Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Douglas Caddy

New Film Footage of Jack Ruby Surfaces

Recommended Posts

At the 50sec mark of the video, the man with the camera is holding a black case in his left hand. Could be a camera case. I believe Light Meters came in black case too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This  video was presented and discussed here a year or so ago.  The gist of it was why did Ruby have such a either not available to the public at the time or very expensive camera, given he was "cheap" in other respects.  Despite his efforts to appear otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The gist of it was why did Ruby have such a either not available to the public at the time or very expensive camera...

But it's the OTHER MAN (standing next to Ruby) who is holding the object you say is a "camera" (even though you can't possibly tell exactly what it is at all). Ruby isn't holding it.

I guess you must think Ruby has just handed this other man the object, with the other man then looking at it in such a way as if he's saying, "Hey, this is a cool thing. Where did you get this, Jack?" ..... is that correct?

http://drive.google.com/file/1960 Video Of Jack Ruby (Combing Hair, At The 1:15 Mark)

 
Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

object you say is a "camera" (even though you can't possibly tell exactly what it is at all)

He holds it like a camera, definitely not a harmonica, too high on the face

camera.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

He holds it like a camera, definitely not a harmonica, too high on the face

camera.png

Is whether that is a camera or not controversial? He's holding the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Is whether that is a camera or not controversial? He's holding the case.

No controversy, if you read the above posts, you will see where Dave commented on the last few seconds of the video clip where it shows a man next to Ruby handling an object. Those few seconds on their own do not determine if the object is a camera or not, but what appears to be the same man seen earlier in the clip at the 50sec mark is holding what seems to be the same object to his face, like a camera.

The camera may belong to that man or may not, we don't know.

As far as the Minox relevance and similarity of the camera, here is Detective Gus Rose on property from the Paine household;

"We found this camera and of course, we brought it and a whole lot of other property in, as possible evidence in the case. And, uh, while we were marking the evidence for later identification by us to be used in evidence we did, Stowall and I, did take a close look at this Minox miniature camera and it did have a roll of film in it. As time passed and after the Warren Commission was appointed, uh, a couple of F.B.I. agents made three different trips to our office to talk to me about this camera. They said that after they had received all the property they found that I had made a mistake, and that really wasn't a camera, it was a Minox light meter. However, as I told them at the time, I was sure that I had not made a mistake, it definitely was a camera and definitely did have film in it. However, they wanted me to change that in our property invoice to read Minox light meter and not read Minox camera. We never did change it. Uh, Captain Fritz instructed me if I was sure I was right not to make any changes in any reports, to stay with what was right."

 

 

 

minox camera.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

Edited by François Carlier
change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

No controversy, if you read the above posts, you will see where Dave commented on the last few seconds of the video clip where it shows a man next to Ruby handling an object. Those few seconds on their own do not determine if the object is a camera or not, but what appears to be the same man seen earlier in the clip at the 50sec mark is holding what seems to be the same object to his face, like a camera.

The camera may belong to that man or may not, we don't know.

As far as the Minox relevance and similarity of the camera, here is Detective Gus Rose on property from the Paine household;

"We found this camera and of course, we brought it and a whole lot of other property in, as possible evidence in the case. And, uh, while we were marking the evidence for later identification by us to be used in evidence we did, Stowall and I, did take a close look at this Minox miniature camera and it did have a roll of film in it. As time passed and after the Warren Commission was appointed, uh, a couple of F.B.I. agents made three different trips to our office to talk to me about this camera. They said that after they had received all the property they found that I had made a mistake, and that really wasn't a camera, it was a Minox light meter. However, as I told them at the time, I was sure that I had not made a mistake, it definitely was a camera and definitely did have film in it. However, they wanted me to change that in our property invoice to read Minox light meter and not read Minox camera. We never did change it. Uh, Captain Fritz instructed me if I was sure I was right not to make any changes in any reports, to stay with what was right."

 

 

 

minox camera.jpg

Ah. Seems like there are a few of the same people in the shot at :50 and 1:15 aside from Minox guy. Interesting but Minox cameras weren't that unusual when I was a kid and not that expensive if I recall. But that was late 60s. Maybe my memory fails me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Ah. Seems like there are a few of the same people in the shot at :50 and 1:15 aside from Minox guy. Interesting but Minox cameras weren't that unusual when I was a kid and not that expensive if I recall. But that was late 60s. Maybe my memory fails me...

Below is a 1960 Minox advertisement. $100 in 1960 would be around $800 today

1063744252_minoxcameraprice1960.thumb.png.4f2548a8718b9c21ce201274e7eef315.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

No controversy, if you read the above posts, you will see where Dave commented on the last few seconds of the video clip where it shows a man next to Ruby handling an object. Those few seconds on their own do not determine if the object is a camera or not, but what appears to be the same man seen earlier in the clip at the 50sec mark is holding what seems to be the same object to his face, like a camera.

The camera may belong to that man or may not, we don't know.

As far as the Minox relevance and similarity of the camera, here is Detective Gus Rose on property from the Paine household;

"We found this camera and of course, we brought it and a whole lot of other property in, as possible evidence in the case. And, uh, while we were marking the evidence for later identification by us to be used in evidence we did, Stowall and I, did take a close look at this Minox miniature camera and it did have a roll of film in it. As time passed and after the Warren Commission was appointed, uh, a couple of F.B.I. agents made three different trips to our office to talk to me about this camera. They said that after they had received all the property they found that I had made a mistake, and that really wasn't a camera, it was a Minox light meter. However, as I told them at the time, I was sure that I had not made a mistake, it definitely was a camera and definitely did have film in it. However, they wanted me to change that in our property invoice to read Minox light meter and not read Minox camera. We never did change it. Uh, Captain Fritz instructed me if I was sure I was right not to make any changes in any reports, to stay with what was right."

 

 

 

 

Yeah not cheap I suppose but not out of reach either. Thanks for the memory prompt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends which camera.  Some were more expensive then others.  Moreover, you have to include the meter in the price.  The WC tells us LHO was having money issues.  Yet, he could afford this camera?  If he had money problems why not sell the camera?  Here is some good material on it.

 http://www.minoxdoc.com/collection.htm

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...