JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1321)


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Ruth Paine on JFK Conspiracy Theories:




STEVE M. GALBRAITH SAID:

Of all of the absurdities that the conspiracy crowd believes in, the idea that Ruth Paine was some sort of CIA asset hunting down pro-Castro people in Ft. Worth, Texas (!!!) has to be at the top of the long, long list.

Quaker housewife with small children, liberal/progressive politics, Fort Worth, Texas.

Right.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War.

Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties liberals.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left" with you, John? It's ridiculous, IMO.

And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?

I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!

I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the liberal politics of the Paines.

Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm

OK, a little logic lesson here:

I said "as though."

Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."

You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"

They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.

You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.

---quote on---

"Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee, which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....

She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of [Soviet] Youth Organizations...."


---end quote---

In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.

I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct types.

The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace" is not dead.

http://google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace

I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.

It is true that when she went down to Central America with some leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.

She should have avoided such people.


"CHOSEN TEN" SAID:

["Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left" with you, John? It's ridiculous, IMO." -- DVP]

Well said Mr. Von Pein. I applaud you for voicing this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.

["I said "as though"." -- John McAdams]

OK. Point taken.

It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like this about Ruth Paine:

"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams

That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth Paine deserves.

The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/ruth-paine


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Like it or not, ideology matters. It's not an accident that leftists blame people leftists don't like, such as people in the CIA, anti-Castro exiles, rich Texas millionaires, etc.

And the Birch Society blamed communists.

["That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth Paine deserves." -- DVP]

Except that I didn't *say* that, I said I "could say" that.

Actually, I'm not as solicitous of her as I might be, but mainly because she seems to have the poise and self-confidence not to be bothered by the crazy buffs.

But you don't have to make those arguments to *me.*

Good luck with the conspiracy crazies. All I said is that she was a bit of a mush-minded liberal.

If you want to argue politics, particularly whether 50s liberals were a bit mush minded, we can do that. That would be fine.

But there is no need to argue with me about whether she was a CIA spook, or an evil person, or dishonest. She was none of those things.


ACE KEFFORD SAID:

David,

I had the same reaction, but you put it better and clearer. The idea that one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded, especially when you are talking about a person who became part of a situation as a result of an unhappy coincidence of history.

I do of course have exceptions. When a bully like Rush Limbaugh has to admit his illegal drug addiction I don't have much sympathy, with his hypocrisy only adding to it. As I said at the time, "He should be treated with the same open-minded and fair respect and sympathy he extends to those he considers his opponents and enemies." Likewise, Bill "Falafel" O'Reilly.

Personally I generally also have an exception if someone is a hateful or violent extremist. I know those are vague categories which can be expanded or contracted depending on the person applying them, but I don't see how being a mush-minded liberal means scorn for Ruth Paine.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

But I didn't say I disliked Ruth Paine. I said I *could* say I dislike her as a mush-minded 50s liberal.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Oh, so you think it was ONLY the 50s Liberals who were mush minded. All others are OK.


ACE KEFFORD SAID:

Actually, what you [John McAdams] wrote was "I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she was a mush-minded liberal."

Try defending that instead of your incorrect characterization of what you wrote.


GLENN V. SAID:

It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period. Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.


"BOZ" SAID:

You [DVP] are perfectly comfortable labeling people as "CTers vs. LNers". That's a label.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not the same thing at all. I was talking about labelling people "Lefties" or "Righties".

David Von Pein
May 19-23, 2017


================================


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Will someone please tell the Carnival Barker [DVP] that this thread is about John McAdams, his harassment of Cheryl Abbate, his dismissal at Marquette by two administrative hearings, and his recent court case which ruled against him.

I would not want to comment on that either if I was him because it shows the kinds of people he cavorts with.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't closely followed any of the controversy surrounding John McAdams and his Marquette problems. I don't care about it at all.

As for my "cavorting" with Professor McAdams, you Jimmy don't have any idea what you're talking about. You think that just because I agree with McAdams about the JFK case, that must mean I know him very well and am "cavorting" with him on a regular basis. Is that it? Well, think again Jimbo. I've never met the man and I've never "cavorted" with him. And I rarely speak with him directly on the Internet either. I've had a few conversations with him over the years on his aaj forum, but nothing more than that. And, in fact, there was a little bit of friction between us a few months ago [see this discussion]. So if you're under the impression that I'm buddy-buddy with Prof. McAdams, you're way off the beam (as usual).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

So you, he, and Reitzes never talked about an appearance on Anton Batey's radio show for a debate?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Never.

Here's what I said in 2011....

"I'm guessing that Jim DiEugenio probably thinks that Anton Batey, John McAdams, and myself are long-time friends and buddies. And Jimbo likely also thinks that the three of us get together on a regular basis to "plot" against the conspiracy theorists of the world.

That is the same mindset that DiEugenio possesses with respect to any connection that I have to LNers like McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Francois Carlier too. And nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll bet that DiEugenio would be more than willing to call me a liar if I told him that my "connection" to Mr. Anton Batey is virtually non-existent.

I cannot speak for Professor McAdams and his contact with Mr. Batey, of course, but as far as myself personally, I have shared a very few e-mails with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked with him a few times at the IMDB JFK forum."
-- DVP; Feb. 2011

http://jfk-archives/search=Reitzes+McAdams+Anton+Batey+Debate

David Von Pein
August 17, 2017









JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1320)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

David Von Pein says that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's head. That's an answer to my question.

I've repeated[ly] stated that David **HAS** answered my question. But neither Puddy [Bud] nor Chuckles [Chuck Schuyler] will answer, or agree publicly with David.

NO-ONE WILL PUBLICLY AGREE THAT DAVID'S ANSWER IS RIGHT!

Chuckles knows that David answered my question of whether or not there was a large wound on the back of JFK's head.

But Chuckles ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly state he agrees with David... despite being asked a number of times.

Clearly, Chuckles must think that David is wrong, or that David simply lied when giving his answer. Those are the only possibilities.

David - are you going to allow your fellow believers to imply that you're a liar?


CHUCK SCHUYLER SAID:

I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

FINALLY!!! CHUCKLES ACTUALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION!!! CHUCKLES NOW HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD.

[...]

Now that you've made a claim, do you intend to support it by citing the evidence for your claim?

Are you going to explain what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?

Do you have the courage to tell everyone what the measurements of the large head wound actually was?

Are you ready to show how such a wound can be put on JFK's head - without being in the back of his head?

Are you ready to explain the DOZENS of medical witnesses who dispute what you and David claim?

Are you ready to explain why you don't believe the Autopsy Report?

Or are you, as I FIRMLY predict, going to slink away like the coward you are after making your unsupported claim?

Watch folks, as Chuckles slinks away, unwilling to support his claim.

(I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket... I've been predicting these cowards for so long...)


BUD SAID:

The autopsy stated where the wound was and Ben keeps asking other people about it. This illustrates he is playing silly games.


"BORIS" SAID:

When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045

http://jfk-archives/index/JFK-Head-Wounds


"BORIS" SAID:

Put your shit website with its 1990s flash and clipped content away, Von Pissant.

Because I can do the same thing. And I can do it better:

http://assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

http://paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland-wound.htm


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't do it at all, Richard Head.

You can't even figure out the super-easy stuff. No Internet CTer can. You're all still struggling even with the Tippit case. And there's never been an easier case to figure out than that one.

But, keep pretending, Richard/"Boris". You're good at that at least.


"BORIS" SAID:

Very good, Von Trapped. Ignore 25 expert witnesses and in response lob a sugar-coated insult not fit for a five-year-old, you lowly mutt.

Is Tippit what is currently being discussed? I must have missed the seamless subject segue. Either that, or you're running from a blatantly obvious anomaly you CLEARLY have no explanation for, and have admitted having none.

This is why your book nets you pennies in annual royalties.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I must've gotten a raise. Last year = Zip.


"BORIS" SAID:

There's **literally** more evidence of me having said [this] than there is Oswald shot at Walker.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So Commission Exhibit No. 1 is a fake too, eh Richard?

~yawn~
~stretch~


"BORIS" SAID:

Your talking points are more dated than Betamax tapes. Least of all the entirely non-specific nature of its contents.

Stick to curating your YouTube channel. It's the only thing you're good at.

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you do think CE1 is a phony document. Got it.

(Gee, what a surprise that is.)


"BORIS" SAID:

Funny how you think me linking to some OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS equates with me believing CE1 is fake. I wonder why your mind would go there? Hmm...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, since I'm talking to a silly ABO [Anybody But Oswald] Internet conspiracy fantasist, where else could my mind possibly go? You guys have no choice but to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty. And that will never do.

You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now that's wacky.


"BORIS" SAID:

Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.

Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?

What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?

Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?


"BORIS" SAID:

Every villain needs a backstory. If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used [a] 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's.

It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought. Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo, regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.

Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald to the shooting? At all?

A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime scot-free for nine months [sic], and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour and a half?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe it had a little something to do with the fact that he had to leave the Kennedy murder weapon behind in the Depository building, and the fact that he also killed a police officer in full view of various witnesses just 45 minutes after he shot the President.

Ya think?


"BORIS" SAID:

What I think is you completely ignored the points I raised. Every single one.

And you still can't publicly state that Marina didn't lie during the investigation. And you won't. Because you're a coward, but you're not stupid.

Well, you are. But not THAT stupid.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You lied (of course) when you said a 30.06 bullet was found at the Walker house. It was actually a Carcano bullet (of course).

But you (of course) think CE573 was a "plant" too. ~sigh~





BEN HOLMES SAID:

Those [DVP] websites don't answer any of the questions I raise.

So every time you post a STUPID link like that, I'll simply respond with Douglas Horne's five-volume set.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Brilliant move, Ben. It's akin to being the person who came up with "New Coke" and bragging incessantly about it.

Here's a humorous reminder of how insane Douglas "New Coke" Horne's theories can be....


CLICK TO ENLARGE:


And that's the guy Ben Holmes is proud to march beside.

Get me a New Coke, Ben. I'm thirsty after all that laughing.


ALSO SEE:



"BORIS" SAID:

I see a well-written post by someone far more researched than you that 13 of 15 people felt added to the discussion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We're back to my "New Coke" comparison again, I see. (Thanks for making my point---again.)

What's next....CTers boasting about being a member of the 1962 Mets?

David Von Pein
May 2, 2019