Russian-born oilman is a vivid presence in JFK files

[Guest]

Ernst Titovets, whose intellect and professional credentials (acquired later) would put de Mohrenschildt to shame, found Oswald extremely interesting and likable.  The reasonably sophisticated Ziger family practically adopted him.  I don't find it unlikely at all that oddball de Mohrenschildt would have been attracted to oddball Oswald in small doses or have had empathy for the plight of the penniless couple.  I likewise don't find Ruth Paine suspicious in the slightest.  She to me is one of the saddest examples of the despicable way conspiracy theorists will just blithely engage in character assassination of everyone in their path who must be brought into the web of conspiracy for their goofy theories to work.  I won't launch into my usual "Think about this - does it really make any sense?" diatribe - but for God's sake, does all of the dot-connecting necessary to bring poor old Ruth and Oswald's employment at the TSBD into the web of conspiracy MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?  No, it does not unless you are literally drunk on Conspiracy Kool Aid..  Thank you, I'm done now.  Carry on.

[Joe Bauer]

If Marina looked like Nina Krushchev I don't think any of the white Russians would have befriended her or cared about her beyond a first meeting.

I think all the white Russians in the Dallas area were much more curious about fresh from Russia Marina than Lee.

Once they physically met and interacted with Marina, they were smitten by her youthful beauty and her intelligence. Some were also connecting with her in a protective sympathetic way when they realized her poor financial state and even her sometimes difficult marriage stresses that may have included physical abuse.

Lee was quickly summed up by almost all these white Russians as an uneducated low class loser and wife abusing bum.

But, they had to tolerate and include Lee in some social and Marina helping ways to a degree as long as Marina still lived with him.

George De M was not afraid of personally engaging with hot head Lee.

De M was a tall, athletic, big boned even physically imposing person. He towered over small and slight build Oswald. He once threatened Oswald concerning any more physical abuse regarding Marina.

GD was also a person who needed to have challenges in his life. He was a world traveler and would just get up and go and do daring things when life became too mundane and boring.

Same with his marriages. 

Oswald was an out of the ordinary, quirky curiosity challenge for easily bored De M.

I think De M was also attracted to and identified with Oswald's fiercely independent gumption ( no matter how naively misguided ) in trying crazy world travel politically incorrect things like defecting to Russia and learning Russian.

I do think GD was agency directed however. 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Denny Zartman]

On 12/14/2018 at 6:45 PM, François Carlier said:

Second of all, I said something about Ruth Paine, not about George de Mohrenschildt. So please let's stick to the topic, namely Ruth Paine.

The topic of this thread is George de Mohrenschildt.

On 12/14/2018 at 6:45 PM, François Carlier said:

Even if you prove that Ruth Paine was a mean-spirited woman (which she was not) and a rapist or a killer herself or a mafia boss or a CIA agent, you still haven't proved that she set up Oswald.
In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever that Ruth Paine was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald.

I have plenty of circumstantial evidence, topped by the fact that she cold-called the TSBD and got Oswald a job there a week and a month before the assassination. CIA man Moore encouraged de Mohrenschildt to meet Oswald. In de Mohrenschildt's own words "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years, if Moore had not sanctioned it." de Mohrenschildt, a globetrotting socialite with connections to French, German, and American intelligence, encouraged Oswald to move to Dallas. de Mohrenschildt introduced Oswald to Paine, a woman whose husband and brother in law held high security clearances, whose father was suspected of working for the CIA, and whose sister straight up worked for the CIA. Paine takes in Oswald's wife and kids, had the alleged assassination rifle in her garage, had an expensive spy camera that wasn't for retail sale that the Dallas police actively tried to cover up, and, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, Paine cold-called the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge, and Paine got Oswald his job there.

Paine set up Oswald. Paine set Oswald up with a job at the TSBD.

There is a clear line from CIA man Moore, to intelligence connected de Mohrenschildt, to CIA connected Ruth Paine, that brings Oswald to Dallas Texas and puts him inside the TSBD on November 22, 1963.

You seem to believe all this happened innocently.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about credulous. I assume you believe one can walk through a thunderstorm and not get wet as long as one walks between the raindrops.

I looked through much of Paine's testimony. I could find no other instance in her life where she had taken in a young family and let them live in her home. When exchange students came in from the Soviet Union, she didn't take them in. Do you have any evidence that Paine had taken a needy person or family and allowed them to live in her home done before or after, or are you completely comfortable that, with the Oswald's, this was just a unique, innocent event?

According to Roy Truly, he had never talked to Ruth Paine before she cold-called Truly. Let's also note that Paine called the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge. Do you have any evidence that Paine had called up businesses before and found any other needy unemployed person a job, or, again, are you okay with the fact that this was another innocent and unique event?

The current official position of the government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of conspiracy. If a conspiracy was probable, it only makes sense to consider the circumstances that led Oswald to be at the scene.

This isn't a case of "I knew a friend in college that later committed a crime, does that make me responsible?" What kind of critical thinking is that? This is a case of a probable conspiracy. If you had a friend in college that was later accused of committing a crime and she said she was being set up to take the fall for the crime, and it turned out that YOU were the one responsible for your friend being at the scene of the crime on the day the crime was committed, you better believe that you're a suspect. In what world would you not be a suspect?

[François Carlier]

17 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

The topic of this thread is George de Mohrenschildt.

I have plenty of circumstantial evidence, topped by the fact that she cold-called the TSBD and got Oswald a job there a week and a month before the assassination. CIA man Moore encouraged de Mohrenschildt to meet Oswald. In de Mohrenschildt's own words "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years, if Moore had not sanctioned it." de Mohrenschildt, a globetrotting socialite with connections to French, German, and American intelligence, encouraged Oswald to move to Dallas. de Mohrenschildt introduced Oswald to Paine, a woman whose husband and brother in law held high security clearances, whose father was suspected of working for the CIA, and whose sister straight up worked for the CIA. Paine takes in Oswald's wife and kids, had the alleged assassination rifle in her garage, had an expensive spy camera that wasn't for retail sale that the Dallas police actively tried to cover up, and, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, Paine cold-called the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge, and Paine got Oswald his job there.

Paine set up Oswald. Paine set Oswald up with a job at the TSBD.

There is a clear line from CIA man Moore, to intelligence connected de Mohrenschildt, to CIA connected Ruth Paine, that brings Oswald to Dallas Texas and puts him inside the TSBD on November 22, 1963.

You seem to believe all this happened innocently.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about credulous. I assume you believe one can walk through a thunderstorm and not get wet as long as one walks between the raindrops.

I looked through much of Paine's testimony. I could find no other instance in her life where she had taken in a young family and let them live in her home. When exchange students came in from the Soviet Union, she didn't take them in. Do you have any evidence that Paine had taken a needy person or family and allowed them to live in her home done before or after, or are you completely comfortable that, with the Oswald's, this was just a unique, innocent event?

According to Roy Truly, he had never talked to Ruth Paine before she cold-called Truly. Let's also note that Paine called the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge. Do you have any evidence that Paine had called up businesses before and found any other needy unemployed person a job, or, again, are you okay with the fact that this was another innocent and unique event?

The current official position of the government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of conspiracy. If a conspiracy was probable, it only makes sense to consider the circumstances that led Oswald to be at the scene.

This isn't a case of "I knew a friend in college that later committed a crime, does that make me responsible?" What kind of critical thinking is that? This is a case of a probable conspiracy. If you had a friend in college that was later accused of committing a crime and she said she was being set up to take the fall for the crime, and it turned out that YOU were the one responsible for your friend being at the scene of the crime on the day the crime was committed, you better believe that you're a suspect. In what world would you not be a suspect?

I thought so, you're delusional !
Sorry, there's nothing I can do.
You know perfectly well that the "probable conspiracy" idea came from the flawed acoustic evidence studies that were completely debunked later.
The truth is that Ruth Paine is a honest woman who had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Kennedy assassination. She never set up anyone. Period.
You have no evidence whatever. But you don't seem to care, as long as you have your imagination !
But, in your wild theories, you don't hesitate to smear someone. Well, if that's your taste....
I wonder what you would think if your name was smeared too.
I suppose that you'll soon tell us that Shanann Watts, Bella and Celeste were not killed by Christopher Watts but by the ugly Ruth Paine... And if I disagree, you'll call me gullible.
I'll tell you what : I like to debate about conspiracy theories. I enjoy exchanging arguments.
But someone who seems happy to spend his time smearing the name of a decent woman doesn't deserve one minute of my time.
So go ahead, and keep smearing honest people, but please, from now on, leave me alone !
 

[Denny Zartman]

On 12/14/2018 at 10:05 PM, Lance Payette said:

Ernst Titovets, whose intellect and professional credentials (acquired later) would put de Mohrenschildt to shame, found Oswald extremely interesting and likable.

If that's true, why didn't the WC identify Titovets as one of Oswald's friends?

On 12/14/2018 at 10:05 PM, Lance Payette said:

The reasonably sophisticated Ziger family practically adopted him. 

If that's true, why didn't the WC identify any member of the Ziger family as one of Oswald's friends?

On 12/14/2018 at 10:05 PM, Lance Payette said:

I don't find it unlikely at all that oddball de Mohrenschildt would have been attracted to oddball Oswald in small doses or have had empathy for the plight of the penniless couple.

For goodness sake, why do you keep saying this? You might not find it unlikely, but de Mohrenschildt himself said he wouldn't have contacted Oswald in a million years had it not been for the encouragement of a man in the CIA.

On 12/14/2018 at 10:05 PM, Lance Payette said:

I likewise don't find Ruth Paine suspicious in the slightest.

Paine was the key factor in putting the man accused of the assassination at the scene of a crime for which the accused claimed he was a patsy and that the US government now officially believes was a probable conspiracy. Paine also kept evidence at her home, including the alleged murder weapon and an expensive camera that was not available for retail sale, and that the Dallas police actively tried to cover up. If you don't find any of that suspicious, I wonder what you would find suspicious.

On 12/14/2018 at 10:05 PM, Lance Payette said:

for God's sake, does all of the dot-connecting necessary to bring poor old Ruth and Oswald's employment at the TSBD into the web of conspiracy MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?  No, it does not unless you are literally drunk on Conspiracy Kool Aid.. 

I don't think it's that hard to understand. de Mohrenschildt and Paine were Oswald's handlers. Moore made it clear that de Mohrenschildt might get assistance in Haiti if de Mohrenschildt debriefed Oswald about the USSR. de Mohrenschildt introduced Paine to Oswald. Paine took in Marina and the children because she knew Oswald was always likely to return to them, so that made it easier to keep tabs on him.

[Denny Zartman]

5 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

I thought so, you're delusional !

This thread is about George de Mohrenschildt, you claim it's not about George de Mohrenschildt, and you're calling me delusional?

7 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Sorry, there's nothing I can do.

On this we agree.

10 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

You know perfectly well that the "probable conspiracy" idea came from the flawed acoustic evidence studies that were completely debunked later.

Sure, whatever you say. Unfortunately, until it is changed, the position of the United States government still stands to this day: JFK was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. Don't like it? Write a congressman.

13 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

The truth is that Ruth Paine is a honest woman who had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Kennedy assassination. She never set up anyone. Period.

Ruth Paine set Oswald up with his job at the TSBD. Ruth Paine had evidence at her home that the Dallas police tried to hide. You can not provide any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

You don't know Ruth Paine and neither do I. She certainly did have something to do with the Kennedy assassination, as the accused assassin's family and the murder weapon were kept at her home along with an expensive camera that the police actively tried to cover up and that you can only continue to ignore. Instead of continuing to think uncritically, why not ask why the Dallas police department would feel the need to even try to cover up that camera?

Paine got the accused assassin his job at the TSBD, placing him at the scene of the crime. The accused assassin denied the crime and claimed to be a patsy. It seems that true critical thinking would demand one examine the circumstances placing the accused assassin at the scene of the crime, and there is no person, including Oswald himself, that was responsible for placing Oswald at the scene of the crime other than Ruth Paine.

23 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

You have no evidence whatever. But you don't seem to care, as long as you have your imagination !

You really seem to know nothing at all about critical thinking. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Courts convict people on circumstantial evidence all the time. And you have not countered a single piece of the circumstantial evidence I've cited. You only continue to claim it doesn't exist. I'm not the one being delusional.

28 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

I'll tell you what : I like to debate about conspiracy theories. I enjoy exchanging arguments.
But someone who seems happy to spend his time smearing the name of a decent woman doesn't deserve one minute of my time.
So go ahead, and keep smearing honest people, but please, from now on, leave me alone !

I will accept your admission of defeat in this debate. We'll end it here. I'll do my best to refrain from responding to your posts in the future. Thank you for the interesting conversation.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

If that's true, why didn't the WC identify Titovets as one of Oswald's friends?

 

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

If that's true, why didn't the WC identify any member of the Ziger family as one of Oswald's friends?

Excuse me, do you know even who these people ARE?  Titovets is a highly placed medical professional in Minsk, the author of Oswald: Russian Episode, and an occasional speaker in the U.S. who doesn't believe the Oswald he knew intimately would have been capable of an assassination.  The Zigers were emigrants from Argentina to Minsk, where Mr. Ziger held a mid-level position at the radio factory.  They and their two daughters, one of whom was a successful touring musician, became very close to Oswald on a social basis.  There is no question these people knew Oswald well and liked him.  If you haven't read Titovets' book, there is a serious gap in your knowledge.  These folks would have been of little interest to the WC since their involvement with Oswald predated his return to the U.S. - I don't think the WC was looking for character references.  They may have been unknown and/or unreachable in 1963 anyway.

[Steve Thomas]

I always liked this one:

Between Two Worlds, by Peter Applebome.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SCsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq="Jake+Hamon"&source=bl&ots=92o5DJpss6&sig=CaLj2-EcG8m_-3jlFldJrvMm3FQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5uaPxrprUAhWZ2YMKHQzSCOkQ6AEIWzAN#v=onepage&q=%22Jake%20Hamon%22&f=false

pp. 106+

Jake L. (Louis) Hamon, multi-millionaire. Worth 200 million. Gin rummy partner of H.L. Hunt. A director of American Petroleum Institute. Youngest man ever to have served s its Chairman. (p. 107).

 

March 5, 1964 FBI Interview of Jake Hamon, 500 Vaughn Building. Interview conducted by SA Richard L. Wiehl CD 555. p. 43.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10954&relPageId=44&search=Hamon

 

First met George DeMohrenschildt in 1947 in Rangely, CO.

Said DeMohrenschildt was an inferior geologist.

Said Demohrenschildt's closest associate was Paul Raigorodsky.

Hamon said that DeMohrenschildt was a “good looking nothing”, and that if he could take him or leave him, he would leave him”.

 

Steve Thomas

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Paine was the key factor in putting the man accused of the assassination at the scene of a crime for which the accused claimed he was a patsy and that the US government now officially believes was a probable conspiracy. Paine also kept evidence at her home, including the alleged murder weapon and an expensive camera that was not available for retail sale, and that the Dallas police actively tried to cover up. If you don't find any of that suspicious, I wonder what you would find suspicious.

I'm beginning to think you are considerably nuttier than I had given you credit for being.  The portion of your post that I have quoted is a four-line lesson in what I lovingly call Conspiracy Logic.  Ruth Paine "put Oswald at the scene of the crime"?  Ya think?  Ruth Paine, on a tip from a neighbor,  helped the husband of a penniless couple whose wife was living with her find a temporary minimum-wage job at a business that no one at the time could possibly have known or anticipated that JFK would be passing in front of weeks later.  Ruth Paine "kept evidence at the home"?  Ya think?  Ruth Paine allowed the penniless couple to store their crap in her garage, precisely as I am doing right now for a friend with no idea as to what is in the boxes.  "That the U.S. government now officially believes was a probable conspiracy"?  Ya think?  You know perfectly well, or at least I hope you do, that (1) the HSCA had a "Mafia" focus from the day Blakey and his team were assembled, and (2) the 'probable conspiracy" nonsense was a last-minute throw-in to the HSCA report and was based on an acoustics analysis that has been thoroughly discredited.

In the interests of time, I must stoop to quoting Wikipedia:  "As recommended by the HSCA, the Justice Department reviewed those findings through the FBI's Technical Services Division and by contracting the National Academy of Science, which specially appointed the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (CBA). Both the FBI and CBA analyzed the acoustic data and BBN's scientific methodology and concluded that their findings were mistaken.  Although there has been some recent back and forth between different researchers, the HSCA's acoustic analysis is widely considered to be discredited."

Come on, don't patronize me and other intelligent readers with this sort of nonsense and fluff.  If there is ANY PIECE of evidence that clearly and unequivocally shows Ruth Paine to be someone other than precisely who she claimed to be, tell us about it.  You won't because you can't.

 

[François Carlier]

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Come on, don't patronize me and other intelligent readers with this sort of nonsense and fluff.  If there is ANY PIECE of evidence that clearly and unequivocally shows Ruth Paine to be someone other than precisely who she claimed to be, tell us about it.  You won't because you can't.

 

No, he can't.
He'd rather call me credulous. That's much easier.
(very good post, by the way)

[Paul Brancato]

I thought this thread was about DeMohrenschildt. 

[Denny Zartman]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I'm beginning to think you are considerably nuttier than I had given you credit for being.

Hey Lance? I'm going to be completely serious here. From your posts on other threads, it appears that part of the reason you're debating on this forum is for the fun of it, for the intellectual exercise, and to rile up the CT's. If I've mischaracterized your reasons, I apologize. While I appreciate having a loyal opposition and a vigorous examination of all the evidence from every perspective possible, I confess that I'm not inclined to spend my time debating with you if you're not going to debate with me in good faith. Please, either stop with the personal insults, or, if you truly think I'm nutty, please just put me on ignore. Thanks.

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Ruth Paine "put Oswald at the scene of the crime"?  Ya think?  Ruth Paine, on a tip from a neighbor,  helped the husband of a penniless couple whose wife was living with her find a temporary minimum-wage job at a business that no one at the time could possibly have known or anticipated that JFK would be passing in front of weeks later.  Ruth Paine "kept evidence at the home"?  Ya think?  Ruth Paine allowed the penniless couple to store their crap in her garage, precisely as I am doing right now for a friend with no idea as to what is in the boxes

You keep saying that they're "penniless" as well, when that's also not true. In his three wallets, Oswald had a total of $183.87 on November 22, 1963. That's not penniless.

You have no evidence that Ruth Paine took other poor people into her home to live. You have no evidence that Ruth Paine cold-called any other businesses and got someone else a job anywhere at any time.

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Ruth Paine "kept evidence at the home"?  Ya think?  Ruth Paine allowed the penniless couple to store their crap in her garage, precisely as I am doing right now for a friend with no idea as to what is in the boxes. 

I have to note that here you don't deny the fact that Ruth Paine kept evidence at her home, including the alleged murder weapon and an expensive camera that this, according to your description, "penniless" couple was somehow able to purchase despite the camera having a serial number that indicated it wasn't for retail sale, and that the Dallas police actively tried to hide.

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

"That the U.S. government now officially believes was a probable conspiracy"?  Ya think?  You know perfectly well, or at least I hope you do, that (1) the HSCA had a "Mafia" focus from the day Blakey and his team were assembled, and (2) the 'probable conspiracy" nonsense was a last-minute throw-in to the HSCA report and was based on an acoustics analysis that has been thoroughly discredited.

If the conclusion of the HSCA report was based on an acoustics analysis that you honestly believe has been "thoroughly discredited", then instead of debating someone online that you find "nutty", perhaps you should using your time writing to an American congressperson or another government official and urging them to support a new investigation. Until the official stance of the US government is changed, the unpleasant fact will remain: the US government currently opines that the JFK assassination was probably as a result of conspiracy.

(And let's be perfectly honest here. The only reason that it's "probably" instead of "definitely" is that the HSCA couldn't rule out the possibility that two assassins working independently of each other just happened to choose the same six second window of time to shoot at JFK. Given the sheer number of coincidences that LN's accept unquestioningly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of them accept that as well.)

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

In the interests of time, I must stoop to quoting Wikipedia:  "As recommended by the HSCA, the Justice Department reviewed those findings through the FBI's Technical Services Division and by contracting the National Academy of Science, which specially appointed the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (CBA). Both the FBI and CBA analyzed the acoustic data and BBN's scientific methodology and concluded that their findings were mistaken.  Although there has been some recent back and forth between different researchers, the HSCA's acoustic analysis is widely considered to be discredited."

"Widely considered to be discredited" is not the same as "thoroughly discredited."

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Come on, don't patronize me and other intelligent readers with this sort of nonsense and fluff.

In my opinion, facts are not nonsense and fluff. I believe facts are essential to untangling this case and trying to discover the truth about what happened. You have not refuted a single assertion of fact that I've made in this thread. You're trying to argue your way around their significance and the conclusions a reasonable person could infer from those facts, but you can't deny the facts themselves.

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

If there is ANY PIECE of evidence that clearly and unequivocally shows Ruth Paine to be someone other than precisely who she claimed to be, tell us about it.  You won't because you can't.

Here you go.

Quote

Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers."

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpaine.htm

Edited December 16, 2018 by Denny Zartman

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

You keep saying that they're "penniless" as well, when that's also not true. In his three wallets, Oswald had a total of $183.87 on November 22, 1963. That's not penniless.

You have no evidence that Ruth Paine took other poor people into her home to live. You have no evidence that Ruth Paine cold-called any other businesses and got someone else a job anywhere at any time.

Let me rephrase my comment that upset you:  From the things you keep saying, it appears to me that you either know considerably less about the case than I had previously thought or are deeper into the conspiracy ozone than I had previously thought.

"Penniless" does not mean "absolutely without a cent."  Its common meaning is "poor or impoverished."  Look it up.  Lee and Marina were very, very poor.  (A distinct problem for conspiracy theorists, unless they think he was being paid by the CIA in beef jerky sticks.)  Everyone from the White Russian community in Dallas to Ruth Paine took pity on Marina's plight.  If you want to entertain some fantasy that Ruth wasn't moved by genuine pity for Marina, or that Ruth's help wasn't vital to Marina's welfare, go ahead.

Ruth was also attempting to improve her Russian, which she was teaching at a local school.  This was an additional motivation.

So for Ruth not to be suspicious we need evidence that she took other poor people into her home and helped other poor people get jobs - is that right???  Wow, you are providing a textbook example of Conspiracy Thinking.

42 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Here you go.

Quote

Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers."

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpaine.htm

And you believe these were Ruth's?  Ruth, who told the officers to come on in and that she had been expecting them, just sort of forget that she had seven metal filing cabinets of incriminating documents that would blow her cover?  I'll bet she got a pretty stern letter of reprimand from the CIA for THAT.

And, of course, consistent with good Conspiracy Thinking, your source is not what Walthers told the Warren Commission when he testified in 1964.  It's what our very own Jimbo says Walthers told his would-be biographer Eric Tagg in a "rare manuscript" at some unspecified time.  (It was apparently published in 1998:  https://www.amazon.com/Brush-history-personal-journey-into/dp/B0006RU1OW).

Why don't we look at what Walthers said in 1964?  Now bear in mind, folks, these filing cabinets are what Denny is calling clear and unequivocal evidence that Ruth was not who she claimed to be.

1964 Warren Commission testimony

Mr. Liebeler.

You could really see the imprint of the gun?

Mr. Walthers.

You could see where it had been--it wasn't completely untied--one end had been untied and the other end had been left tied, that would be around the barrel and you could see where the gun had rested on the inside of it.

Mr. Liebeler.

You mean by that, you could tell that from the way the thing had been tied?

Mr. Walthers.

You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it, but what kind---you couldn't tell, but you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it, and then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves.

Mr. Liebeler.

About how many of them would you think there were?

Mr. Walthers.

There were six or seven, I believe, and I put them all in the trunk of my car and we also found a box of pictures, a bunch of pictures that we taken. We didn't go to the trouble of looking at any of this stuff much---just more or less confiscated it at the time, and we looked at it there just like that, and then we took all this stuff and put it in the car and then Mrs. Paine got a phone number from Mrs. Oswald where you could call Lee Harvey Oswald in Oak Cliff.

***

Mr. Liebeler.

What was in these file cabinets?

Mr. Walthers.

We didn't go through them at the scene. I do remember a letterhead--I can't describe it--I know we opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead we had pulled out and so I just pushed it all back down and shut it and took the whole works.

Mr. Liebeler.

I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them?

Mr. Walthers.

Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it.

Mr. Liebeler.

There certainly weren't any seven file cabinets with the stuff you got out there or anything like that?

Mr. Walthers.

I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day.

Mr. Liebeler.

As I was sitting here listening to your story, I could see where that story might have come from--you mentioned the "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets that were in a barrel.

Mr. Walthers.

That's right--we got a stack of them out of that barrel, but things get all twisted around.

In short, whatever was found was pretty clearly Oswald's.  Walthers really had no idea what was in them.  But as always happens, the story got better over time - and that's the version that has become Conspiracy Gospel.  Ruth insisted as recently as five years ago that there were no such filing cabinets (https://app.box.com/s/iuce7aaneb3xnfj472hy), and the filing cabinets were apparently not mentioned again in the record.  My guess would be that if we could see whatever Walthers was talking about, we would not describe them as filing cabinets.

I don't claim to be a serious researcher, but I'm not the village idiot.  Don't try to slide this sort of stuff by me as clear and unequivocal evidence.