and agency as a whole may have had nothing to do with the assassination and may not have been aware exactly who might be an informant to the conspirator group of persons.
And it’s doubtful that CIA would eliminate one of their own without definite proof of being a mole or counterspy.
And a conspirator group sharing the same resolution that it was a necessary act to eliminate JFK probably also took some kind of oath never to reveal the truth.
-
If Ruth was a conspirator, it might have been just as an informer. The CIA director and agency as a whole may have had nothing to do with the assassination and may not have been aware exactly who might be an informant to the conspirator group of persons.
And it’s doubtful that CIA would eliminate one of their own without definite proof of being a mole or counterspy.
And a conspirator group sharing the same resolution that it was a necessary act to eliminate JFK probably also took some kind of oath never to reveal the truth.
For what reason? What did she and Michael get out of such an act? Ruth Paine was (I guess still is) a liberal Democrat, was pro-Kennedy, and not the type of person as a self-professed Quaker pacifist to join with essentially a far right wing putsch or treason. Again: treason. I don't think she would conspire with anyone to murder another person much less JFK.
Why did any of these subordinates/agents follow the orders to commit treason? Conspiracists have LBJ or Hoover or Dulles ordering this but never tell us how this was done. Who did they order to commit this act? Who carried it out? This is, again, treason; probably the greatest act of it in history. If they are discovered they will be disgraced forever. But nobody said no? Everyone went along? They were assured they wouldn't be caught? For the rest of their lives? Is this remotely possible? Would you do this?
Back to Ruth Paine. If you read Thomas Mallon's book on her, "Mrs. Paine's Garage", you'll see that she talked about going to Central America in the 1980s as part of a Quaker relief organization to help victims of the Contra war (she was accused by one person of working for the CIA at the time). She said she was disgusted with what the CIA was doing in Nicaragua and protested by withholding 25% of her taxes. That doesn't sound like a person who would mindlessly support the CIA. Wouldn't there be a number of people like this in the government? Who would be told to kill the President? People who liked JFK, liberal democrats. Perhaps not as liberal as Ruth Paine but certainly a Kennedy fan. None of them existed?
Ruth Paine is simply not, for me, the type of person - either politically or emotionally or psychologically - who'd want to kill JFK or be part of a conspiracy to do so. And then keep it quiet? Again, why? Unless one thinks she's pretending to hold these views all of these years. She's sort of a female Herbert Philbrick but in this case a right wing type. If not then why go along with this?
-
Did somebody just say anything of significance?
Keep in mind that you're dealing with people who believe that "cop said so" makes anything conclusive.
-
Keep in mind that you're dealing with people who believe that "cop said so" makes anything conclusive.
When it comes to the JFK assassination, KGB disinformation is much more reliable than what U.S. authorities say about it, right, Iacoletti?
E.g., "Clay Shaw was a fascist CIA agent."
LOL!
-
I think I agree with Steve. There is not enough evidence to warrant that Ruth Paine was a conspirator informer. She might unwittingly have had some of her notes about Oswald being found by somebody pre event, but there is no evidence of that either. Therefore it was an unwarranted speculation on my part to suggest Ruth Paine was a conspirator and I apologize for that.
Plus, I actually use Ruth Paines WC testimony in favor of CT argument because of her observation of the rifle wrapped up in the blanket that was presented to her at her interview, as being not as”flat” as what she remembered seeing the shape of the blanket in the garage in Oct 63 ( she guesses it was Oct but she is not certain).
-
This OP is easily the dumbest I've seen in a while; let's hope this dude doesn't practice law anymore. Ruth Paine was, and still is, all in on the LN narrative, wasting no opportunity to trash talk Oswald. It would make zero sense to eliminate a LN (and Warren Commission) life-long loyalist. Same goes for Michael Paine. RP willingly cooked up all sorts of suspicious incidents tied to Oswald to fuel the official narrative. However, she never went over the top. Back in the day, she was fast and very smart. Most likely a low-level informant along with Michael. After separating from Michael, and probably even earlier, she was getting bored and looked to turn the excitement level up a notch by offering to keep tabs on the Oswalds. I think she honestly saw the opportunity to improve her language skills as well. I doubt she was aware of what was in store for Oswald at a higher level to qualify as a conspirator.
-
Our contrarians are getting lazy. Why haven't they argued that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Ruth Paine is still alive just because "someone says so." Leaving open the possibility that she was actually silenced by roving CIA death squads decades ago and replaced by a "double." No one has ruled this possibility out with "conclusive evidence." LOL. We only have circumstantial evidence and the word of those who allegedly came into contact with a person claiming to be Ruth Paine. That is sufficient to create false doubt in the contrarian "mind" in other contexts.
-
Our contrarians are getting lazy. Why haven't they argued that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Ruth Paine is still alive just because "someone says so." Leaving open the possibility that she was actually silenced by roving CIA death squads decades ago and replaced by a "double."
Yet another ridiculous argument by "Richard". Nobody believes that Ruth Paine is still alive just because someone says so.
Interesting also that "Richard" is the one here invoking CIA death squads and doubles. Yet in Strawman "Smith's" fevered imagination, this nonsense is somehow supposed to prove that Oswald did it.
-
Yet another ridiculous argument by "Richard". Nobody believes that Ruth Paine is still alive just because someone says so.
Interesting also that "Richard" is the one here invoking CIA death squads and doubles. Yet in Strawman "Smith's" fevered imagination, this nonsense is somehow supposed to prove that Oswald did it.
Do you prefer to believe that the tremendous number of witnesses who died within one or two years were killed by solo hitmen rather than by roving death squads?