Thomas Graves Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Now, if Oswald left New Orleans via bus....and Ruth Payne had a station wagon full of Oswald's possessions when she took Marina back to Dallas... HOW in BLUE BLAZES did GUY BANISTER'S files, including the filing cabinets, get into Mrs. Payne's garage? Clay Shaw's Rambler Station Wagon? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Now, if Oswald left New Orleans via bus....and Ruth Payne had a station wagon full of Oswald's possessions when she took Marina back to Dallas... HOW in BLUE BLAZES did GUY BANISTER'S files, including the filing cabinets, get into Mrs. Payne's garage? Well, I think the clue is in your own sentences, Mark. Ruth Paine filled her station wagon with Oswald's possessions. Clearly, Lee Harvey Oswald had some of Guy Banister's files in his possession. But -- you may ask -- isn't a file cabinet huge? Well, it all depends. There are tiny little filing boxes that hold 3" * 5" index cards, and are ideal for keeping names, addresses and contact information. I PROPOSE THAT THIS IS WHAT THE DPD FOUND IN MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE. Actually, the DPD report by Buddy Walthers was unclear -- as much of his writing was. He wasn't even clear about how many "filing cabinets" there were -- and who knows if his vocabulary could distinguish between a filing cabinet and a rolodex. More detail would clarify -- but I think Buddy Walthers was exaggerating, and then some JFK "Researchers" jumped to conclusions as usual. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Mr. Trejo: You "think"....but you truly don't have a clue. You just ASSUME that Buddy Walthers can't tell a file cabinet from a Rolodex [which is a trademarked name, by the way]. From the Spartacus site: "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." " Here's the link: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalthersB.htm So you're saying that "six or seven metal filing cabinets" MIGHT have only been a Rolodex? I believe you're in denial, Mr Trejo. The file cabinets were described as METAL...NOT 'bankers boxes," and certainly NOT a Rolodex. And I say that you're in denial because it's US who are the "lazy researchers," in your eyes. "Six or seven metal filing cabinets" vs. a Rolodex [here's a clue: have you ever seen a metal Rolodex?]. You have a right to make up your own mind; you do NOT have a right to make up your own FACTS out of thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Walthers' Warren Commission testimony states that the metal "file cabinets" are the type we might today call a "file box," and he described them as being large enough to hold "8 by 10 folder," and they each had a handle on top. I've never seen a Rolodex constructed in that manner. I'd wager you haven't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) You're just too literal, Mark. My point was this -- DPD Officer Buddy Walthers CLAIMED that he saw "six or seven file cabinets" at Ruth Paine's garage. Six or seven? Could he count? Then, upon reflection, he said they were file "boxes". Could he tell the difference between a cabinet and a box? So, not matter what he said next -- my response is this; SHOW ME A DOGGONE PHOTOGRAPH ! What? There ARE NO PHOTOGRAPHS of Buddy Walther's "six or seven file cabinets"? And yet this was part of the DPD evidence? What nonsense. My point was that it seems that Buddy Walthers couldn't tell the difference between a file cabinet and a Rolodex. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited May 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 You STILL haven't checked out Walthers' WC testimony...have you? And yet...it's the REST of us who are "lazy researchers".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) You STILL haven't checked out Walthers' WC testimony...have you? And yet...it's the REST of us who are "lazy researchers".... Well, Mark, if you have photographs of the "six or seven file cabinets" that Dallas officer Buddy Walthers spoke about, why don't you produce them? Your own post suggested "six or seven file cabinets" that couldn't fit into Ruth Paine's automobile. Yet now you've changed your tune, and are willing to consider them as "boxes". To clarify, please post photographs of these "six or seven" file "boxes". If you can't, then why on earth do you accept the testimony of Buddy Walthers at all? I myself would not be one bit surprised to learn that Buddy Walthers found only three metal file boxes for 3" x 5" index cards -- and exaggerated his case wildly. But I'll reserve judgment until somebody produces a link to Walther's photographs. WHERE ARE THEY? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited May 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 So...let me get this straight... You don't believe the testimony of a police officer--which Buddy Walthers was-- yet you believe each and every word from the mouth of Marina Oswald. Do I understand you correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) So...let me get this straight... You don't believe the testimony of a police officer--which Buddy Walthers was-- yet you believe each and every word from the mouth of Marina Oswald. Do I understand you correctly? No, not quite, Mark. I demand to see photographs of the "file cabinets" from the testimony of Buddy Walthers, because he changed his story (from "file cabinets" to "boxes") and because he was unclear ("six or seven"). As for Marina Oswald, I realize that she denied everything to the FBI and Secret Service upon their immediate seizing of her into their custody. So, she admittedly "lied" to the FBI and SS out of fear at that time. HOWEVER -- I maintain that after she had an opportunity to calm down, and trust her custodians (and receive more than $100,000 from sympathetic Americans), that she decided she would not face a kangaroo court, that she would not be deported, and that she could trust the FBI at that point. So, I maintain that Marina Oswald, after she took her oath of sworn testimony, told the whole truth to the Warren Commission as she knew it to be. (If, and only if, there was anything that Marina held back, it would likely have been about the hatred that Ruth Paine and Michael Paine held out for Ex-General Edwin Walker. But she did tell the WC attorneys to ask Michael Paine more about Walker and Oswald. So, even that exception might be covered.) Naturally, because Lee Harvey Oswald lied to Marina about so many things, her knowledge was incorrect in many ways -- nevertheless -- she told what she knew as she knew it. I further maintain that there is no possible way in the world for anybody to solve the JFK murder mystery without accepting and analyzing the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited May 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Paul - you DEMAND to see photographs of the mysterious disappearing file boxes, which you otherwise claim were actually Banister's files. You imagine that Oswald was close enough to Banister to have his files? The harder you try the more insane you sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Paul - you DEMAND to see photographs of the mysterious disappearing file boxes, which you otherwise claim were actually Banister's files. You imagine that Oswald was close enough to Banister to have his files? ... Yes, Paul B., I DEMAND to see photos of those "file boxes" that officer Buddy Walthers claimed he saw. His description of them changed too much. I suspect they were really 3x5 inch index cards in a few small metal boxes, and that Walthers wildly exaggerated. Also, consider these facts: (1) Banister's office address was stamped on the handbills of Oswald's Fake FPCC chapter (2) David Ferrie witnessed Oswald at Guy Banister's office (3) Banister was also obsessed with bringing down the FPCC from New Orleans. Therefore, it's no big leap to surmise that Guy Banister was sharing data with Lee Harvey Oswald. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited May 21, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 It's a huge leap, and all surmises which you attempt to deliver with a weightiness it does not merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) It's a huge leap, and all surmises which you attempt to deliver with a weightiness it does not merit. Actually, it's not a huge leap. Jim Garrison showed quite well that Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald were working together on a Fake FPCC in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. The alternative view -- and sadly the more common view around here -- is that these "file boxes" belonged to this Quaker mom, Ruth Paine, because she was "secretly" a CIA Agent. That's the real nonsense around here. Those JFK CTers who want to believe that the CIA killed JFK are quick to say Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent -- based on shoddy "evidence" like Buddy Walther's changing, unverifiable "testimony." What nonsense. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited May 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm reading about MP, and wonder what this means: "the mother of the chief patron of the accused assassin (being in league with Allen Dulles)...? thanks much, gn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 for those who don't believe that there was any upper level FBI or CIA involvement, that it was a more immature group of people while the alphabet groups sat back and watched - how does that explain the ensuing cover-up? IF there was a conspiracy of any kind, then there WAS a cover-up (of JFK's head wounds and other items after the fact), right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now