The latest Paine apologist, Greg Doudna

First topic message reminder :

Mr Doudna has made the following assertions.

That the 14 year old at Shasteen's barbershop with Lee had to be the 19 year old Buell Wesley Frazier.

Let that sink in. Because it is right up there with our Brian's assertion that PM is a 300 pound female.

Here is Shasteen's description. 

Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, he had on blue jeans and they fit tight and he had on an old striped shirt, I remember him just like I see a picture over there right now and he was a husky kid, he wasn't what you call fat, but he was strong--broad-shouldered--he had a real full, and when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face, he was a wide-faced kid. You know, he was a nice looking kid. I mean, if he had had the personality and the teaching and the understanding to go with his looks, he could have done anything he wanted to do, but his personality to me made him look terrible and what he thought, and naturally when somebody disagrees with you to the point you get angry with them, you don't think much of their looks, but if you bring it down to his looks, he was blue-eyed, blonde-headed--he was not a light blonde he was a dark blonde. In fact a lot of. people might call him brown-headed. But he wasn't nobody's dummy because a 14-year-old boy can't spit out--I wouldn't attempt to say just how he said everything, but the things t hat struck me when he belittled our country and our leaders as a whole I might disagree with our leaders but I'll stick up for them when it comes time down to the point.




Frazier

This is how far some will go in the blind defense of the indefensible.

It was pointed out to Doudna that i had pinpointed the 14 year old Bill Hootkins as the only viable candidate. He has not responded to this, but nor has he repeated his silly claim about Frazier.

Greg Doudna also states: "Some think Ruth concealed and perjured herself in saying that she never lent Oswald her car (with the motive for that perjury which carries heavy penalty, being unwillingness to admit to being party to Oswald illegally driving if Oswald had no license), whereas in reality Ruth did lend her car to Oswald to drive. I don't think Ruth knowingly perjured herself on lending Oswald her car." 

I would be pleased if Mr Doudna would show in Ruth's testimony that she states she never loaned Lee her car. 

This is as close as she gets to that, as far as I can find: 

Mrs. PAINE - I thought that he was not very intelligent. I saw as far as I could see he had no particular contacts. He was not a person I would have hired for a job of any sort; no more than I would have let him borrow my car [anyway].


That is is one of her patented Quaker non-denial denials.  If I said I would no more hire Ed Ledoux than I would let him borrow my car... it is NOT a denial that I would do either. It is just saying that one is no more likely than the other.

He further claims that Oswald may have "borrowed" Ruth's car while Ruth was out.

Where would Ruth go without her car? How would she go without her car? 

Moreover, Oswald would have had to jump start it  hot wire it. She sez she kept her keys in her bag. Would she go out without her bag?

But oops. She forgot what she had said before...

Mr. JENNER - Did you leave the key in the car?
Mrs. PAINE - I never leave the key in the car; I always lock it.
Mr. JENNER - That was your habit with respect to the ignition key?
Mrs. PAINE - I always lock the car and leave the ignition key in my purse.
Mr. JENNER - You never leave the ignition key around your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, my purse was in the home.
Mr. JENNER - So it was not in the open?
Mrs. PAINE - He had to go in the purse, never. Just how he got the car started, I recall my shock that he had. But I must have laid out the key or something because I did not intend for him to start it.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't give him the key on that occasion to go out and start the motor?
Mrs. PAINE - Absolutely not.
Mr. JENNER - But when you came out of the house he had already started the motor and backed the car into the street?
Mrs. PAINE - No, no; I let him back it out.
Mr. JENNER - You did?
Mrs. PAINE - I was deciding what I was going to do.
Mr. DULLES - You were in the car at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, I had gotten in the car at that time.
Representative FORD - And he was in the driver's seat?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Representative FORD - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Was he in the driver's seat when you came out of the house?
Mrs. PAINE - That is my recollection. Then, referring now to the practice of his parking.

Oh dear. She had already testified that Lee started the car. Here she testifies that she always locks the car and keeps the keys in her purse. So realizing she has contradicted herself, she makes up some BS that oh  this one time, I must have left the keys out.

This was 1963. Needing a license to drive was still a contentious issue in Texas. She let him use the car. Without doubt. 

If Mr Doudna would like to debate the testimony and honesty of Ruth Paine, I would be happy to accommodate him.  He just has to sign up here.

Greg, I would like to engage some of the specifics you mention re Shasteen but before that I would like you to address directly and simply a question that I have raised maybe 4-5 times now which I have not seen you address (normally you do address relevant matters): the question of rational explanation for a coverup of 15-year old Hootkins in a barbershop in Irving, Texas.

I have explained it in this thread, as well as in past ones.

I have not responded to your specific claims because you incorporate the straw argument that my claim had him acting on behalf of the FBI or some other government agency. Not only did I NOT say that, I specifically named who he acted for and provided proof of the existence of this private and secretive student organization. Go back through the thread. You'll find a school magazine clipping about Students for America which acted as an on-campus junior FBI spying on any student or student group deemed to be subversive. 

Count that among the things I do not to want to have to remind you about.

To review, Shasteen claimed an identification of a customer in his shop

I'll stop you there because it is not so much a review as a butchering combined with completely unfounded guesswork on statistics.

Let's get this out of the way first.

Shasteen's witnessing of Oswald does not fit the false sighting template. In the false sighting template, it is a "one-off" sighting, usually in a place where the real Oswald is known not to be - because he is provably somewhere else.

In Shasteen's case, it was MULTIPLE sightings in MULTIPLE locations - all timed with periods where Oswald was known to be in Irving. So please... drop the false equivalency.

Let's also dispose of more canards

Bert Glover's description of Oswald as shown in an FBI report dated September 10 1964.

The physical and clothing descriptions are so different to those given by Shasteen that there are concerns about the nature of the information from Glover, which I will get to.

Here are the statements of both Glover and Law from [url=https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&relPageId=833&search=%27bert_elmo glover%27][/url]September 10.

Note that Glover personally recalled Oswald being in the shop 3 times and that he cut his hair once. He further specifically denies seeing him in any cars, specifically denies recalling the boy, and lastly, gives a completely screwed up physical and clothing description of Oswald. 

At first I put the problems with the statement down to the fallibility of memory.

But now there is proof that the statement was materially altered by the FBI. This alteration is not only documented, but it also makes sense on so many levels since the statement - in its altered form - can be used to rebut the evidence of Shasteen. 

In fact, [url=https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10009&relPageId=102&search=%27bert_elmo glover%27][/url]the statements of all three barbers were materially altered - but Glover's seems to have been altered the most.

As for Law, as previously shown, he seems to have been bought off to wipe Oswald and the boy from his memory altogether with a nice job at the Harold Byrd co-owned Ling-Temco-Vought as his reward.

To get more accurate accounts, we need to go back to an earlier FBI report, dated [url=https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672&relPageId=638&search=shasteen_and glover]December 23, 1963[/url].

In this report

Shasteen advised that he recalled Oswald in the shop with the boy on a Wednesday or Thursday (it was most likely Friday the 8th of November) and that GLOVER had cut Oswald's hair and that GLOVER had also cut the boys hair possibly the following week (but later recalled as the week of the assassination). On that occasion someone else had brought the boy and waited in the car. This was the day that the boy had created a scene.

Bert Glover advised that he too recalled cutting the hair of boy. And he too failed to recognize the boy as being local - and that he would get in touch with the FBI should he find out who he is.  (this strongly suggests that part of what was changed in Glover's later statement was his ability to recall the boy at all)

So now we have...

Oct 4 or 5: Oswald and Hootkins (let's not pretend it could be anyone but hootkins) attending the barbershop. Oswald's hair is cut by Shasteen. Hootenanny sits silently and waits.

Oct 18 or 19: Oswald and Hootkins in the shop the second time. Oswald has his hair cut again by Shasteen while Hoots Mon waits silently.

November 7, 8, or 9: Oswald and Hootkins are back in the shop a third time. This time Glover cuts Oswald's hair while Hottentot waits silently.

November 12, 13, 19 or 20: Hogmanay is back in the shop - this time hans-free and solo and has his hair cut by Glover. While there, he lets loose with a BLUSTEROUS acting performance worthy of a St Fark's thespian, almost making Shasteen burst a blood vessel in the process. So good was the performance by this St Lark's lesbian, he went on to bigger and even meatier roles as Santa Bhagavad-gita in Like Father, Like God and Used-Car Dealerman in Something to Trade In.

You discount Shasteen's testimony that his "Oswald" customer was very meticulous in how he had his hair cut and always wanted it "just so", at a length slightly above what would stand straight up, but not long enough to comb down flat, "in between" those two lengths. Whereas Oswald's hair always looks easily combed down flat, and furthermore Hutchison of Hutch's Market across the street, who remembered Oswald (the real Oswald) in his store said that Oswald (the real Oswald) looked like he always needed a haircut. 

I do not discount Shasteen's testimony regarding Oswald's hair. I discount your cherry-picked interpretation. 

Mr. SHASTEEN. The fact is, he never did want his hair cut--he always wanted it to look like it was about a week old when he cut it

That is consistent with how Hutchison described it and how it looked on the assassination weekend - the weekend he was actually due for another cut if not for being arrested and murdered.

There is the acknowledged-less-reliable testimony of Marina that conflicts: Marina denied Oswald drove a car (apart from with Ruth, by himself). You also suggest that since Shasteen was friends with Sorrels, who headed the Dallas Secret Service office, and had discussed his forthcoming testimony with Sorrels, that Sorrels may have influenced, suborned perjury on the part of Shasteen, and that Shasteen cooperated in that. 

Funny how you keep screwing up things I say, Greg. Never said they were friends. I said they met prior to Shasteen giving testimony and the only other witness I can think of who met with Sorrels was Mary Bledsoe - who duly turned up for her star turn before the WC with a supplied lawyer and copious notes made at Sorrel's suggestion. 

I think I also hinted the purpose of the meeting with Shasteen was to muddy up his memory a bit, rather than straight out tell him what to say. Cast doubt for instance on how many times Oswald had been in. "Was it really just three times Cliff? Sure it wasn't more? Think hard because we really need all the facts. And by the way, you said you can't recall if the kid said he was 14 or 15. We think you will sound more convincing if you can be more positive about it. Let's toss a coin. Heads he was 14, tails he was 15." Sorrel's gets put his two-headed coin and flips...

You also have suggested that FBI agents reporting on the Shasteen and Glover interviews actually knew better than what they reported, which since that is not the usual FBI field agent practice in writing up interview reports, again supposes coverup and conspiracy on the part of those field agents to

See above. We now know that the reports of September 10, 1964 were materially altered and that in the one on Glover, he does a 180 degree turn from a very specific recollection in Dec 1963 of cutting the boys hair the previous month, to not recalling the boy at all. I cannot credit that between December 1963 and September 1964, the boy was somehow wiped from his memory. It is not a credible proposition. What is a credible proposition is that the reports of September 1964 were altered by the FBI. They say so themselves. What they don't do, is allow us to see the original reports for comparison.

Shasteen testified the young man was 14, not 15, and originally told the FBI that the young man had brown eyes, not Hootkins' blue eyes. You interpret this as either lapses or changes in Shasteen's memory, which of course on any individual point is always a possibility. 

How would you expect a barber to recall the eye color of a specific customer after cutting his hair a couple of times? In any case, blue and brown are the most common colors. Eye color can and does change in different light conditions and after exposure to sunlight. Look it up. I did. Moreover, Oswald's eye color is not even consistently listed in official documents. Sometimes listed as "grey" sometimes "blue-gray" and sometimes as "blue-hazel".  

Against accuracy of the Shasteen identification is the testimony of Ruth Paine, the major witness for timeline relied upon by nearly all investigators of the assassination. Whereas investigative staff of both Warren Commission and HSCA questioned the credibility of other witnesses, notably Marina but also a number of others, I am not aware that any investigative staff closest to the investigation of either of these investigations seriously questioned the credibility of Ruth Paine's testimony. That does not mean it is beyond question but it is the track record. In the present case, Shasteen's claimed "Oswald" is inconsistent with Ruth Paine's testimony concerning Oswald's driving; concerning any teenager of about 14 years old with Oswald; any disclosure of her Dallas student Hootkins being in Irving; any knowledge of Oswald getting a haircut in Irving. You have some explanation for some of these as Ruth Paine doing "Quaker deception" by technically speaking truthfully even though intended to deceive which I consider quite imagined and crazy (there is no evidence Ruth Paine has done this elsewhere, and there is zero knowledge on my part of this being a Quaker practice in court or otherwise, in any form statistically above what the general population practices).  

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that a person must have been honest simply because her honesty was never questioned.

Let's run her honesty credentials through the patented ROKC Bullshitometer and see if it hits any fans...

November 13, 1963: Ruth Paine filed a petition for divorce stating she separated from Michael on September 1, 1962, and that for 6 months prior to separation, she had suffered a course of "unkind, cruel harsh and tyrannical treatment and conduct" at the hands of her husband. Ruth's attorney in this filing was Louise Raggio. Louise Raggio attended the same (Unitarian) church as Michael. 

So which is it Greg. Pick box A or Box B. Was Mike secretly an utter bastard to Ruth, or did Ruth, with full knowledge of Mike, lie on a legal form in order to meet the criteria for a divorce? 

I know which I believe. She flat out lied on a legal form.  

As to her actual testimony, we have already been through that. I believe she avoided technical lies. That you wish to interpret it some other way does not affect how I do. And remember - it was not ME who warned that we should not trust Quakers with open questions - it was in fact a fellow Quaker. Take it up with him. All I did was show he was correct by using Ruth's testimony as Exhibit A.

greg_parker wrote:

Greg, I would like to engage some of the specifics you mention re Shasteen but before that I would like you to address directly and simply a question that I have raised maybe 4-5 times now which I have not seen you address (normally you do address relevant matters): the question of rational explanation for a coverup of 15-year old Hootkins in a barbershop in Irving, Texas.

I have explained it in this thread, as well as in past ones.

I have not responded to your specific claims because you incorporate the straw argument that my claim had him acting on behalf of the FBI or some other government agency. Not only did I NOT say that, I specifically named who he acted for and provided proof of the existence of this private and secretive student organization. Go back through the thread. You'll find a school magazine clipping about Students for America which acted as an on-campus junior FBI spying on any student or student group deemed to be subversive. 

<...>

November 12, 13, 19 or 20: Hogmanay is back in the shop - this time hans-free and solo and has his hair cut by Glover. While there, he lets loose with a BLUSTEROUS acting performance worthy of a St Fark's thespian, almost making Shasteen burst a blood vessel in the process. So good was the performance by this St Lark's lesbian, he went on to bigger and even meatier roles as Santa Bhagavad-gita in Like Father, Like God and Used-Car Dealerman in Something to Trade In.

"Students for America" according to the news article you cited was an organization on university campuses, undergraduate and graduate, with students over 18. Therefore this organization would not have a chapter at St. Mark's which was a private secondary school of younger ages, which we call here in the U.S. middle school or high school. "Students for America" was students covertly taking names of and reporting on suspected communist sympathizer professors and fellow students, and supposedly had chapters on college campuses around the U.S. (though I can find no further information about this organization causing me to wonder how widespread or independent it was or if it had much of an existence). But St. Mark's in Dallas was not a university campus. If anyone at St. Mark's had organized such a group, there would be underage issues, legal issues, parental permission issues, secrecy issues, scandals if kids told their parents and some parents objected.   

You suppose this university student organization was active at St. Mark's on the grounds that the campus newspaper where the news article was published telling of Students for America activity, was the alma mater of the head of St. Mark's. He came from a university which had a chapter; therefore he could have been a member since he was there, and therefore he could have later started a chapter of the same among his underage charges at St. Mark's. It could hardly have been kept secret from parents, but would have had to have had signed permissions from parents. But if it were not secret it would be known and why isn't it then? If it involved parents as well as students also pledged to secrecy in this anti-communist spying and reporting activity on teachers at St. Mark's, how long do you think such secrecy would last if it was happening? How would the faculty at St. Mark's feel about it once they learned of it? Most Catholic schools I understand are under the authority of priests or a cardinal in a hierarchy which goes all the way to the Vatican. Was "Students for America" a Catholic-only organization? Nothing in the news story said that. If not, what would the church hierarchy think about a non-Catholic spy organization among the underage students in their charge? Where are documents confirming this activity?

You have Hootkins, the assertive acting student, learning Russian from Ruth Paine, as a member of this unlikely underage-anticommunist spy organization. But you have a further innovation which goes well beyond anything in the news story: you have the St. Marks branch doing an operation, unlike Students for America on the university campuses which did only passive collecting of names and information concerning communist sympathizers. You have Hootkins--as part of Students for America (who were they working for?)? at the direction of some adult over him (who were they working for?)?--undertaking a covert operation in Irving to have some people in a barbershop think Oswald sympathized with communist views (as if that was some secret about Oswald that required a special covert operation to let people know). 

This sounds far-fetched. It leaves unexplained why Ruth Paine would refuse to say so when asked by the FBI if she knew of a teenager hanging around Oswald. Why would Ruth cover that up (not disclose)?

Do you think Ruth Paine was party to framing Oswald for the assassination? (and knew the assassination was coming?) Is that what you think?

What about Hootkins' family--siblings, mother or father, or Hootkins himself--is it sensible that they would not disclose then or later that Hootkins went to Irving with Ruth Paine?

According to Hootkins' childhood friend who knew him then, who wrote you, Hootkins as a youth was a strong Kennedy supporter. Would young Kennedy-supporter Hootkins have known he was a bit player in a plot to kill the president he loved and be party of framing someone for that killing? Would the plotters have trusted a 15-year old to not blow his role in the plot by telling his parents and authorities about it? If he did not know at the time, would he not surely have told adults in a position to do something about it after the fact, and the word would get out and come to light? Is it credible that Hootkins' family members and Hootkins himself then and throughout the rest of his adult life and all any one of them told, would keep it undisclosed without speaking of it?

All of this coverup on the part of so many involved, just to have somebody in a barbershop think Oswald held communist views, which many people already knew anyway. How was such an elaborate operation justified in terms of payoff? 

You raised other points which I will wait on addressing as I would like to stick with this question of plausibility of motive for the scenario you outline. 

The alternative is that Shasteen, though he did cross paths with the real Oswald with Marina once in a drugstore in Irving he said he paid no attention to Oswald at that time, and though he did see the real Oswald with Marina and Ruth once across the street at Hutch's Market getting out of Ruth's car, it was at a distance and a view only of the back of Oswald; and the oversize workwear coveralls that Shasteen said his customer always wore when he saw him at Hutch's across the street was when the customer was walking there by himself, not the time he saw the real Oswald with Marina and Ruth getting out of Ruth's car! The alternative is Shasteen mistakenly identified his customer, whom he remembered well, with the real Oswald, who he did not ever study or remember closely in person.)

Apologies to both Gregs for butting in and breaking the flow of the debate but I'd like to make a couple of brief points( well as brief as possible!) 

Mr Doudna, after reading your posts here and over on the Ed forum, although you come across as articulate, affable and well informed, you also seem to be overtly blinkered by your preconceptions.

This is not a criticism, merely an observation.

IMHO you came into this debate with a predetermined goal, your beliefs and your obvious affection ( not meant to be interpreted as an off colour insinuation) for your co religionist having blinded you to many reasonable alternatives. Forcing you to concoct the unlikeliest scenarios to maintain your preferred narrative.

You seem to have  an absolute Manichean view, strictly delineated by ( IMHO) wholly spurious distinctions. The Manichean  interprets reality in the starkest terms:
Black or White with no room for grey.
In reality of course there are many shades of grey, each shade a shadowy hinterland unto itself, rife with conflicted emotions and motivations.
The human heart is far too subtle an instrument to be measured by primary colours alone...

If you are not  " for" Ruth Paine, you must be against her.


Either she is a blameless paragon, a selfless charity orientated suburban saint, ruthlessly persecuted by the latter day heirs of Torquemada and Matthew Hopkins.
Or she is a vile conniving villainess, a worthy nemesis if Stan Lee had decided to set Batman in Oak Cliff rather than Gotham city...

The record clearly shows that she was neither.

I see her as a victim, an unsympathetic figure perhaps, someone who was both manipulated and manipulating. 

I think her familial links and her ties to the Eastern Establishment bluebloods are important. Not in an overt way, but in a subtler, more nuanced way.
Indicative of how the British methods ( the right sort of chap/ chapess) were copied by those in the highest echelons of the Establishment.

Those who existed in a truly rarified environment, palatial retreats and oak panelled studies, where the ladies dutifully withdrew after dinner allowing the gentlemen to get down to the serious business over port and cigars, were not only influenced by but tutored by the British. The era of the OSS( Oh So Social) carried on into this era. Recruitment was informal. Based on the ties of blood, the old school tie and the cold blooded snobbery that bound those who believed that they were born to rule together.

Looking out of mullioned windows,  as seen  from a  Georgetown redstone or a colonial mansion deep in leafy Virginia horse country, Ruth and Michael Paine would have seemed the ideal candidates to babysit the  peripatetic ex defector and his family. The ex defector and his Russian wife

The link with Dulles was probably not coincidental.
For such a link , if cast in a suitably sinister light , could be used as leverage.

I think the link rules Dulles( far too experienced and cunning to utilise an acquaintance as a pawn in such a critical operation) out as a major plotter.
It most certainly rules him in as a post facto cover up facilitator

I think the Paine's thought they were doing a trusted " someone" an innocent favour, babysitting a hapless waif and his pregnant wife.
The favour may well have been designed to appeal to Ruth's charitable nature.

She may very well have been instructed ( encouraged maybe a better word) to see Oswald applied to the TSBD.
Without having the faintest inclination why..
Yet again the suggestion may well have been structured to appeal to Ruth's charitable nature.

Helping a poor lost soul help himself and his poor Russian wife


Did she have any inkling of the darker motivations? The stirrings in the deepest subterranean catacombs of the Cold War that was poised to explode ,threatening to drown the whole world in a Pompeii like sludge of suspicion, hysteria and hollow lamentation?
Perhaps

Perhaps not.

Initially at least.

The weight of the evidence is overwhelming, rather the weight of the evidence Ruth helped produce is overwhelming.

In the months following the assassination, her garage churned out incriminating artifacts- ticket stubs, cameras, letters- as obligingly as a printing press spewing out dollar bills ..an early assassination related precursor to quantitative easing perhaps...

Mr Doudna, I don't think its really fair to equate the very real, very troubling doubts about the veracity of Ruth's post assassination statements and actions with witchfinding
Implying that all Ruth's critics are hateful zealots eager to condemn an innocent woman to the flames simply because she was the right person at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Incidentally if you could answer a question that's always intrigued me idI be very much obliged.
Is there any record of the Paines ( Ruth or Michael) opening their home to virtual strangers?
Or were the Oswalds somehow unique?
I'm not being disrespectful or attempting to imply anything untoward ...if Ruth was, as her defenders maintain, of such a charitable disposition then surely her generosity wouldn't be an isolated , one off event.

I mean no disrespect generally, IMHO your argument is informed more by your beliefs, your predetermined conclusions and your bias rather than the actual facts.

I found your criticism of Stan's cartoon to be a perfect example of the dogmatism he was trying to satirise.

Have you ever read Erasmus's satirical pamphlet " Pope Julius II attempting to enter heaven"?

Depicting the blood soaked armour clad warrior Pope swaggering up to St Peter, demanding that he admit him and his motley band of mercenaries?

In his own inimitable fashion Stan depicts the same sanctimonious hypocrisy.

I don't mean that literally of course, nor do I mean to offend you but I find the parallels, on a metaphorical level, to be striking.

There are a lot of serious questions about the Paines  activities ( especially post assassination), their contradictory statements, their willingness to collaborate with the authorities and most of all the unbelievably convenient conveyor belt of incriminating evidence that the Paine garage became.

Questions that have never been satisfactorily asked, never mind answered.

This forum is attempting to do both.
I joined ROKC because Greg and the other core members stick to the evidence... they aren't afraid of being proven wrong.

OK, so the language may get a little colourful and the satire may get a little too pointed for some people's tastes, personally I think a few choice phrases and bitingly direct humour is far less profane than playing stupid ego fuelled games with the evidence ( q.v. The Harvey and Lee fantasy )

As usual I ended up being far too loquacious.

Sincere apologies to both Gregs and I hope my adjective heavy intrusion doesn't spoil the ebb and flow of this intriguing debate...

alex wrote:(Reason for editing : A 6 foot 14 year old with muttonchop whiskers ran in while I was getting my doppelgangers goatee trimmed and stole my fake moms favourite fez)

FFS. He was 15. And the muttonchop whiskers were left over props from St Fark's Nativity play, Get Your Eyes Off My Ass, We're on a Mission from God. 

"Students for America" according to the news article you cited was an organization on university campuses, undergraduate and graduate, with students over 18. 

Greg, you seem to suffer the same delusions as many others in this community. If you think it, utter it, write, it must be true.

Here it is again. Please quote where it says what you claim it says.

Therefore this organization would not have a chapter at St. Mark's which was a private secondary school of younger ages, which we call here in the U.S. middle school or high school. 

You made something up and then made a (not surprisingly) wrong conclusion.

Here is Karl Mundt in 1953 waxing lyrical about the organization in Congress.




"...new student organization which has enlisted the support of university, college and HIGH SCHOOL students..."  "has members in 115 HIGH SCHOOLS and colleges in 20 states...

If anyone at St. Mark's had organized such a group, there would be underage issues, legal issues, parental permission issues, secrecy issues, scandals if kids told their parents and some parents objected.   

More made up bullshit.

Between the 2 articles, here is what we know.

It operated in over a third of the states. It operated in high schools, colleges and universities. It does not seek approval to set up and operate. It had a National Security Division which operated as a junior FBI with "Intelligence Divisions". It was militantly anti-Communist.

If, as I believe, the SFA operated at St Lark's, someone like the already pompous ass known as Bill Hootkins would be a perfect recruit because of his acting ability.

Of course the above is speculative. But it is based on rock solid ground.

1. It was Oswald and Hootkins who attended the barbershop. Without doubt.
2. Ruth Paine had the opportunity to tell the FBI that Hootkins had been coming to her place, but didn't. Since it WAS hootkins, her failure to say so indicates there was something to hide.
3. On top of that, we have Hootkins' Mother and St Fark's Asst Head giving conflicting accounts of where Darling Boy Bill was learning Russian. Oviatt thought Ruth was giving the lessons in the Hoots household and Mrs Hoots stated Ruth was picking Bill up and taking him to St Smut's.  Both wrong. Ruth was picking Bill up and taking him home.  Here's to you, Mrs Robinson!

The rest of what you wrote is just your usual scrambling of everything.  A little bit over it to the point of closing the thread unless you decide to... 

Address the hairy arms
Address the wanting his hair to look like it had a week's growth
Address the timing of their appearance and disappearance
Address why the barbers could not recognize the kid despite knowing all the local kids
Address the uncanny resemblance Hootkins had to Shasteen's description. Hootkins was NOT the average 15 year old. He had distinctive features and was incredibly articulate
Address Ruth's divorce statement and tell me it contains the truth
Address the amendments to the FBI reports. Normal procedure, if information was needed that was missed, would be to obtain a NEW statement - not amend the last one with no evidence that the barbers were re-questioned and no evidence showing what the statements said before rewritten.

Greg P., Shasteen has run its course for me too. You are right on "Students for America" being in high schools (below 18 yrs age) as well as college campuses. I read the article quickly and missed the first sentence reference to "high schools". I still don't see your Hootkins acting Oswald-framing scenario in the barbershop, for the two basic reasons that it is inconsistent with Ruth Paine's testimony, and also your scenario and the extent of coverup afterward is so elaborate and does not make much sense. I feel in a way here like I imagine you feel discussing with the two-Oswald doppelganger people on some specific, where they will make a scenario out of a few things strung together and a couple of anomalies and to them their scenario is just the way it is, with an explanation for anything. I just say Shasteen's customer was a man with a teenage son and a mistaken identification on Shasteen's part and be done with it, problem solved. But you were right on this strange organization "Students for America" in high schools, and I apologize for taxing your time with that mistake.

On the FBI report statements, I read those differently than you. You see them as FBI hq asking for and obtaining material alterations in reports of witness testimony. I see it as like this: FBI hq wants certain relevant questions addressed; interview is conducted; report is written by field agents; hq sees certain wording in submitted report as ambiguous or relevant questions unanswered; sends back to field agent and says "get this answered where it is unclear here". FBI field agent either already did get the desired information from the interview and just did not write it clearly, or, if the FBI field agent does not already know the witness's answer to the question would maybe make a followup phone call to the interviewee to clear up that detail, and then edit or rewrite the report to reflect that information. I do not see FBI hq as directing or suggesting or pressuring field agents to change witnesses' testimony, in these cases, from this FBI back-and-forth that you cite at least in this case. That reports would be kicked back and forth for editing or clarification/rewrite does not strike me as in itself sinister, or as intended to interfere with the accuracy of reporting of witness testimony in most cases.

On Ruth Paine's divorce filing saying that Michael Paine was "unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical", I would not know. In some U.S. state laws in the dark ages before no-fault divorce, I understand there was necessary legal boilerplate such as "emotional cruelty" which was in the eye of the beholder, that had to be cited as a legal requirement to get a divorce. Maybe Michael was unkind and cruel to Ruth, in the eye of the beholder, Ruth, long enough to get the divorce, but improved his behavior sufficiently that they could resume being friends after the divorce (I am being a little tongue in cheek). I don't know. Ruth never told me details of her relationship with Michael. I do see in documents at the Mary Ferrell site, letters Ruth wrote friends in the 1950s, allusions to discontent with her marriage with Michael, so there seemed to be something in the way of difficulties, but I have no knowledge of specifics nor would I have interest in pressing Ruth on specifics since that is a personal and private matter.

Thanks for responding Greg.


I respect your willingness to defend " a heroically unpopular point of view", and for  having the courage to venture into the metaphorical lions den to do so.

Armstrong knows there are few  souls brave enough to risk their reputations by debating Greg, head to head, on his home turf 

I truly meant no disrespect, indeed I can sympathize to some extent with the sense of frustration you must feel when you see someone who you admire, someone you believe to be beyond reproach , and guilty of nothing but kindness and generosity,  being ruthlessly pilliored by armchair conpiracists ( who, ironically display exactly the sort of zealotry they disparage Ruth Paine for displaying)

Reading some of the mindless trash that passes as " research" can be a truly nauseating experience.
As well as mirroring the behaviour of those whom they claim to despise, the high priests( and priestesses) of conspiracism never judge themselves using the same standards they use to judge others.
I try to avoid judging anyone, noting only that many who make a habit of judging others should perhaps have spent more time judging themselves..

I find the carnival Barker hucksterism ,anti intellectualism and po faced self righteousness at least as repugnant as the antics of the pro government stooges they claim to oppose

But I've said all this before.

To answer your specific points.

I think you misinterpreted the entire thrust of the argument I was trying to make.
Perhaps I was less than artful in the way I put my point across, if that was the case I apologise.
The " links" I am referring to are far deeper and more profound. They are the thin golden cords that link the tectonic plates together beneath the superficial democratic facade. The links of blood, family and tradition.


From the archaic ramshackle days of Francis Walsingham , the semi official " exploring agents" and shadowy Foreign Office couriers through to days of Vernon Kell and Mansfield Cumming ( the original C) and the standardisation of British Intelligence in the first decade of the 20th century recruitment was based on class and kinship.
The right sort of schools, families etc.

In fact I'm being way too narrow in my definition- until relatively recently ( though in the bars and gentlemen's clubs of the West End ...a collection of bewhiskered Miss Havershams ( in many cases quite literally) the old ways still cling on, stubborn and resolute, in defiance of the new fangled world of egalitarianism they so  detest. A photographic dark room in a digital age ..) the world of politics, diplomacy, intelligence, finance etc was a closed world.
The innermost ring of many interlocking concentric rings.. 

Recruitment was informal, a tap on the shoulder,
" I say would you like to do something for your country?"
Thats how the Burgesses, Philbys, Macleans and Blunts( they KNEW he was a Soviet agent but yet he was still made the Surveyor of Queens Pictures and given a comfortable sinecure at the Courtland Institute, where he could indulge his main passions - Poussin, vintage malt whisky and not so vintage young men .. they even gave him a knighthood!!) wormed their way into the heart of the British Establishment..

What's all this got to do with Ruth Paine?

Quite a lot.

I wasn't attempting to insinuate that Ruth was some domestic FBI/CIA agent/ informant, I was trying to make another point entirely.
I think the whole " pin the Agency tail on the JFK donkey " game ( the FBI CIA Mafia KGB MICC BBC( if according to Jim Harwood..Lord Reith dispatched Sir Bertrand Russell and a sniper rifle to Dallas stuffed inside Sir Robin Day's gut))is not only a futile distraction but a gross misreading of history.
Such simple classifications are far too crude a rubric and too blunt a knife to dissect such a delicate organism

Ruth Paine belonged to those exalted circles,. So what? Guilt by association is one of the favourite ploys of the conspiracists I excoriate so regularly and here I am mimicking them...
Like I came top of the my hypocrisy class at doppelganging school..

Apart from sweeping generalisations and cloudy rhetoric what do I really have?

A working knowledge of the social and political history of the era 
How the first generation OSS operatives were schooled and influenced by British methods.
How the British methods had deep roots in the Eastern Establishment/ Social Register/ Boston Brahmin caste

Greg, imI not accussing Ruth of being anyone's agent. I think the JFK assassination conspiracy was conducted at a far deeper level. The interconnected supra national power structure ( not the childlike caricatures of NWO illuminati cabals the troofers insist on defacing the internet with)
Such bonds of family, blood, money and power are far deeper than countries, politics and even religion... these are merely superficial trappings, designed to divide and to stupify.

The mind has been turned into the prison of the soul and the soul the prison of the body.

Regarding Ruth Paine my feeling is that she was approached by someone who knew her, her background and her religious beliefs who asked her to babysit the Oswald's.
Someone who knew and her family background intimately . Someone who knew she could be trusted.
If you've read Vincent Salandrias description of meeting the Paines you will hear them, both Ruth and Michael , speaking in their authentic voices.
Sometimes the masks we wear allow us to be ourselves, sometimes the masks end up becoming ourselves but othertimes the masks are just masks.
In that particular interview the masks are dropped.

Despite her public statements ( in some cases because of her public statements. Her letter to Garrison is as oligeanous as it unconvincing.) I firmly believe Ruth, like the rest of her caste, despised JFK as an interloper and a vulgar upstart.

I don't think she was knowingly complicit pre assassination, I think she was manipulated into thinking she was simply performing her charitable duty 

Post assassination is a different matter entirely. Greg, look at the specific pieces of evidence she produced, how they were " found" at such convenient times .

I don't have the patience nor indeed the analytical skills of the other Greg ( Armstrong preserve us all!! If Jimbo Baggins gets wind of this thread imI certain with his gift for doppelganging he'll rustle us up a Greg HARVEY Doudna and a LEE Greg Parker) and I don't have his in depth knowledge of the witness statements/ evidence/ police reports/ Warren Commission testimonies. I'm basing my opinion on my albeit limited knowledge of the history as much as the assassination itself.

And to a certain extent on my own personal experiences of attending a British public school just as you are basing your opinions, to a greater or lesser extent on your own experiences.
In my own day, 20 odd years ago echoes of the old traditions still lingered...
It's not something you can explain, it's ethereal, intangible but yet very real.

I think it's ridiculous to claim Ruth Paine was a CIA agent just because her a family members best friend was Allen Dulles mistress...
That's way too simplistic.

I don't think the assassination was some grand Cecil B DeMille Kitchen sink and all production with a cast of thousands
It didn't need to be.
Nor do I believe in some magical illuminati.
The NWO fairy tales are as much a misreading of human nature as they are of history..

On the ground the assassination most probably was carried out by a small tightly knit paramilitary unit.
At the top...well read Donald Gibson's essay on the formation of the Warren Commission.... unofficial calls outside regular government channels offering " friendly advice"

As usual i've waffled on too long.

I still don't see your Hootkins acting Oswald-framing scenario in the barbershop, for the two basic reasons that it is inconsistent with Ruth Paine's testimony, 

No it is not inconsistent with her testimony.

She pointed out that her own son was far too young to have been the boy with Oswald, and that she knew of no 14 year old boy in the neighborhood with whom Oswald associated.

Both of those claims are accurate, and Hootkins being the boy is easily seen as not inconsistent at ll with the claims since Hootkins was not her son, was not 14 and did not live in the area.

Should she have told the FBI that Hootkins was the boy? Yes. That she did not do so is reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Should the FBI have specifically asked both Ruth and Hootkins if he was the boy with Oswald? Yes. They knew he was learning Russian with Ruth. They knew he met Shasteen's description of the boy. That they failed to ask direct questions in order to rule him in or out is reasonable grounds for suspicion that they already knew it was Hootkins and framed the questions in a way that avoided drawing that information out.

and also your scenario and the extent of coverup afterward is so elaborate and does not make much sense.

saying it is elaborate and makes no sense is not any way to demonstrate those claims. Again, saying something is not evidence of it's truth.

There was nothing elaborate about it. It was a  tried and true intel method.

You want to paint someone in a certain fashion, get someone to get close to that person and be seen a few times with that person until you can be sure they are being associated with each other. Then get your operative to make a scene. You can have the person spouting commie tropes, nazi tropes, tropes of the disgruntled and angry, or anything else.It all depends upon the needs of the operation. That behavior and the sentiments expressed will then be associated with your target. I wrote about one such operation in my book.  

Nor was there anything elaborate about the cover-up. Ruth Paine truthfully answered questions not asked, and the FBI failed to ask direct questions, or pursue the lead with anything approaching critical thought, let alone with simple and routine investigative and questioning techniques.

I just say Shasteen's customer was a man with a teenage son and a mistaken identification on Shasteen's part and be done with it, problem solved.

There you go again. Mistaking what you say for a Divine Truth that solves a dilemma you find uncomfortable.

You have not a single piece of evidence to back that up.

No evidence of anyone hearing the words "son" or "daddy" uttered between them - and not only no evidence of any resemblance between them, but clear evidence that they were completely different - slim vs husky, dark haired vs light, eloquent vs surly, broad shouldered vs not filling out coveralls, wide-faced vs thin-faced.

I feel in a way here like I imagine you feel discussing with the two-Oswald doppelganger people on some specific, where they will make a scenario out of a few things strung together and a couple of anomalies and to them their scenario is just the way it is, with an explanation for anything.

Big difference. I don't screw with the evidence to make my case. The difficulty for you is that Hootkins, unlike Oswald, was not a generic young white male. He was very distinctive. If Shasteen had described your average teen of about 14 or 15 living in Irving, and I was making the same arguments I have been, you might have a point. But the chances are almost non-existent of there being a 14 or 15 year old boy living in Irving at that time who just happened to look like Bill Hootkins, was also capable of displayed a mighty intellect and who also happened to have a hairy-armed, thin father who liked his hair cut exactly like Oswald and who owned a car like Ruth Paine's. I have a better chance of winning lotto without even buying a ticket.

On Ruth Paine's divorce filing saying that Michael Paine was "unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical", I would not know. In some U.S. state laws in the dark ages before no-fault divorce, I understand there was necessary legal boilerplate such as "emotional cruelty" which was in the eye of the beholder,

"unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical" 

The meaning of words is important on a legal document.  It is not, as you claim, something that can be simply in the eye of the alleged victim. A judge and/or jury had to be convinced. Let's look at that last one.

Cambridge:
using, showing, or relating to the unfair and cruel use of power over other people in a country, group, 

Merriam-Webster
being or characteristic of a tyrant or tyranny : DESPOTIC

synonyms 
absolute, arbitrary, autocratic (also autocratical), czarist (also tsarist or tzarist), despotic, dictatorial, monocratic, tyrannous

Mike would have needed to be a full-blown Jekyll and Hyde (no pun intended) to have treated her "tyrannically" because he came across as mild-mannered, indecisive and incapable of tyranny. But yes, we both know that this was the type of statement needed to get a divorce. If it was't actually true, perjury is the only option. I want to make this very clear. Regardless of how common it was to lie in order to get a divorce in those pre no-fault days, we have here a person claiming to be incapable of lying, swearing to something that was patently not true, in order to obtain a benefit (in this case, a divorce). So please, drop the pretense that she would not lie. She DID lie - and did so to gain something she wanted. That others told the same lies in the same divorce courts is totally irrelevant.

I will allow you the last say before I close this thread. Be warned however, I will not take kindly to any last say that contains unsupportable claims. 

I may also peel your reply to Alex off and start a new thread with it because RP's level of complicity in anything, and the evidence used to support various claims about her are important topics. Is it all chaff? Is it all wheat? A bit of both?

I am in that last camp.

I think a thread dedicated to Ruth Paine's level of complicity is a great idea 

Along with Oswald himself Ruth has suffered most at the hands of the Conspiratocracy.

They've hindered rather than helped any serious investigation by reducing both to little more than cartoonish stereotypes and one dimensional caricatures.

I forgot to mention in my post upstream: the point I was trying to make about the link ( Mary Bancroft..a link Dulles allegedly joked about himself) or should I say the threat of the link being exposed; in the febrile atmosphere post assassination with the most alarming rumours circulating, leaked to a friendly conduit, it would have been easy enough to craft a grand Shakespearean narrative, one befitting the Grand Old Man of espionage fired by the upstart President ( Dulles as Iago acting out of revenge?)
Wouldn't that be enough to ensure AWD compliance? That is if he wasn't compliant enough already

One thing I've noticed about the Conspiratocracy and their various acolytes is their infuriating habit of simplifying what's complicated and complicating what's essentially simple.

Oh yes and their penchant and seemingly insatiable appetite for false mystery...

I'm only surprised some enterprising soul hasn't claimed Prayerman is in fact Ruth Paine...with a Stantonified wig, handbag and buttons

Richard Nixon, Robert Merritt, Mac Wallace and Rod Mackenzie having sent her to the TSBD to keep an eye on the other Mrs Reid who was typing up flyers about the Alien Presence for that evenings illuminati meeting at the Murchison Ranch...
Entertainment provided by Juddufki, Madeleine Brown, Bev Oliver, the Mormon Tabernacle choir and a eye wateringly well endowed rattlesnake called Reggie Rattles....

Makes perfect sense to me...

I wonder if you may be overinterpreting the physical resemblance argument between the teenage boy and the photo of Hootkins. The face is wide in both cases, that matches. But the Hootkins photo looks like a sort of rounded, soft-shouldered physical build of a non-athlete, whereas the kid of Shasteen's "strong, broad-shouldered" description sounds more like a muscular or strong build like an athlete. Then there are the differences in eye color (brown [first report] vs. blue) and age (14 vs. 15). None of these are probably decisive either way, but anyway.

Ruth Paine said she knew nothing of Oswald going for any haircuts in Irving. But if Ruth was bringing Hootkins to Irving and on no less than three occasions Hootkins was with Oswald getting haircuts, my experience with women and moms says there is approximately 100% likelihood that Ruth would have asked and made it her business to know where her 15-year-old charge was, and would have known of the barbershop visits. 

In the final visit of the teenage boy to Shasteen's shop, the time he got his haircut, Shasteen says the boy arrived driven in a car that Shasteen said was not Ruth Paine's station wagon, and that an adult driver waited in the car outside while the boy got the haircut. In the mistaken-identity interpretation this was probably Shasteen's customer in the customer's actual car all along (this being the only clear view Shasteen may have gotten of his customer's car and it was not Ruth's), or else the adult was some other family member. But in the Hootkins interpretation it seems to add another layer of complexity to explain who is this adult and where does the non-Ruth-Paine car come from. 

These final points wrap it up for me on this. You can have any last word and close it out.

Thread is now locked for further comment