Search found 39 matches for 1

The Hobbits Strike Back!! The Revenge of Jimbo Baggins

No fucking way was that a hummingbird man!!!

It was a Jewish bumblebee, going round the poor maligned goyim flowers...sucking out the pollen grains ( and dollar bills) as reparations for the Holohoax...no wait it was the infamous Mothman of Sanibel( America's #1 indecent exposin' supernatural entity)...you can see him getting ready to " do his thing".. 

You brainwashed sheeple are just like wilfully blind , man!! Look at the " wings"..see how " blurry" they are...if you lot would open up your minds baby!! Stop believing the propaganda the ZOG controlled media churns out ..

Send $1000( cash or cheques only ..payable to the Dr Obuku Millegan Charitable Foundation c/o L' Ecole L'Huile de Serpent Gabarone Botswana) and receive your Miracle X Ray Goggles...as used by Spiderman, Jack White and Ted Bundy..see the alterations the CIA Illuminati Freemason Deep State stooges /technical wizards performed...see " the hummingbird's" purple Purim robes flappin'...or if you have a strong constitution and you are partial to a bit of anti semitic interdimensional detrousering gaze in awe upon the Mothman's magical uncircumcised member...

See the Secret Service man airwanking the invisible 8 foot rabbit who just popped out his hole in the middle of Elm Street.." Eh what's up Doc? Anyone seen a puny Hungarian bunny with sloping ears?"

Seriously Chris, for the life of me I can't figure out how anyone could think  " Prayerman" looks like a woman...

This isn't some Badgeman or Blackdog man Rorschach test...it's a clearly defined male figure..his receding hairline is clearly visible..Oswald or not it seems pretty obvious he's a youngish male with a dark receding hairline dressed casually for manual labour...

Someone ( and I don't for an instant think it was you) IMHO has clearly been fucking around with your enhancement.. conversely their enhancements" HAVE so degraded the image it has been transformed into a Rorschach test, of sorts...

One of the things that really bothers me is the fussy minded obsession with faux platitudes..a bunch of musty clunged spinsters clucking and clacking .. anyone who wants to spread a whole load of preposterous lies are made welcome... what's that? You want to aggressively pimp your cultlike theory? Come on down!! But remember to wipe your shoes..or how about peddling a load of nonsensical " photo analysis"? No problemo!! 

Mozart's reincarnation? Bob Dylan is writing songs addressed to you because he wants to vampirise the magic flute? Hey that's just fantastic, fancy giving a presentation about it? Anyone who wants to spread the most ridiculous falsehoods , any hustler who wants to trawl for perspective marks...no problemo at all!! But woe betide anyone who has the temerity to call a spade a spade and not a gardening implement

Was Paul Trejo polite? Lord Gordo's obsession with outward appearances is the equivalent of someone continually repainting their rusty old car, it may look attractive but it's still a heap of fucking junk..



I think characters who attempt to exploit and/or profit from a major historical tragedy deserve nothing but contempt.. Characters who try to bamboozle newbies with reams of deceptive derp...
Without doubt Jim DiE is the dominant voice over there, his tepid " agnosticism" allows Baggins and co free reign to swamp the place with their preposterous trash...

I think the self destructive Titanic like mania for order and primness ..in this case the empty chattering voices and the dulcet warblings of the magic flute help to drown out the crashing waves of indifference....  is the equivalent of intellectual suicide....as research slips ever deeper into the vortex...not I hasten to add the vortex Mahler smuggled into America hidden under his skiddy y fronts...but the twilit vortex , a swirling hellhole of hate, extremism and far out troofer crankery..

Satire is one of the most effective means...the individuals we satirise here: the Hargroves/ Larsens/ Liftons/ Juddufkis/ Millegans and co have made themselves into valid targets.. what they do  is absolutely reprehensible..

Don Jeffries too was unfailingly polite...but he is also a dangerous buffoon... the archetypal useful idiot spreading the contagion of hatred and intolerance..

This forum provides a valuable, no, an essential service..and we do it with a nod and a smile..if we can get the genuinely open minded lurkers, who are maybe just dipping their toes into this case, to laugh at a bit of light hearted badinage , they may just see those characters for the preposterous fools/ charlatans they are..

There's a wealth of real cutting edge material here , serious potentially paradigm shifting research...it's the juxtaposition that makes this forum absolutely unique.

The rest of our friends can continue lolling about on their nice comfy deckchairs... listening to Mozart's reincarnation tootle " Closer My God To Thee" on her magic flute, while the resident image analysts can ooh and aah in wonder at the splendiferous sights... " I say First Mate Baggins is that the sunlight reflecting off the top of a giant iceberg or is it a choir of celestial doppelgangers coming fluttering across the grey ocean to serenade us on our way from Budapest to New York?....no of course not!! How silly of me!! It's obviously a husky polar bear helping his puny Hungarian doppelbear into his US Marines uniform"

Laughter is what these characters fear most...pissants and cheapjack hustlers bloated with a false sense of self importance... I mean how fucking deluded must you be to think the CIA or whomever is going to dispatch a team of crack disinformation operatives to combat the combined menace of Fezzo, Professor Larsen and John fucking Butler???

Unless they've got secret intel regarding an imminent attack of 100 foot fez wearing centipedes wearing lead soled cowboy boots...

Jimbo Baggins has yet againpopped his puce goateed face out the door of his cosy little Hobbit hole... " Bolton Ford hasn't been debunked!!" he whines .. just hoping someone replies... giving him the opportunity to dump the same old regurgitated guff...a mixture of cherry picked semi demi truths and outright distortion..

Anyone who attempts to play ridiculous games with the evidence deserves nothing but contempt and ridicule...

How many words was that Mr Case??

Why not head over to your old friend Tommy's Facebook page? IMHO you just don't get what makes this forum so unique..Tommy's line in hateful non sequitur , bemoaning his own insufferable mediocrity by taking his frustrations out on others...now that's more up your street...

A Dialogue between Angleton and Machiavelli on the Grassy Knoll..

alex_wilson wrote:To be honest Chris, I see absolutely nothing untoward , just a guy in a suit.. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm not able to perceive, or indeed comprehend,  in a technical sense, at least, the point you are trying to make.

That’s a start. We actually agree the figure is a guy in a suit. Think of where his physical location is.

And even if there is an anomaly could it not have a perfectly reasonable non sinister explanation? Could it not just be a simple matter involving sprocket holes? As Jake suggests?

I’d be interested to hear the explanation for this next gif after my description.

For the life of me I can't fathom why anyone would bother altering someone's shoulder....how does Ready's shoulder affect the narrative?. Perhaps you will say it's an artifact of alteration...but being completely honest Chris that makes no sense. To me at least.

It hides reactions. Primarily to a shot.

If all these intricate alterations were possible, why instead of altering Ready's shoulder or Mary Moorman's shoes, or any one of the seemingly endless anomalies , did they not just alter a film, or a photo and put an Oswald like figure in the 6th floor window? Why go to all the trouble only to leave a film/ photo record that strongly suggests a conspiracy?

Total exoneration for the SS, FBI, WC. Whether a lack of duty or some type of direct involvement. Oswald the sole goat.

To be perfectly candid I think a lot of alterations are simply people, predisposed to the idea of alteration, who do not possess the necessary technical knowledge, looking at images they don't have the prerequisite training to properly evaluate ,and seeing something that appears to be an " anomaly" they claim alteration...

The images have to agree with photographic principles. See description of gif.

An expert in one subject is not automatically an expert in everything...

There are always experts on both sides. Court trials include both prosecuting and defense experts.

But Chris with the greatest respect I don't think it's mathematicians we should be listening to. Am I correct in thinking that you're basing your calculations on the Secret Service ( FBI?) reenactment? I'd like to discuss your theory mainly because I disagree with you. 

How can you disagree with me when you state you don’t understand what I’m providing for you, mathematically.
The SS, FBI, WC reenactments are a lesson in common sense mind fu—ing.

Chris, please don't be offended or take what I'm about to say in the wrong way, if I was you I'd try to make my theory more accessible. The Swan Song thread was absolutely incomprehensible. 

The Swan Song thread is my repository. Enter at your own risk.

Anyway if you have the time and the patience I'd be interested to discuss your theory in greater detail. I'd be incredibly grateful if you would be kind enough to spell out your central thesis in terms a layman could understand.

Eventually, I might do that for you.
Since we appear to perceive life approx 180° out relating to the assassination(I do appreciate your insight's on the Holocaust) it might not be worth the effort.
I’ll base that on this last gif, plus the description provided and your response.
Hope you understand.

Anatomy 101
#1 is Ready’s left shoulder line
#2 does not belong to Ready
#2 is the left arm +hand+partial shoulder+partial left side torso of somebody.
That arm/shoulder/torso is facing fairly close to the same direction as Ready.
There is no human head attached to it unless you want to somehow convince others the head is cocked downwards. Good luck with that!!!
That arm/shoulder/torso is not in front of Ready
 #3 is an object in front of where Ready’s left shoulder connects to his arm
The only thing we should see in #3 is the rest of Ready’s shoulder/arm connection just as we see in the layered unaltered frame.
There should be nothing(because there was nothing) in front of Ready. I suggest watching the fade in/out very carefully at that moment.
#4 is Ready’s hand holding the QueenMary hand bar.
The unaltered frame also shows Ready holding the hand bar unobstructed. This is what one would expect when there is no obstruction  accounted for.

As I stated previously, I don’t need to supply an explanation for why the alteration exists (hiding reactions to shot, among other items) only that it does.

A Dialogue between Angleton and Machiavelli on the Grassy Knoll..

Gif caption #1 " For the last time Mr Butler the shape of my nose is the result of evolution...Mac Wallace did NOT bend it and then use me to fire poison darts out of the ladies toilet on the 2nd floor of the Dal Tex building"

#2 " For the last time Mr Doyle I was NOT Jimi Hendrix's manager and intel spooks did NOT use me to pour 5 bottles of wine down the guitarist's throat "

#3 " No , Mr Hughes for the last time my name is NOT David Ferrie, I am NOT Jewish and I wasn't filmed on the Grassy Knoll wearing a snorkel and a purple Purim robe"

#4 " For clarification Mr Trotter I find the term " Curved Proboscis" highly offensive... and please tell your friend we most certainly do not hibernate in the handbags of 300lb grey haired women, nor is our natural habitat the doorways of School Book Depositories..."

"5 " What am I meant to be looking for up here Mr Pigby, sorry Rigby? Spent shells or CIA film alteration manuals"

#6 " No, Mr Healy I most certainly will not colonically irrigate you!! "

#7 " For the last fucking time I do not have a shrew doppelganger called Ichabod who comes from Moldova!! And the CIA most certainly DID NOT use my nose to alter frame 313"

#8 " No, Mr Butler I wasn't hiding up Marilyn Sitzman's skirt and I most certainly did NOT use my nose to film the footage known as " the Other film"

#9 " No, Mr Millegan I will not say I was a happy well adjusted young white mouse... I don't want to appear at your fucking conference and I most certainly will not allow Me Baker to disembowel me live on YouTube"

#10 " .... and then Don Jeffries said to me " What about if I bend over like this?"

Greg On Black Op Radio

The sheer effrontery of it!! 

Pass me my smelling salts Von Smithers and put some Bruckner on the wireless....I think I feel a swooning fit coming on!!!

Imagine someone having the damnable bad manners to allow someone to make their case and allow the listeners to make up their own mind!!!

What a downright disgrace!! I'm off to write a strongly worded letter to the Sanibel Zeitung..

Wouldn't have happened in the Good Old Days, eh, me old goosestepping. independent minded populist?

As usual , due to their almost unbelievable lack of self awareness , Brian and Donnie , manage to out satirise us poor old troll punks.. Turning themselves into absurdist caricatures...

But there's a darker subtext than just a pair of vacuous goofballs.... Little and Large Go Conspiracing!!!( Little and Large were an execrable light entertainment " comedy duo")

Yet again they expose their absolute close mindedness and intolerance for opposing viewpoints... I remember Brian , back when he wore his dead father's on line persona like a mask in some creepy Oedipal psychodrama... demanding David Von Pein be " held legally accountable" or some such shit ...banned from the internet and banished for having the temerity to disagree with the great sagelike Albert( no Larrytrotter sage isn't what you stuff your turkey with...)

If the more extreme of our Conspiracy crazed chums ever got within a Sanibel inch of the levers of power they'd make Robespierre and Dzerzhinsky look like fucking dilettante momma's boys...

You couldn't make this fucking stuff up... sometimes I find myself giving the proposition that both Doyle , Jeffries and co are performance artistes a la Alex Jones, or else they are involved in some fly on the wall mockumentary, serious consideration...

I'm at a loss to explain it.. surely no one can really be this fucking stupid? and  devoid of emotional intelligence? Surely to God Doyle MUST release he's transformed himself into a ridiculous buffoon .....and that his incontinent ravings threaten to make a mockery of ANYONE even tangentially associated with assassination research?

Conspiracy has become Don Jeffries chosen method of attacking the system he feels has betrayed him and the sanctity of his lily white stupidity.

I'm not joking here; he is the absolute personification of the hate filled little man. The type of bitter twisted small minded fool totalitarian regimes rely upon... The depth of his ignorance is staggering, but it's his propensity to celebrate his ignorance; the ignorance and the hatred of the grey faceless nonentity, the seemingly harmless inoffensive little man, who is in reality bursting with hateful stupidity and envy..

Read his fucking blog, I'm not exaggerating here, the absolute intolerance seeps through every banal poorly constructed sentence... the witless clichés and sophomoric polemics reeking of tortured sexual envy, his utmost determination to deny others the opportunities he took for granted all his life...

The thinly veiled racism and clumsy anti semitism... the nasty vindictive screeds condemning minorities, the ever present scare quotes around " racist"...

Not to mention the chummy nods to holocaust deniers and other peddlers of hate. Outside satirical works Jeffries blog is the only place i've ever read the American Civil War being called " The War of Northern Aggression"...

Need I say according to Don Lincoln was a ****** lover , paedophile and a tyrant, while good old Bobbie Lee and co were gentlemanly paragons of virtue and chivalry, looking out for the best interest of their chattels and their possessions who would sing cheerfully in the fields about the joys of slavery...

I apologise if you find my tone offensive, but I confess I nurture a special animosity towards Jeffries.

He is the virtual embodiment of everything I despise. The intellectually dishonest coward, the fundamentalist zealot , the dim witted myopic fool who dreams of making the world as small as his mind

A coward, a hypocrite, anti semite, holocaust denier...his books are an insult to the intelligence. He displays a terrifying lack of insight and his idea of " history" is a toxic brew of barely concealed Hitlerian apologetics and empty headed revisionism..

Yet I would never once demand he be denied the right to express himself.

On the contrary, the more he speaks the more he reveals himself for the odious small minded fool and bigot he is...

He and his coven of liars and fantasists nurture a special animus for Greg, Barto and this forum. They hate Greg and the forum because we expose the idiocy of their pet theories...most especially Harvey and Lee. 

Neither Greg Barto nor the core ROKCers are willing to play the Conspiracy game ..mouth the orthodox Conspiracy platitudes. 

Jeffries and his ilk ( most especially Fezzo) are almost insanely jealous of Greg and what he's managed to achieve.

What this forum and it's core members have managed to achieve.

That they/ we(  I'm still a relative newcomer and not having spent years in the trenches I don't think it's right for me to bask in others hard earned glory) have managed to achieve this with a spirit of camaraderie and collaboration, while maintaining a sense of humour and genuine humility only further enhances the achievement.

The utter depravity and hypocrisy is best demonstrated by their fussy spinster act...tut tutting furiously at the naughty words and the satirical jabs whilst cheerfully conspiring to propagate some of the most odious lies imaginable...

I admit I'm not a particularly big fan of Black Op Radio, but I respect Len for his willingness to genuinely engage with opposing viewpoints..

If Baggins and crew were serious about wanting to attempt to excavate the truth, and not just in pimping their theory and trawling for converts they'd have taken up Greg's ( numerous) invitations to debate. 

For them the assassination was almost incidental; it was their stupid fucking theory that mattered...

Likewise Jeffries and his odious rabble of hate filled reactionaries and whacked out true believers...its  the Conspiracy that matters.. Conspiracy is their religion.

It serves both as a soothing narcotic and it helps the simple minded make some sense out of their existence..

Conspiracy is the stars they've painted on their ceilings...the stars they're convinced are the sky...and the cracks? The glimmer of light seeping in? Why that's God/ Illuminati /CIA or whomever keeping watch..

The Godlike Sponsors who know and see all...From their facilitators perch beside the Hertz sign they could gaze down Elm Street, past the Triple Underpass and into the future....thus they had the prescience to fake films, using technology that didn't get exist, to cause cognitive dissonance in researchers who weren't yet born...

Better the silence of conspiracy, the silence of hushed voices conspiring than the grim silence of emptiness and indifference..

I'm off to do a spot of ice skating with David Ferrie #2, ( David #1 is stuck in a U2 jam above Roswell) the fake Marguerite, Jack Valenti's doppelgangers fake mom , Chauncey Holt and Raul....

Last one up the grassy knoll buys the matzoh ball soup...

Here is how they did it.

Greg, you've been reading the Forbidden Knowledge FB page, haven't you?

Did you see this post by " Carto's jockstrap"?

About how Moses Montefiore, Chaim Weitzmann and Baron Rothschild blackmailed Lewis Carroll to write the " other" version of the Jabberwocky?

Don Jeffries claimed to have read it , while attending an " experimental yoga workshop" in Salt Lake City , back in the summer of "69...

In honour of our intrepid philo semite researcher chum, " Zangarathepatsy" ( by the way Donnie sends fraternal greetings..he told me to tell you he couldn't find that XXXXXXXXXXXXL large hood you were wanting...but he did find you the XXXXXXXXXXXXL large Grand Goblin's robe you wanted for next month's Klavern..)  I give you the " other" version of the Jabberwocky...

THE JUDENWOCKY

By Judyth Vary Baker


By LEWIS CARROLL

'Twas Rothschild and the shifty hebes,

Did gyre and kosher under yon TSBD,

All mimsy were the doppelgoves

And shekels Zappy lustily crove

Dave #1 did bumbersnatch to Dave #2 

"Are ye snip snip spicy jew?"

While his toupee sung a sloppy " heil"

Otto his slithy harp did strum

Out he 6th floor windex did stick  BumBum...

" Beware the JUDENWOCKY  my patsy!

With nosey bites and hairless cunternibbel drip

Beware the JubJub bird!

And the frumious Donniesnatch!"

Zangara swick speedy his eunuchs blade up his vorpal cave

Longtime the mansome jew he sought..

So resteth he betwixt yon glowr of the TumTum tree

And shareth kosher bagels with Bill Shelley of the IAC..

I'm certain all ROKCers and long-term lurkers would agree that Greg's post, and the newly discovered Judenwocky makes far more sense, and indeed possesses far more internal coherence than Zangarathepatsy's latest excretion of 24 carat horseshit...

Cory, if you happen to be reading this , you've missed your true calling...a little yarmulke wearing birdie tells me Truth Frequency Radio have a vacancy for an anti semitic nonsense poet...you know, to make Don Jeffries  bursts of " independent minded populism " seem vaguely credible...

Groden And His So Called Witness

I see three possibilities:

1. Reed’s presence and photograph subjects (outside of the motorcade) were happenstance.
2. Reed was directed to specifically photograph Oswald’s movements.
3. Reed was directed to photograph subjects that had a chance of capturing something useful.

Possibility #1 is certainly possible. One way where a very small absolute probability leads us astray is when that probability is one of among a large number of outcomes each with it’s own very small probability.

Possibility #2 is hard to accept because it would require critical and damning information about a conspiracy to be too widely disseminated and runs the risk of someone accidentally or intentionally revealing information.

Possibility #3 appears reasonable. Reed could have been told told something like “Given the protests that have happened to recent visitors to Dallas, photograph subjects that might provide information useful to identifying individuals that might be involved in such protests.” This would require divulging no specific information about an assassination plot. Perhaps this was also what happened with James Powell and who knows how many others in Dealey plaza and elsewhere that day. They could have been directed to photograph crowds, buildings, public transportation, suspicious people and other subjects at their discretion. Most of their efforts produced nothing. Perhaps some caught something that had to remain hidden (Like Oswald in front of the TSBD).This could be standard procedure for presidential visits independent of any assassination conspiracy.

I still have the suspicion that the planned escape route used the Marsalis bus and that the “Oswald” seen escaping into the Rambler was a last minute change in plans. Why take such a risk helping the lone nut in such a conspicuous location where there could be witnesses and even photographers?

No doubt interpreting events is complicated by plans that go wrong, a DPD inclination to nail a cop killer, communist who is helped to escape by a negro and a larger effort to channel the investigation i to non threatening areas.

I’m rambling here but there is one other observation regarding the Reed photographs. It seems like he was making his way up West Jefferson photographing the crowds before he came upon the Texas Theater. This is the same path that Oswald was supposed to have taken. It’s also strange that he seemed to take no interest in his photos and never appeared in a “Strange, but True” article, interview etc.

Who Is This Guy?

The cousin of the woman who ran the Winterland Ice Rink you say? The brother in law of Jack Valenti too? ( Would that be Jack Valenti #1 or Jack #2?)

Fascinating stuff!!

Raul too!!

Boy, ol' Vincent sure did like to get around...

In fact that reminds me of a little ditty my old CIA handler used to hum as she was inserting implants into my....well Mr Patsy never you mind what or  where my CIA handler inserted....

Lets just say after that particular insertion I was never able to Hava Negila in a straight line again...

Oy vey

Anyhoo the particular ditty she used to sing was taught to her by a British Zionist Illuminati stooge who used to look after Prince Phillip's Nazi in laws...they were kept in a cage at Windsor Castle and let out on full moons 

It used to go something like this..

" I have danced with a man who has danced with a girl who has danced with the Prince of Wales" Tom Scully Music 

P.S. Mr Patsy any more interviews with Don Jeffries?

If I asked him very nicely do you think he'd autograph my Truth Frequency Radio yarmulke for me?

My latest interview with Don Jeffries

Well said Jeff.

You've perfectly encapsulated the fundamental implausibility of the proffered " theory"

IMHO the greater the reliance on magical doppelgangers and convenient alteration, the weaker the theory.
In many cases it's tantamount to cheating.
Or reducing historical research to a fantasy adventure game akin to Dungeons and Dragons...

Instead of the cloak of invisibility or the enchanted helmet if your hero is stuck in an impossible situation, a situation that destroys the validity of your " theory"( for example if they're in a Courtroom in New Orleans instead of up on the grassy knoll) no problems!! Just conjure up a doppelganger!

Of course the down side to such antics is that serious historical research is further complicated, comprised and made even more susceptible to ridicule.

The use of doubles was and is a commonly used intel tactic and some of the evidence in this case has undoubtedly been tampered with....but the subject has become so toxic, so  debased and trivialised with " researchers" conjuring up hosts .of doppelgangers and alleging all manner of forgery that the whole area of research has become marginalised.

Don Jeffries is an absolutely squalid individual. A low rent impresario of fear and division. Conspiracy is his business. He preys on his audience the way a fake medium preys on the heartbroken and recently deceased.

I know nothing about Barbour, to be honest I don't want to know anything about him . But Jeffries has transformed into a nightmarish creature, lurking in the shadows of a collapsing civilisation, trying to profit from the doubts of others. Instead of feeling empathy, Jeffries and co merely see an opportunity. How to twist the latest calamity into a conspiracy,.  
Dressing up his odious brand of small minded hatefulness in the funereal shroud of " Truth" only makes what he does that little bit more repellent 

Cory, there's nothing TO debate, we've seen your " research", remember?

I suspect the "second Dave Ferrie" was your response to Greg pointing out the height discrepancy between Ferrie and Tippets shooter.

I've nothing personal against you, I have absolutely no respect however for your so called research and the intellect behind it.

You don't seem to realise how ridiculous you make yourself look, bursting on here with great aplomb and fanfare first to announce your " discoveries" then attempting to patronise some of the finest minds and most astute researchers.( And no Cory I don't include myself. I came here to learn. )

I listened to your " presentation" ..it was a grotesque hodge podge of misinterpreted half truths and outright fantasy.. think about it for a minute...if the Winterland Ice Rink was such a nest of nefarious spookery it would have been the very LAST place Dave Ferrie ( #1 or #2?) would have been sent to 

Your comments about Gehlen like your comments about Skorzeny are sheer fantasy. The product of a mind bloated by high fat revisionist stodge...
Next you'll be telling me Heinreich Muller and Martin Bormann helped plan the assassination..

If you want to learn about the assassination , benefit from the experience of accomplished researchers and the real cutting edge advances that are pushing this case forward i encourage you to stick around.

Don Jeffries and co are the absolute antithesis of serious honest research. I don't care if hes been studying the case for 40 fucking years or if he joined Mark Lanes group in the 70s what he's doing now is a perversion of everything he purports to stand for 
A weak intellect and an even weaker ego, dazzled by the prospect of a tawdry Z list celebrity on the alternative troofer circuit Don " call me the independent minded populist who doesn't think Hitler was a good guy" Jeffries has prostituted himself before the altar of Conspiracy.
ANY Conspiracy

If thats what you aspire to then I don't envy you.

The latest Paine apologist, Greg Doudna

[size=13]Until now I have not questioned that Shasteen saw his customer with a Chevy wagon that he thought was Ruth Paine’s Chevy wagon. I am now questioning that. It may be not that there were two similar Chevy wagons which were confused, but rather that there never was a first Chevy wagon associated with Shasteen's customer.[/size]
 
[size=13]It may be that Shasteen DID see the back of the head of the real Oswald with Ruth Paine and Marina, in the parking lot of Hutch's Market across the street, emerging from Ruth's Chevy wagon driven by Ruth on that occasion (though it must have been at a different time of day than the early-morning time Shasteen thought he remembered). From Shasteen's testimony, that incident specifically was how he identified his customer with Ruth Paine’s car--by remembering seeing the back of the real Oswald's head from across the street and thinking that that was his customer. That is not a very secure basis for belief.[/size]
 
[size=13]The only time Shasteen tells of his customer driving up to his shop in what he says was Ruth Paine's car was the Friday night incident, dated Nov. 8, the last time Shasteen's customer came in for a haircut, when Shasteen saw the man with the teenager arrive after dark in a car. Shasteen saw that Buddy Law was there cutting the customer's hair that time. It is just questionable that Shasteen can have securely identified that car as a two-tone Chevy wagon, as Ruth Paine’s Chevy wagon, when he was in the back of his shop going out the back door as he saw the headlights pull in after dark. All of his assumptions regarding his customer’s car were derivative, post-assassination, from thinking he saw his customer with Ruth Paine’s car, and Ruth Paine, that time across the street in Hutch’s Market parking lot. When actually he saw the back of the head of the real Oswald on that occasion, but not the back of the head of his customer. That is the whole basis for Shasteen's association of Ruth's car with his customer.[/size]
 
[size=13]Further: Shasteen's "Oswald" was a mistaken identification on grounds of timeline. You do not need to repeat your interpretation of only three barbershop visits of Oswald's customer. I am aware and understand what you have said there. I am just saying you have got that wrong, from the plain evidence of Shasteen's testimony. Shasteen observed his customer, the one he believed was "Oswald", get a haircut from Buddy Law, on Nov. 8 (if that date for his customer's last haircut is correct, which it likely is). But Shasteen repeatedly said he remembered at least three haircuts of himself personally to his "Oswald". One more that he saw given by Law makes four. Law did not remember that, but Shasteen did. This is purely Shasteen's testimony and witness statements, no one else's. That is a minimum of four barbershop visits. That is his testimony.[/size]
 
[size=13]The real Oswald was in New Orleans until almost the end of September, then in Dallas/Irving for only about six or seven weeks between early October and the date of Shasteen’s customer’s final haircut of Nov. 8. Shasteen said the man got his hair cut at least three times by himself and that he, Shasteen, witnessed the same man getting his hair cut at least once by Buddy Law, making at least four haircuts claimed witnessed by Shasteen for certain, though Shasteen himself thought there were more than that. Here is Shasteen:[/size]
 
[size=13]"It finally dawned on me [post-assassination] where I had saw him [his customer]. I knew where he lived. Actually, I knew where the station wagon was that was parked, that I saw him and this lady in [= the Hutch's Market sighting across the street]"[/size]
 
[size=13]"I think I cut his hair three or four times ... I know of three times that I cut it and I might have cut it more than that, but I don't think I did ... it seemed to me like there was a dead spot in there. Sometime--maybe a month or 6 weeks that we might not have saw him ... but the last three haircuts--it seemed to me like he was pretty regular ... He was pretty regular--at the last three [the last of which was the Buddy Law haircut Nov 8] ... In other words, 2 or 3 or 4 months that we had been seeing him, but I don't know just exactly to the date or nothing...” [/size]
 
[size=13][on the Hutch's Market parking lot sighting with Ruth's car] "they got out of the car and we saw their backs [viewed from Shasteen’s shop across the street], and I would see him and I just knew it was him. Once you cut somebody's hair that close you are close enough so that you know them outside or when you see them ... I do remember he [the real Oswald] wasn't driving when they would come to the grocery store, there would be a lady driving [Ruth Paine] and I'm assuming that that was Mrs. Paine [yes] ... I saw him [the real Oswald] and two ladies get out and go in the store ... whenever I saw him come with somebody else in the car he wasn't driving, but occasionally he drove himself up there to get a haircut..."[/size]
 
[size=13]The whole case for Shasteen’s 4x-plus-haircuts customer who always wore large overalls (likely related to his work) and drove and had a teenage son with him, being Oswald, was that he (Shasteen) mistook the real Oswald viewed from the back in a parking lot across the street—viewed from the back—for his customer. On that incredibly slender basis for witness identification, you have constructed an elaborate structure not simply of Ruth Paine’s testimony being deceitful in major ways, but also FBI lying in their written filed confidential reports to their superiors (you say the FBI “knew better” than what they wrote) and you now suggest Secret Service SA Sorrels suborning perjury and Shasteen being influenced to lie by Sorrels, all in order to make your story work of having a coverup of the time the teenager told several persons in the barbershop that capitalism was wrong, as if that incident had anything to do with anything that matters. So the teenager criticized capitalism in a barbershop! Big deal! Who cares? You see a huge coverup involving deception of a major witness and two government agencies, to cover up that! [/size]
 
[size=13]And as I understand it, that is your #1 primary example of claim that Ruth Paine’s testimony is shown deceptive.[/size]
 
[size=13]I see, which I had not noticed before, in the thread “Hyde my Paine” on this forum, cartoons saying the most vicious things of Ruth Paine (via the character Saint Peter in heaven), calling her “bitch” and “lying” and so on. Apparently those sentiments have close to 100% approval on this forum from the active participants, all of whom are men piling on abuse of the demonized woman for whom there has never been evidence, whether hard or circumstantial, set forth establishing that she was CIA, or involved in assassinating JFK, or involved in coverup afterward, or deceptive in her testimony. Unsubstantiated suspicion and assertions alone are quoted and represented as if they are known facts, and a living woman is just completely smeared. [/size]
 
[size=13]This is like in an earlier age (metaphorically speaking) burning of a witch at the stake in some medieval Europe village setting. The “witch” would be some marginalized woman, accused. Anyone who defended the witch would themselves be accused, and people would remain silent while others would be caught up in the dynamics of the mob. Here, there is a mob, of men breathing terrible words against this woman. I step in front of her, standing alone speaking to the lynch mob, the men speaking vile things to and of her. I say, “you have no proof, no evidence, that she has done anything wrong. What if you are condemning a woman who has done nothing vile, who is innocent?” The mob howls back, “We know she is vile! People have accused her! We have heard things! She looks suspicious! Her sister was a witch! Her mother-in-law was friend in her youth with a woman who later had an affair with the Dark Lord Allen C. Dulles!!!!!!! If that isn’t evidence what is?? SHE is vile! Evidence?!?—we don’t need no stinkin’ evidence of the kind you are talking about!! To the stake with her!!” I say, “Stop! It is not right to condemn someone without evidence being shown! How do you know you are right on this?” The mob howls, “YOU are defending HER! We are going to come after YOU!”[/size]
 
[size=13]The cartoons portray Ruth Paine as unwilling to answer the question whether she was CIA or FBI informant. That is a misrepresentation. She did answer and never refused to answer those questions. When asked in the Garrison grand jury the CIA question she said she was not and had never been CIA. In a document authored by Ruth Paine either for or turned over to WC investigator Jenner entitled “Oswald”, with a date of typing 3/19/64, Ruth Paine wrote that Hosty’s visit to her house of Nov 1, 1963, “was the first time I had talked personally with an FBI agent” (pp. 12-13). There is a video online in which Ruth Paine says she was not some sort of “CIA minder” for Marina, that that was not true. There has been no evidence or convincing argument set forth establishing differently on any of these points. There is only Vince Salandria logic that because she helped Lee get his job at the TSBD, therefore she was party to whoever framed Oswald for the murder of JFK involving that location, which is not logical. How could Ruth Paine possibly prove her innocence to those among the JFK assassination researchers who are certain she is vile?[/size]
 
I knew Ruth Paine. From study of this issue I have not seen evidence, documentary or argued circumstantially in any specific or convincing way, establishing these suspicions and accusations that have become common currency, and I would be very surprised if unknown evidence of such nature were to turn up in the future not yet known in the existing documents and discussions. I will stick around here, Greg Parker permitting who invited me, long enough for any civil discussion on this subject that anyone wishes to ask or discuss with me, if that is helpful to this forum. If there is little further interest on this topic, I will fade away. 

The latest Paine apologist, Greg Doudna

They just happened to look like Oswald and Hootkins respectively, drive a similar car to Ruth Paine's and appear and disappear from the scene at the same time as Oswald and Hootkins - but were not doubles for them.

Agree with you Greg P., on the counsel to stick to one topic at a time, the Shasteen barbershop. The above quotation from you I think distills the positive argument that the customer Shasteen in Irving thought was Oswald, was Oswald. (1) the man looked like Oswald. (2) he drove a two-tone Chevy like Ruth Paine's car. (3) the 14-year old was stocky, and 15-year-old Hootkins in Dallas, Ruth Paine's Russian student, looks like he may have been stocky too at age 15. (4) the man and the 14-year-old appear and disappear in Shasteen's barber shop the same time frame Oswald was visiting Marina and Ruth Paine in Irving.

That is the positive argument. 

How strong is that positive argument?

On looking like Oswald, you are saying that of the three barbers in Shasteen's shop, Shasteen alone, and neither of the other two, confirmed an Oswald identity of that customer. You are saying Glover thought one of his customers was Oswald, unrelated to the customer Shasteen thought was Oswald. You have Glover's Oswald-identity, for which Glover gave a physical description which disagrees with Oswald, as a mistaken identification, but you interpret Shasteen's as an accurate identification. Actually I think Shasteen's WC testimony and the FBI reports read that they were talking about the same customer, such that there was only one, not two, alleged Oswalds in the Shasteen barbershop. But I don't want to be absolutely dogmatic on that, there is a slight possibility you could be right. But if you are correct, the credibility of the Shasteen identification is further weakened in that  both of the two out of two of the other two barbers in that shop fail to corroborate the presence of Oswald in Shasteen's shop in terms of the customer Shasteen thought was Oswald.

Shasteen himself never gave a physical description of his "Oswald", only of his hair, which was pretty specific: (a) early-going-bald, in agreement with Oswald and ca. 50% of all men ("half of fifty-year-olds [men] are quite bald"--I just read online on a men's health website, in checking this point), and, much more specific and therefore of greater interest in focus: (b) distinctive short hair length, of a length a little longer than buzz-cut but not long enough to comb down flat easily--hair on top neither short enough to stand up nor long enough to lay down flat easily. Was that Oswald? Does Oswald's hair look like it does not lay down flat and comb down flat easily? Not to me from photos of Oswald that I see.

Shasteen had never met Oswald in person. If Shasteen previously knew Oswald in person, testimony that he then saw Oswald in his shop would be highly credible. But that is not the case. Shasteen saw Oswald's appearance only from television and newspapers after the assassination. Then he struggled to remember.

The two-tone Chevy. It is not established that the color of the two tones was even the same as Ruth's, only that it may have been, that Shasteen said it was a blue-and-white or green-and-white Chevy wagon. Shasteen noted that Ruth Paine had a Chevy wagon like that. Shasteen had seen the man drive up in a two-tone Chevy wagon more than once to his shop. Shasteen made the connection, that it was Ruth Paine's, driven by his customer.

The 14-year old. The reason for referring to the 14-year-old as a 14-year-old is because that is the only age ever given by Shasteen for the kid. Shasteen says his information on the kid's age was not a guess either, he asked the kid his age and the kid told him he was 14. Shasteen never himself in his WC or FBI interview reports expressed any ambiguity over this or said the kid might have been 15. Of course it could be argued Shasteen misremembered, or that the kid, if he was 15-year-old Hootkins doing an acting role in an intelligence operation in Shasteen's barbershop, might have deceptively said he was 14, not 15. But that would be just scenario or speculation. The known testimony from Shasteen is consistently that the young man was 14, whereas Hootkins was 15. 

The timing. Oswald is visiting Irving only in Oct and Nov. The man and the 14-year-old patronize Shasteen's barbershop only starting ca. Sept-Oct. Shasteen is uncertain, though Aug-Sept start for the patronization is arguably the most likely, based on ca. 5-6 visits as the final best estimate of number of visits of the customer, from Shasteen; spaced @2 weeks apart per Shasteen except Shasteen remembered a "gap" or maybe 1-2 missed normal barbership visits... likely going back to Sept. I realize you separate Glover's Oswald visits from Shasteen's Oswald visits such that you think Shasteen (and Glover) were mistaken in combining them, and you have only 3 actual visits of Shasteen's Oswald such that only Oct and Nov are at issue.

By all accounts, the visits of the customer with the 14-year-old cease after the JFK assassination, and after Oswald himself is killed. Is that an argument that the customer was Oswald?

I don't think so. Here is how I interpret the timeline. The last visit, of the 14-year-old by himself in the barbershop, seems to have occurred ca. Nov 11 or 12, per the best and latest estimate of Shasteen's WC testimony (as I recall). There was a bad scene in the barbershop on that occasion in which there was a disagreement over politics, and Shasteen rebuked the young man. That provides a reasonable explanation for why neither father nor son, neither the man nor the 14-year-old, came back again. 

As for the start of the visits, they may correspond with a school year. Shasteen remembers the customer driving to the shop some times but entering by walking other times. However, if the customer had parked out of sight of the front of the shop, it would look like he entered walking, when actually he had driven and parked, then walked in. So it is unclear if the man or the 14-year old lived within the neighborhood or not. Since nobody in the barbershop ever saw either that customer or the 14-year-old again, and Shasteen who tried to be familiar with the school kids of the neighborhood did not know who the 14-year-old was, I interpret the customer and the 14-year-old as a father and son who may not have lived in the neighborhood. Yet they were there frequently during that school semester. When Shasteen saw the man in the same two-tone Chevy wagon with two unidentified women on a Saturday morning at 8 am across the street shopping at Hutchison's market--women who almost certainly were NOT Ruth and Marina because Ruth and Marina would be at home with two toddlers and one new baby to tend to at 8 am! but Shasteen saw no toddlers or baby with the three adults and why would an entire household of six persons from the Ruth Paine house all load up in a car to go shopping for groceries at 8 am in a morning anyway?

On the similarity of the 14-year-old in the barbership with 15-year-old Hootkins of Dallas, the similarity seems to be that both were close in age and the 14-year-old was described as stocky and 15-year-old Hootkins of Dallas also looks stocky from his school photos. But lots of teenage kids look stocky. Nobody in the barbershop had seen Hootkins in person or by photo, so this is a way too weak basis to make an identification of two teenagers in two different cities.

Then one has to consider how much surgery one has to do on existing sworn testimony to make this work. Ruth Paine says she never was on a shopping trip at Hutchison's grocery of the kind that Shasteen saw with his customer and two adult women. Ruth Paine said she did not lend her car to Oswald to drive. Marina said Oswald never drove a car by himself. Ruth Paine said Oswald did not know how to drive well. Ruth Paine said Oswald did not have a drivers license. Ruth Paine said she knew of no kid of about 14 years of age associated with Oswald. Ruth Paine said she knew nothing of Oswald getting a haircut in Irving. Neither Ruth nor Hootkins' parents ever mentioned Hootkins going to Irving. If Hootkins was in Irving driven there by Ruth Paine all the different times Hootkins went to the barbershop, would not Hootkins' mother know that? Why would Hootkins' mother not say so? Is it reasonable that Ruth Paine and Hootkins himself would keep secret from Hootkins' mother that he was repeatedly being taken to a different city by Ruth Paine for Russian lessons? I don't think so.

But why do neither Hootkins' mother, nor Ruth Paine, volunteer to FBI agents questioning them about this, that young Hootkins was in Irving, if that was the case? What motive for keeping that undisclosed? If Hootkins was with Oswald getting haircuts on multiple occasions, would not Ruth know that (from Hootkins mentioning it to her, since Ruth might want to know where her 15-year old guest was)? Why would Ruth deceitfully deny knowledge of Oswald or Hootkins going to a barbershop? In your scenario, you have to suppose Ruth is inexplicably deceitful on all of these completely mundane things, just to make the scenario work.

How often was Hootkins going to Irving, in your scenario? No testimony otherwise has Hootkins going to Irving at all. But if he was, does he go only when Oswald is due for a haircut? If he was just accidentally accompanying Oswald by chance when Oswald needed a haircut, how many times does Hootkins need to be in Irving for there to be two separated visits with Oswald to the barbershop (per Shasteen), plus a third time when the young man goes by himself? 

A simpler explanation is that the 14-year-old is the man's son, and that is why he is there with the man, because the man is his father. It is not that Hootkins visits from Dallas a dozen or so times and by accident happened to want to accompany when Oswald decided to drive 1/2 mile to get a haircut two of those times. It is not that Ruth scheduled Hootkins' visits to Irving only on days when Oswald would be going for haircuts.

The solution is that 15-year-old Hootkins of Dallas was not in Irving, let alone in Shasteen's barbershop--there is no testimony or evidence of that. Nor is it credible that 15-year-old Hootkins was an intelligence agency operative put up to acting out a scene in the barbershop, as I understand your proposed scenario. I do not think it likely that FBI or other U.S. intelligence agencies had much to do with running minors as operatives. If you are going to stick with that scenario, would that not require an assumption that Hootkins' parents would know of and approve, and withhold as secret thereafter, Hootkins as a young 15-year-old intelligence agency operative? 

But this is all scenario spun out of scenario, not called for from evidence. More likely is that it was a father and son in Shasteen's barbershop, and the two-tone Chevy driven by the father was not Oswald driving Ruth Paine's car. The adults Shasteen saw with his customer shopping at 8 am on a Saturday morning makes no sense as being the Paine household because it was not the Paine household. 

The start of the barbershop visits of this father and son in ca. Sept or Oct, and Oswald's visits to Irving starting in Oct, is coincidence, and the end of the barbershop visits of this father and son after Nov. 12 was because of an unpleasant scene in the barbershop not because of the Nov. 22 assassination of President Kennedy. The two-tone Chevys driven both by the man and by Ruth Paine, which may or may not have been the same color of two tones, is a coincidence. The reason for the shorter-hair-length-than-Oswald remembered by Shasteen, and the mid-30s age and 5'11" height estimated by Glover for what Shasteen and Glover said was this same individual, in the only known physical description told of this individual, is because this individual was not Oswald, but instead the 14-year-old's father.

There is no need to do massive surgery on the testimony of Ruth Paine in supposing gratuitous deceptions without known motive. There is no need to suppose lifelong silence of Hootkins' cameo role as an intelligence operative, on the part of Hootkins and both of his parents minimally, and whichever of his siblings knew or friends he told the rest of his life. There is no need for any of that. And what is at stake here? What is "lost" in an understanding of the circumstances of the JFK assassination if Shasteen's customer which Shasteen thought was Oswald accompanied by a 14-year-old was not more complicated than a simple mistaken identification of an unknown father and son who patronized Shasteen's barbershop a few times and drove a car which was similar to the one driven by Ruth Paine?

Shasteen said the young man--the 14-year-old--was dropped off for a haircut on the day of the scene in the shop, by an adult in a car which was not the two-tone Chevy driven by the customer when he came in with the 14-year-old. This is an interesting detail. If Shasteen's testimony is correct, then this could not have been Ruth Paine's car. Whose car was this then, and who was the adult, who dropped off the 14-year-old--Hootkins in your reconstruction? I realize Ruth Paine (or was it Michael Paine, I forget) had another car, or a second car. But the point is this scenario gets more and more complex, and the question is why go to all the work and revisionism to have the scenario when a mistaken identity explanation is just orders of magnitude simpler? You have not explained a motive for such deceptions, nor is it clear what is at stake making it necessary to place Oswald in that barbershop, or Hootkins in Irving or in that barbershop.

In your description of my three phases, actually there was no #1. I am recent to JFK assassination research and before reading you re the Hootkins theory I had not studied and had no opinion on the Shasteen alleged Oswald sighting. So for me there was only what you describe as #2 and then #3, just one change in understanding of the identity question for the man and the 14-year-old with him in that barbershop. 

You think I am driven by a desire to not accept deception in Ruth Paine's testimony. No, I would if there were evidence. Let me give another explanation for my view: I don't see deception in Ruth Paine's testimony because, as shocking as this may sound, its not there.

I do not mean this cross-examination of your Shasteen barbershop scenario as impugning the other work you do. I respect the work you do on the JFK assassination and this website with its primary documents and serious attempts to grapple with the issues and solve problems.

Gene Kelly Wants to Know, Why all the hostility?

greg_parker wrote:All:

Gene Kelly @ the 13\" Head Forum wrote:There are many individuals in this thread (started less than a week ago) whom I respect highly for their contributions to the Forum.  But I am disappointed in some of the tone expressed.  I agree with Jim D. that this particular subject evokes unusually strong opinions and reactions. Armstrong’s work on Mexico City, the rifle, Kerry Thornley, and the Tippit shooting are all thought-provoking.  The fact is, John Armstong’s work has had influence … and I see no right or wrong here, especially in such a complex and controversial subject as JFK’s murder.  I can’t for the life of me understand why some react so strongly to the thesis of Harvey and Lee.  There’s simply no good reason to characterize someone as “John’s loyal valet for decades” or refer to “the H&L re-education camp”, and those who side with Armstong’s story as “converts to this cause”. Both James Norwood and Mark Stevens deserve more respect … as do all Forum participants.

Gene

I can't speak for anyone but myself, though I am sure others do feel similarly, but after 56 years of bullshit being piled on this case, I think it behooves (and thanks for making a post where I can reply using that word) us all to take a zero tolerance approach to flawed theories and broken epistemology.  Those who flood the internet with their theories are not on MY side - they are wittingly or otherwise, aiding the cover-up. So no, I for one, will not cease hostilities until we are rid of all the crud - from both sides of the false LN/CT dichotomy. We can then work with what is left on the table to arrive at the very least, at a set of facts and possibly even a working hypothesis and/or a more accurate timeline.

If you are one of those who claim we should all hold hands and work together, then I pity the fool who follows that advice. You are basically begging them to suspend disbelief as they embark on Conspiracy Flight of Fancy #1,527. 

More than that, I pity us all. We will be doomed to go round and round for eternity about fake moms, Zapruder alteration, body snatching and the alien secrets hidden in White House walls. 

So Gene... where do you stand... with making progress on this case, or dancing with the Conspiratocracy for eternity?

The Vacant Lot and Speer would nod there heads at the Kelly post. I'm nodding my head at the reply.

Gene Kelly Wants to Know, Why all the hostility?

All:

Gene Kelly @ the 13\" Head Forum wrote:There are many individuals in this thread (started less than a week ago) whom I respect highly for their contributions to the Forum.  But I am disappointed in some of the tone expressed.  I agree with Jim D. that this particular subject evokes unusually strong opinions and reactions. Armstrong’s work on Mexico City, the rifle, Kerry Thornley, and the Tippit shooting are all thought-provoking.  The fact is, John Armstong’s work has had influence … and I see no right or wrong here, especially in such a complex and controversial subject as JFK’s murder.  I can’t for the life of me understand why some react so strongly to the thesis of Harvey and Lee.  There’s simply no good reason to characterize someone as “John’s loyal valet for decades” or refer to “the H&L re-education camp”, and those who side with Armstong’s story as “converts to this cause”. Both James Norwood and Mark Stevens deserve more respect … as do all Forum participants.

Gene

I can't speak for anyone but myself, though I am sure others do feel similarly, but after 56 years of bullshit being piled on this case, I think it behooves (and thanks for making a post where I can reply using that word) us all to take a zero tolerance approach to flawed theories and broken epistemology.  Those who flood the internet with their theories are not on MY side - they are wittingly or otherwise, aiding the cover-up. So no, I for one, will not cease hostilities until we are rid of all the crud - from both sides of the false LN/CT dichotomy. We can then work with what is left on the table to arrive at the very least, at a set of facts and possibly even a working hypothesis and/or a more accurate timeline.

If you are one of those who claim we should all hold hands and work together, then I pity the fool who follows that advice. You are basically begging them to suspend disbelief as they embark on Conspiracy Flight of Fancy #1,527. 

More than that, I pity us all. We will be doomed to go round and round for eternity about fake moms, Zapruder alteration, body snatching and the alien secrets hidden in White House walls. 

So Gene... where do you stand... with making progress on this case, or dancing with the Conspiratocracy for eternity?

A response to Greg Doudna regarding the Paines

I am not going to get into the habit of responding to stuff on other forums unless it is to debunk shit theories. This is a rare exception since I have done more work on the Paines than most. It is a response to a post by Greg Doudna at the Ed Forum.

As one who knew Ruth Paine in the St. Petersburg, Florida Friends Meeting in 2002 and favorably, I will use this thread to make comments on the topic of Ruth Paine.

At least he is upfront about having a past friendly relationship with her via a shared religion. But it does make him something other than a disinterested party.

My bottom line with the JFK assassination is to see the guilty convicted and the innocent acquitted. It does no service in convicting the guilty to go after and lynch the innocent. 

The trouble is, we each get to choose, wisely or otherwise, with any evidence or otherwise, who are the good guys are who are not. Doudna is playing the same game here.

I believe there was a conspiracy (because of more than one shooter; the unusual associations and activities of Oswald; the Mob-orchestrated hit of Oswald; 

The number of shooters is irrelevant to a finding of any conspiracy - unless evidence of more than one shooter is all you have. But theoretically at least, that does not rule out two  Lone Nuts acting simultaneously. There was no "mob-orchestrated" hit on Oswald. I take it he is convinced by the phone calls Ruby was making in the lead-up. Some of those were for the purpose claimed - sorting out issues with his club competitors. But at least some of those made that weekend were to try and plead for help in getting out of Dallas in a manner that looked legitimate and unavoidable (i.e. you don't say "no" to certain people). This would get him out of the POLICE ordered hit on Oswald. When the calls failed, he tried to solve the case himself - which was the purpose of the photo of the Impeach Warren billboard and the stakeout on the PO box used for the "Welcome" ad. Ruby had the people behind those as the likely culprits. Solve the case and it gets him off the hook. When that failed, he made anonymous calls to the Sheriff's Office, FBI and Dallas police very specifically saying that Oswald would be shot during the transfer, His purpose for the calls was that it would force security to be so tight, he couldn't carry out the hit. Unfortunately for Ruby, security was left with Fritz. And it was Fritz who stalled bringing Oswald down until notified that Ruby was in place and it was Fritz who broke the four-man press which allowed the kill shot.

Oswald was NOT killed to stop him talking, He didn't know anything (though he could probably guess some things). He was killed because they had a completely fabricated case that would pass the smell test locally, but not before a national and international media contingent. 

So what Doudna states others are doing to Ruth, he is doing to the "mob".  The "mob" did not intimidate witnesses. The "mob" did not plant evidence. The "mob" did not ensure that Oswald had no legal help. 

the untimely deaths of witnesses in the aftermath 

The dead witness list is bullshit. Which he might understand if he took the time to actually study some of those deaths.

and then in the context of the later HSCA investigation;

The context of the HSCA investigation was that a "mob" expert was put in charge, flagging that the "mob" was going to be the new scapegoat.  

the CIA-orchestrated attempt to tie Oswald to a false flag Castro attribution as a casus bellus combined with the seemingly-contradictory LBJ/Hoover coverup of investigation of conspiracy beyond Oswald; and that coverup), and that that terrible event involved ruling-elite involvement--i.e. it was not a wildcat operation, or Mob figures deciding on their own to declare war on and bring down on themselves the wrath of the entire US government just to get the Kennedys out of power--even if hardly anyone including in the sectors of ruling elite who benefitted from the assassination, knew the specifics. In that sense, practically everyone had deniability. As Dylan wrote, "The day they blew out the brains of the king/ Thousands were watching/ No one saw a thing/ It happened so quickly/ So quick by surprise/ Right there in front of everyone's eyes". 

Tying Oswald to Castro via Mexico City was post-assassination hijinx from certain CIA players. It could not be properly investigated because everyone had a giant ass to cover. The use of Oswald's name in MC had nothing to do with the assassination. Until post-assassination, it was made to look like not only Oswald was personally there, he was also acting like a maniac and taking money for a hit. 

What happened in DP was arranged by someone very familiar with the magician's craft, particularly misdirection. The owner of the building was a Master Magician and they had two similar buildings to use, one of which the TSBD had only recently vacated. Perfect for misdirection.

Yet though I am certain there was a conspiracy, I believe Ruth Paine, and Michael Paine, were innocent of any culpability in the assassination, and that Ruth Paine did not speak untruthfully before, during, or in the aftermath. 

Doudna is mistaken She did speak untruthfully.

The evidence is here The Washing Machine Conspiracy
 
She also lied in regard to the kid who went to the barber shop 3 times, twice with Oswald.

the FBI investigation of the kid in the barbershop was token. It consisted of asking Ruth Paine if she had any idea about who it was. Her recorded response was classic Ruth. The FBI report reads  “she has no child even as old as school age and knows of no boy of about 14 with whom Oswald was ever associated in the neighborhood. " A true but misleading statement indeed because Hootkins was not from that neighborhood.

 The Barber Shop Kid was none other than Ruth's Russian student. 

And to get out front on one other matter (although distinct), I also am certain that Clay Shaw had nothing to do with the assassination, and that Garrison went after and sought to judicially lynch an innocent person there (innocent of complicity or involvement in the assassination). But back to the Paines.

Doudna may or may not be right about Shaw. I do think this is enough smoke around Shaw to suggest he was at least peripherally involved with intelligence agencies and perhaps some of the same people he knew in that sphere were peripherally involved in the assassination. Either way, it's not enough for a lynching.

It seems almost bedrock belief in much discussion that Ruth and Michael Paine were criminally sinister figures. For purposes of clarification there are three classes of nature of the charges in this perception of the Paines:

Doudna's choice of words is unfortunate here. "Criminally sinister"? What does that even mean? It implies that you can be "criminally good". And "law-abidingly sinister". 

Having family members working for the CIA does not make you "sinister" or "criminal". Being an informant does not make you "sinister" or "criminal". Being an asset to intelligence agencies does not make you "sinister" or "criminal". 

Class #1: witting and proactive involvement in conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
Class #2: witting operative involved with framing Oswald as the assassin, e.g. manufacture or witting conveyance of fabricated evidence.
Class #3a: professional informant for an intelligence agency, covert and compensated.
Class #3b: unpaid provider of information, considered by an intelligence agency in an asset relationship, for informational purposes to keep tabs on and track Oswald and Marina.

Okay. that seems to cover it.

There could be further subvariants, but for purposes of discussion this may be a working taxonomy. A further distinction needs to be made between Ruth and Michael Paine. My focus is on Ruth Paine whom I knew, liked, and respected as a fellow Friend. I never met Michael Paine, but as a working assumption I see no reason to see Michael Paine's status as significantly different in principle from whatever assessment is actually correct for Ruth. I am uninterested in allegations that Michael Paine may have had an unappealing personality, if he did. That is of no relevance here. 

Good, Likewise, Doudna's positive vibe around Ruth also has no relevance here. He cannot be both an admirer and friend and a dispassionate judge of her culpability. 

I see absolutely no hard evidence of any kind for #1 or #2 and am certain neither of those is correct. 

No hard evidence and maybe never will be. There is however, enough circumstantial evidence to make the case. 

A much-circulated essay asserting this by Vincent Salandria is in my opinion hallucinatory, with forceful impassioned conclusions asserted and no evidence establishing any conclusion related to #1 or #2 [https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/ThePainesRoleInHistory.html].) I am not open to or interested in discussion of suspicions on either #1 or #2 in the absence of provision of actual hard evidence of any specific point. If there were hard evidence at any one point, I would entertain argument from suspicion on others. But in the absence of hard evidence for any specific point establishing #1 or #2, I have no interest or time for argument from suspicion concerning #1 or #2 at all.

It is always a good move when you know there is no "hard" evidence, only circumstantial, to not only fail to acknowledge any circumstantial evidence, but to demand only "hard" evidence before any discussion can take place. 

My discussion from this point forward (in the absence of specific hard evidence shown relevant to #1 or #2) will therefore address only and entirely matters related to #3a and #3b.
I will take up some matters point by point in following posts, starting with this, a CIA document, declassified in 1996, which I discovered only several days ago following an exchange with James DiEugenio, a document that does not appear in George Michael Evica's 2006 book A Certain Arrogance nor do I see it discussed elsewhere to my knowledge: "The Intelligence Hand in East-West Exchange Visits", https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol2no3/html/v02i3a09p_0001.htm. 

It was not in Evica's book because it was not his source on this particular area. His source was me. Or rather a post I made at the Ed Forum  The research made freely available in that post was then  stolen for use in his for-profit book. 

In 1955, in a plan to get access to intelligence inside the Soviet Union, the CIA and State Department formed a plan, approved by the President, to launch organized Soviet-US exchanges with that specific objective (in which groups from each country would be hosted by and visit the other country). As this and other documents make crystal clear, this was all about getting Americans physically into previously inaccessible areas of the Soviet Union for intelligence objectives. That is what, from the CIA's perspective who proposed and started this program, it was all about. The publicly stated rationale--and for most of the participants in this program their actual reasons--of breaking down barriers, encouraging better understanding, world peace, etc and etc (or as CIA might internally put it among themselves, blah blah blah), was, from CIA's point of view entirely beside the point. For the CIA, and the reason the President approved this program which would be done through the State Department, it was all about getting on-the-ground intelligence access physically inside the Soviet Union.  
The key strategy used by CIA to accomplish this objective was what was called a policy of "reciprocity". Soviet groups would be invited and generously hosted in the U.S. Then the State Department would negotiate, with their Soviet counterparts, "reciprocity" in which US groups would visit the Soviet Union.
In that same year in which this State Department program was approved by the President and begun, 1955, at a conference of North American Young Friends gathered at Quaker Haven, Indiana, an initiative was begun by Friends (Quakers) to initiate exchange visits and contacts with youth groups in the Soviet Union, for the purpose of lessening East-West tensions. This North American Young Friends conference adopted the following resolution, below. As is the manner of Friends, any corporate action of Friends is decided not by voting or authority of officeholders, but is proposed, considered in a "meeting for worship in which business is conducted" (meeting for worship conducted on the basis of silence in which anyone can rise to speak, with spaces of silence between speakings), and approved by, and only if there is, consensus. (The way this works is a "clerk" of the Friends Meeting--a person generally approved for that function along with other Friends' committee assignments annually [also at a business meeting by consensus]--does not himself or herself speak and advocate or influence the direction of the sense of the meeting, but is tasked to compose and frame accurately in words a statement expressing the "sense of the meeting" that has emerged on a certain topic or decision--that is then read, and if voices in the meeting approve it and there is no objection, the clerk then records that in the written minutes as "the sense of the meeting" and the decision is done.) 
"We are united in believing that if we are to express our Christian love most fully, we have no alternative but to seek out every possible way for expressing such love to the youth of Russia and of other countries where the need for understanding is greatest."

Ruth Paine attended a Young Friends meeting at Earlham College in 1947, 4 years prior to becoming a Quaker herself. The college is located in Richmond, Indiana; the heartland of Conservative Quakerism.  Among the Earlham alumni was Bonner Fellers who twice worked with MacArthur coming over from from OSS. His specialty was interrogation and psychological warfare. He later became a prominent member of the John Birch Society. His daughter Nancy Jane, was an Earlham graduate in '52. Ruth Paine met with two professors from Earlham just prior to her final few months of involvement with the Oswalds. Another alumni from Earlham was Von Peacock, acting Director of the Casa de los Amigos in Mexico City at the time of the FBI assassination investigation. Additionally, Von Peacock and the Hydes had ties to Wood County, Ohio. Von Peacock retired to Northern Virginia... CIA country.  

The fact that the Friends, in initiating the exchange program, referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia" is very telling. It was denial of Communism - because they were Anti-Communists and willing participants in programs that would help Communism be brought down. I do not condemn her for that. But to deny that reality shows that there is something to hide by the admission.

Following on from the Earlham College/Conservative Quaker leads, we can put Ed Duckles, the founder and president of the Casa de los Amigos, in a similar category. [url=https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qfzHfon31AIC&lpg=PA18&ots=NQnJxI9MFd&dq="duckles" speaking anti-communist]He was a follower of Bertram Wolfe[/url], an ex-Trotskyist turned professional Anti-Communist. In particular, he thought Wolfe was correct in writing that the Soviets would inevitably subjugate more and more people, and that this would lead to WWIII. Wolfe, who helped develop the policy of American Exceptionalism, was taken by Duckles on a lecture tour of AFSC functions.  

So the Friends had a very good reason to be WITTINGLY involved in these CIA operations. Fear of WWIII. 

Funnily enough (or maybe not) this is the very reason proffered by LBJ to stop any real investigation of the assassination. 

At that 1955 conference an East-West Contacts Committee was organized for that purpose--to bring exchange visits into being in an organized form. Three Young Friends are named in FBI interview documents as constituting the East-West Contacts Committee: Wilmer Stratton, Paul Lacey, and Ruth Paine, then known by her maiden name as Ruth Hyde (she married Michael in 1957). Each of these, young at the time (early 20s), went on to have careers of honorable standing among the Friends. Ruth was active with this at the outset and was the organizer of a pen pal program between citizens of the US and the Soviet Union writing each other, as part of the larger scope of this Friends initiative. The purpose of the Friends program started in 1955 was explicitly understood to be the objective of organized exchanges of visits between young persons of the two countries, which over the next several years came to fruition. According to Stratton, chair of the East-West Contacts Committee, there was no paid staff. They corresponded with a Soviet youth organization called the Committee of Soviet Youth Organization.
Other documents relevant to this: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v24/d111, and especially this, NSC 5607: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v24/d104. 
And so this raises the question: how did this coalescence of CIA objectives and a Young Friends of North America initiative undertaken by members of a religious group work exactly? Were the Friends of the East-West Contacts Committee knowledgeable of the CIA objectives and hand behind this State Department sponsored program with which the East-West Contacts Committee of the Young Friends was involved in implementing?

Of course they were knowledgeable of it and WITTING partners in it. They could not even bring themselves to acknowledge the Soviet Union, still referring to it as "Russia". And they had Wolfe in their heads feeding them fear of the Communist Domino menace coming to a town near them real soon.

What is the moral verdict on participation in a world peace initiative that major powers on both sides are using for their own strategic objectives? Where do lines get drawn

It gets drawn at owning it, instead of continually attempting to downplay it as some innocent involvement.

, and to what extent does cooperation with a State Department sponsoring international exchanges become morally objectionable? 

It becomes objectionable when you hide behind a religion as somehow proof of virtue, especially when the real history shows that the Friends in that part of the world were full-on Anti-Communists living in fear of WWIII unless something was done to bring them down. 

OK that is a start. To spell out my own position clearly: I do not see specific evidence that Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had an informant role in the 1962-1963 period with respect to her dealings with Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald. If there was I want it to come to light. 

Doudna does not seem to understand that providing information and evidence to the FBI makes you an informant. Surely he is not denying that she did this, both pre and post assassination?

If not I want that to be known too. In any case I want to see Ruth's name cleared from all unjustified smearing, in which innocent people are pilloried on the basis of suspicion alone. I recognize that the case of Oswald and Marina is unusual, even if there had been no assassination. I just assume US intelligence was monitoring Lee and Marina in the background, in terms of surveillance, more than the occasional interview visits from the FBI. In this context I do not fault scrutiny cast on the significant persons in Oswald's and Marina's circles, and recognize the reasonable grounds for such questions.
I have not been in contact with Ruth either directly or indirectly via intermediaries since 2003, though in the small world of Friends, I know people who know Ruth. Based on what I know of Ruth Paine from the past personally, if I ever were to renew contact with her directly, I will say privately to her that which I say now publicly: if she tells me, as a Friend to a Friend, something specific is true or is not true, I will believe her. I believe she has been truthful in her testimony related to the JFK assassination, and I believe her walk as a Friend has been real.

Since Doudna brings up truthfulness among Friends, let's look at the reality.  From Quakers and Affirming

When you swear to do something, you're saying you will do it. This can be interpreted as a religously backed oath or as a sincere promise. [1] Either way, quakers object because they believe they're supposed to tell the truth at all times, and so they "do not swear, but we 'affirm' that we are being honest, as always". [2] The word of a quaker, however, has lost a lot of its reputation. People no longer trust arbitrary statements by most quakers more than those same statements made by non-quakers. This is because quakers have, over time, become less serious about telling the truth. Quakers have become much more integrated into society than they used to be, and now mostly have accepted the prevailing norms on truth telling. Which isn't to say that quakers lie all the time any more than most people lie, but that requesting promises not to lie from quakers makes sense.

Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non quakers warning each other to force a quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth.

--------------
I gave one example above of Ruth using these techniques when asked by the FBI if she knew who the  14 year old was who went to barbers with Oswald, with her reply being that Oswald did not know any local (Irving) 14 year old boys - a statement that was true, but completely and utterly misleading. And she framed her answer that way to avoid the truth. The boy was her Russian language student who lived in Dallas - not Irving. The advice from the Quaker above that Quakers should be forced to tell the truth without the slippery answers absolutely has to be applied to the very slippery Ruth Hyde Paine.

The following is from a newsletter of Jan 2004 circulated to family and friends written by my wife, Anne Caroline, shortly after my return with her from Denmark where I had been on a research fellowship for one year during which we were married. The writing reflects English as a second language for her. In the middle of the left column she tells of meeting Ruth Paine. 

Touching. But entirely irrelevant. 


#Paine

FAO MARK STEVENS

It's all so depressingly predictable.
Fezzo vomits up a veritable smorgasbord of barely literate sentence fragments and minimalist psychedelic doodles and Baggins gushes with delight..
It's obvious Fezzos been lovebombed by the guru..his ego well and truly massaged( youve taken the "work" a lot further down the road..but the road to where? The road that leads downtown...where feral kids roam in packs through the alleys, past the hollow eyed shadows crouching inside the doorways of boarded up pawnshops. Sorrow clings to the cold area with its skeletal talons and Death smiles as the night echoes with sirens and the chatter of hungry guns ..some roads are best ignored) Fezzo comes trotting back to the forum...
It's the same old stale rubbish.
There was an old British comedian- Tommy Cooper- he wore a fez and his catchphrase was " Just like that!!"
Need some school records doctored?
No problems!!
Just like that!!
Need some documents faked?
Just like that!!
Turn HARVEY into LEE?
Just like that!!
Scattered amidst the detritus of over two decades of failed doppelganging a couple of key phrases leapt out
" The records were doctored" and " the totality of the evidence"
Harvey and Lee operates in an alternate dimension. Were through the looking glass you see!! 
Because the CIA experimented with LSD and embarked on many wild wacky and downright immoral schemes we can switch off our critical faculties. Ignore the mundane physical laws that govern our existence.
Fezzo knows more than anyone ( guru excepting) about all this.
That's not exactly something to go around boasting about!
Would you listen to a man who claims to know everything about the Flat Earth? Or the 8 foot Nordic aliens that live at the bottom of his garden .
It's exactly the same principle.
To believe H and L you must first suspend all disbelief 
Accept the idea that an angry man in a fez possesses infinite wisdom.
Because hes read the book, the notebooks and the fucking CD..
You have to accept the basic proposition that a handful of wilfully misinterpreted school records, highly dubious decades old memories and some crank " photo interpretation' counts for more than the nonsensical central premise and the mastoidectomy that invalidated the theory TWENTY FUCKING YEARS before it even became a theory!!
Can you really blame Baggins and Fezzo if they get a little bad tempered from time to time 
I think wed all be more than just a little bad tempered having to publicly humiliate ourselves .
Saying that I can totally understand its allure.
Superficially it can appear very beguiling.
Like the bathroom scene in the Shining..before the sexy young girl turns into the pustulating decomposing hag..
Armstrong was enraptured with the idea of two Oswald's. Intoxicated with the idea that he was the one to figure it all out.
The Eastern European orphan recruited to pose as the disaffected American marine was the hook 
It was the hastily thought out cliché ridden plot required to stitch together the fantastic action sequences and next generation special effects.
The real historical Lee Harvey Oswald was the perfect candidate.
He had the perfect background. Broken home, single mother, introverted loner, record of truancy, drifting from city to city, school to school; never making any long lasting friendships.
Then with his military service he would have witnessed the brutal deprivations of Yankee Imperialism first hand.
The perfect résumé for the disaffected American kid; eager for a taste of the fabled Workers Paradise
He had the linguistic ability( the whole native speaker angle was, so I speculate, a post facto justification for the Hungarian doppelganger) he was nowhere near a native speaker. As usual the H and L gang rely on misdirection and sleight of hand. Relying on ONE highly contentious expert opinion and a whole host of non experts.
The argument about Oswald's linguistic proficiency is just more distraction anyway.
He didn't need to be a native speaker. Or have any experience and/or background at all.
He wasn't infiltrating the Soviet Union, he wasn't there to blend in 
He was a fucking American.
Did any of the other 15 defectors have long term doppelgangers?
Was there a Robert HARVEY Webster?
Of course there wasn't.
In purely historical terms the H and L caper is an anachronism.
Leaving aside the crazy central premise the idea of two unrelated boys growing up to be identical makes the whole idea laughable.
No wonder they want to bamboozle everyone with school records
You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know/ Everything we need to be fake is because a man in a fez sez so"
Mr Stevens, if you choose to interact with Fezzo let me tell you how it will unfold .
His " curious" enquiry is merely a prelude .unless you fall to your knees , slain by the spirit of fezzness it will proceed quickly to Stage Two.
It will be implied, with all the subtlety of a fez wearer in a shop that sells 13 inch hats that you are part of the FBIs COINTELPRO operation, tasked to silence the H and L gangs wonderful discoveries.
Fezzo is in the process of taking on the Military Industrial Congressional Complex singlehandedly!!!
I mean there's nothing else going on out in the real world. #1 topic of conversation round the Giant Owl in Bohemian Grove is how best to stop Butler blowing the lid on Hong Kong Phooey being in Dealey Plaza with a bazooka, Brian Doyle figuring out the CIAs special wig technology and Fezzo uncovering the dark secrets of MKSLOPE..Sidney Gottleibs attempt to create an army of supersoldiers with sloping shoulders and 13 inch heads ..
Just like that!!
Stage Three will culminate in your parentage, ancestry, cognitive abilities and sartorial tastes being questions.
The Education Forum poet laureate Brains Clark might even take a break from writing his latest " Scary Story" to demand that you be eradicated like the vermin you are for having the sheer audacity to question Harvey and Lee...
You have my complete respect for having the guts and the tenacity to confront these charlatans.
ADDENDUM-
Doc Norwood has just paid another fleeting visit; probably on his way to the etiquette class he teaches on Friday nights 
Displaying the mental dexterity that befits an ex chairman of the OIC his " argument" basically amounts to-" we're right and you're wrong"
Exhilarating display of clear thinking from the doppelgangers!!
Butler's come lumbering in , Armstrong alone knows where he came lumbering from .Every time I see Butlers vacant slack jawed expression I hear the distant plucking and strumming of duelling banjos..
Rusted cars, and glowing red eyes glaring out from a ruined antebellum plantation house ..
Robert E Howard meets Deliverance..
Anyway where ever he materialised from( and thats one fucking mystery Armstrong's more than welcome to) hes presented some clearly thought out logical argument...further elucidating the photographic anomalies.only fucking joking!!
Hes raving on about more magical alterations .
I swear to Armstrong he should forget about the assassination and concentrate on marketing whatever it is he smokes/ sniffs/ inserts/ ingests before an evenings romp
through the photo records of Dealey Plaza..hed make a fortune.
Lastly Fezzo has returned with this little gem
" We've already proved the teeth are different"
Do tell my little fez wearing chum . ...enlighten us all.. what pray tell have you proved? And more importantly how exactly did you go about proving it?
A reputable forensic dentist or two?
Or let me guess .the bumbling incompetent buffoonery of a porcine snouted wannabe cowgirl in a 13 inch hat?