Display results as :
Advanced Search
Latest topics
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking google      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
Thinking of dumping Facebook? Join the new social media platform that is not weaponizing your private information or using it for profit

Search found 14 matches for 2

by Greg_Doudna
on Fri 24 Jun 2022, 9:08 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: The Case of the Nuisance Phone Calls Redux
Replies: 39
Views: 4087

The Case of the Nuisance Phone Calls Redux

I agree the whole thing is puzzling. My first question on Valentine is can it be verified he existed and who was he (I can find no information). My second question would be why did FBI not investigate, at least to run down reason to dismiss Valentine's story. Valentine's claim as it stands, considered in isolation, is hypothetically completely possible: if he is already living in Apt #1 of the same unit in Atlanta where Mildred and new husband Miller newly moved into Apt #2, his overhearing could be through a thin adjoining apartment wall. On the face of it, Valentine was claiming to have overheard (through a thin apartment wall) a confession of involvement in the assassination spoken by the people living next door to him who had just moved there from Dallas, spoken of euphemistically by those people as "the attempt on Connally". This particular citizen call-in (of Valentine) might have been of more than routine interest to check out given that there was a reported witness sighting of Mildred's car at the scene of the assassination which may have been the same vehicle seen by Roger Craig. Like you, I wonder why there is no record of FBI interview of Valentine if only to establish that it was a false report (if so) and find out why Valentine did that (if so). Anyway thanks for your information up to this point. I sure wish Valentine could be identified and found and interviewed (conceivably still living somewhere). A city directory listing for Atlanta 1963 or 1964 might be able to verify Valentine's existence (if so) and if it also gave a middle initial just possibly that could be enough breakthrough to make possible maybe finding him...
by greg_parker
on Sat 31 Jul 2021, 11:22 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: Who Did Craig See?
Replies: 25
Views: 1199

Who Did Craig See?

Jeff Reilley wrote:You know it was the unaccredited doppelganger. Doppelganger #3 I believe

Well, we know Lovelady #1 was mistaken for Os Dop #2 in Altgens  #6, but we don't know what happened to Lovelady #2, so I tend to think it he was the person seen by RG #1 get into the Rambler which was almost certainly Rambler #2 and not Rambler #1.
by StanDane
on Thu 10 Jun 2021, 4:42 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: the assassination in dot points
Replies: 41
Views: 1721

the assassination in dot points

I've never heard of the "poison his steak at the Trade Mart" theory. It seems a little too convoluted and low-rent. They took the time at the depository to really make a statement there…

Main Street by pistol or luncheon by poison seems a little too convoluted and low rent?
Of the three options posited by Greg, the Dealey Plaza/TSBD option—the one that "worked"—was the shakiest and flimsiest in my view. Any "time taken to really make a statement" was after the fact following caveman-like brute force.
All of the best, most reliable evidence (interrogation records, affidavits, and news reports, etc.) place Oswald down in front with his boss and co-workers as the motorcade passed by the TSBD.
Want to see something convoluted? Try this:
After the shots, a police officer enters the TSBD and encounters Oswald near the entrance or just inside the entrance. Oswald is vouched for.
The cop runs up to the roof with Truly, ostensibly via the rear stairs, and encounters a man on the third or fourth floor. This dude is vouched for, and on up they go.
This cop, Baker, fills out a statement that evening in the general presence of Oswald who had earlier gotten nabbed at the Texas theater. Baker mentions nothing about a second floor lunchroom encounter nor Oswald as the man he saw.  
When it became clear that Oswald's airtight alibi had to be deflated, he was moved to the second floor in a series of "refinements" by Truly (Oswald's "damn the bad luck" elimination at police headquarters made these story "refinements" much easier).
Refinement #1: Oswald is seen sitting at a table in the second floor lunchroom (2FLR). *
Refinement #2: Oswald is brought to his feet leaning at a counter in the 2FLR.
Refinement #3: Oswald is standing by the Coke machine in the 2FLR sipping a Coke.
Refinement #4: Oswald is seen (a "glimpse") to be walking into the 2FLR toward the Coke machine.
Refinement #4: was the story presented to the Warren Commission.
Then six months later when Baker was asked to clarify whether or not there were any additional people in the 2FLR, he never mentions catching a "glimpse" of him, something he did multiple times in his WC testimony, nor does he even mention Oswald by name. No, he just sees a man standing in the lunchroom. Pretty much what he said back in November 1963.       
Talk about convoluted! Low rent? Hell, this is skid row!
Luncheon poisoning is much more simple and straightforward than this hideous monstrosity.

* The Secret Service did a video in late 1963 where they try to show how a man could have left the sixth floor "snipers nest," ditched the rifle, and then make it down four flights of stairs and into the 2FLR and sit down at a table in 90 seconds. But in doing so, they had the actor descend the four flights of stairs in a mere six seconds!
by Chris_Davidson
on Fri 14 May 2021, 3:57 am
Search in: Debunked!
Topic: A Dialogue between Angleton and Machiavelli on the Grassy Knoll..
Replies: 39
Views: 6632

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 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.
Topics tagged under 2 on REOPENKENNEDYCASE Ready204b681f8c68f6d86
by alex_wilson
on Tue 11 May 2021, 8:23 pm
Search in: Debunked!
Topic: A Dialogue between Angleton and Machiavelli on the Grassy Knoll..
Replies: 39
Views: 6632

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?"
by alex_wilson
on Sun 04 Apr 2021, 2:37 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: Greg On Black Op Radio
Replies: 7
Views: 832

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...
by alex_wilson
on Fri 02 Apr 2021, 7:55 pm
Search in: JFK
Topic: Here is how they did it.
Replies: 2
Views: 792

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...


By Judyth Vary Baker


'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 know, to make Don Jeffries  bursts of " independent minded populism " seem vaguely credible...
by lanceman
on Sun 21 Feb 2021, 6:27 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: Groden And His So Called Witness
Replies: 34
Views: 2312

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.
by alex_wilson
on Fri 01 Jan 2021, 1:12 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: Who Is This Guy?
Replies: 27
Views: 2040

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?
by alex_wilson
on Mon 12 Oct 2020, 12:57 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: My latest interview with Don Jeffries
Replies: 10
Views: 581

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" 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.
by Greg_Doudna
on Sun 27 Sep 2020, 5:14 pm
Search in: JFK
Topic: The latest Paine apologist, Greg Doudna
Replies: 35
Views: 2366

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.
by Mick_Purdy
on Thu 06 Aug 2020, 5:38 pm
Search in: JFK
Topic: Was the zap film altered?
Replies: 73
Views: 2515

Was the zap film altered?

Chris_Davidson wrote:
Mick_Purdy wrote:I think the film's provenance has been well established. 

Dallas Kodak processing plant employee Phil Chamberlain processed the original film with Zapruder present at the Lab. Harry McCormack from the Dallas Morning news was also in attendance when Zapruder handed his film to Chamberlain. Forrest Sorrel's from the Secret Service observed Zapruder with his film at his office and was handed two first day copies struck from the original. Not more than 60-70 minutes after the assassination Erwin Swartz Zapruders Business partner held the original unprocessed film while Zapruder conducted a televison interview at WFAA TV.

There is clear photographic evidence of Zapruder filming the assassination from the Concrete structure just as he had stated.

We can move forward.

"I took the agent and the roll of film into the processing room. There the single roll of
film was fed into the #2 processing machine by B. Davis (deceased). Davis, the agent and
myself stayed in the darkroom until the film entered the dry cabinet. The agent and I then went
to the dry alley. The lights in the drying cabinet were turned off so we could not view the film.
When the roll of film reached take off, I removed it and gave it to the agent."

This is not Phil Chamberlain's quote.
Sorrels departed Kodak before the film was finished processing.


with all due respect, it may not be Chamberlains quote but it makes no difference to the scenario I've outlined. If the above is not Chamberlains quote then who does it belong to and why is it important to my original post?

Sorrels observed the film in Zapruder's possession at his office.
by Chris_Davidson
on Thu 06 Aug 2020, 3:15 am
Search in: JFK
Topic: Was the zap film altered?
Replies: 73
Views: 2515

Was the zap film altered?

Mick_Purdy wrote:I think the film's provenance has been well established. 

Dallas Kodak processing plant employee Phil Chamberlain processed the original film with Zapruder present at the Lab. Harry McCormack from the Dallas Morning news was also in attendance when Zapruder handed his film to Chamberlain. Forrest Sorrel's from the Secret Service observed Zapruder with his film at his office and was handed two first day copies struck from the original. Not more than 60-70 minutes after the assassination Erwin Swartz Zapruders Business partner held the original unprocessed film while Zapruder conducted a televison interview at WFAA TV.

There is clear photographic evidence of Zapruder filming the assassination from the Concrete structure just as he had stated.

We can move forward.

"I took the agent and the roll of film into the processing room. There the single roll of
film was fed into the #2 processing machine by B. Davis (deceased). Davis, the agent and
myself stayed in the darkroom until the film entered the dry cabinet. The agent and I then went
to the dry alley. The lights in the drying cabinet were turned off so we could not view the film.
When the roll of film reached take off, I removed it and gave it to the agent."

This is not Phil Chamberlain's quote.
Sorrels departed Kodak before the film was finished processing.
by greg_parker
on Tue 14 Jul 2020, 5:38 pm
Search in: JFK
Topic: A response to Greg Doudna regarding the Paines
Replies: 1
Views: 954

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 [].) 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", 

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="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:, and especially this, NSC 5607: 
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. 

Topics tagged under 2 on REOPENKENNEDYCASE Img549.thumb.jpg.9cbb3c9dbda796997eb09bdeb29a55c9

Touching. But entirely irrelevant. 


Jump to: