David Josephs

Joe, If you google MINOX User Manuels and check a few out, they all show happy little families taking photos... I believe it was marketed to the public as they had all sorts of sizes and models. The tips section talks of every day type photo situations FWIW... DJ https://www.central-manuals.com/instructions_manual_user_guide_camera/minox.php https://www.central-manuals.com/download/camera/minox/Mnx_A-IIIs_lang_e.pdf

My point Greg.... Go find out. Have you even tried searching this forum? A MINOX image is similar to a 35mm size except that it is longer than a 35mm photo. Armstrong H&L p.158 The Minox produces a finished photograph that is the same width, but longer,' than a photograph produced by a 35 mm camera. The length of a Minox photo distinguishes it from similar sized photographs. The National Archives has several Minox photographs of scenes in Japan, Philippines, Atsugi, Hawaii, and of Lee Oswald and his Marine buddy, George Hans Wilkins.61 The only Minox photographs in the JFK Collection in the National Archives are those taken in the Far East-there are no Minox photos either prior to or after Lee Oswald's military served in Japan. NOTE: Neither Zack Stout, George Wilkins nor Bobby Warren the Marine who spent nearly every day for 10 months with Lee Oswald in Japan, both on and off duty were interviewed by the FBI or Warren Commission. There has been much controversy related to this photo . There are those who feel this was taken with a Minox.. Bottom right with the background added...

Greg... if you are willing to swallow what they are feeding you we really have no place for a discussion. The evidence was manipulated in such a way that everything pointed to Oswald and all potential conflicts with Oswald the Lone Nut as opposed to Oswald the FBI informant were minimized. There are literally hundreds of examples... so you telling me that "Michael said this or that" carries little to no weight given the Paine's involvement in this charade. The shadows of the evidence that Oswald had a MINOX are there. You maybe want a dated receipt? How would you explain the Minox sized photos in Ozzie's possession taken well before he ever met the Paines? Logic and establishing the guilt and lone status of Oswald are not involved here Greg. The WCR is a lie. The HSCA gets a bit closer to truth but still hides much of it... The only thing logical I can see is the effort to establish Oswald's guilt to the exclusion of all others and remove any trace of a connection to the US intelligence community. To that end, testimony was summarily changed, evidence removed, added or changed and outright lies were manufactured to solely implicate Oswald. For example, John Ely was charged with compiling Oswald's bio yet as he finds out... there is an entire set of people who supposedly were with Ozzie in the military... that contradicts everything Ely finds out about our Oswald... So please help us out and find some corroborating evidence other than Michael, his wife and the FBI... and please read the Hewitt article. I meant no disrespect Greg... I just don't want to go round in circles over evidence that is only related to the cover-up and none of the crimes.

thanks Sean... I have my moments. DJ

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know whether Oswald owned any cameras?Mr. PAINE - I wasn't aware of it. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-paine-s-participation-in-the-minox-camera-charade Hewitt brings up the pertinent contradictions and if you don't have Assassination to read the entire article, PM me an email address and I'll send it to you. Too big to post here. Greg, by doing a little homework you'd be able to answer many of your own questions you seem to want others to answer for you. The shape and size of the photos found in Oswald's possession, the reality of Oswald's work for the FBI, the unavailability of that camera to the public, the myriad of other cameras and supplies, the fact we know Oswald worked as a photographic assistant while there. is no indication Michael had any interest in cameras or photography... The WC nor the HSCA saw it fit to ask Michael about his cameras, specifically THAT Minox, or any of his photographic skills or history... Mostly it sounds to me that you simply have not yet accepted the FACT the FBI tampered, altered, created and removed evidence at virtually every step in the process and in virtually every area of the case. NEWSFLASH: OSWALD DID NOT DO ANYTHING HE WAS CHARGED WITH DOING Once you understand that maybe you can see how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy... How the window into which we get to see the events of that day does everything BUT show you what occurred... for me at least, the Evidence easily lays out the manner and processes used to cover up the conspiracy to kill JFK. This manufactured evidence leads back to the FBI and CIA every time. As for being "certain"... I've asked this before of the community... Name any single thing that occurred that day which we can say for certain is the truth... besides the death of 2 men and the wounding of another. DJ

Greg... More items came back from the clandestine taking of all the evidence Friday night (for which Lt. Day repeatedly mentions the FBI taking ALL the evidence) Items #'d 383 - 399 do not appear on any inventory sheet. It is the only sheet missing from the multiple inventory sheets used to record the items AFTER they came back from FBI... and would be the logical numbering for some of the items in that photo, including the light meter. As for that item being the back of a MINOX, this is where we'd normally see the "MINOX" brand name If the item in the DPD photo is a MINOX upside down we would not be seeing what appears to be a little window on the side of the camera. To me it looks like a case of some sort. Or may even be the HANSA SELF TIMER listed on the inventory - not too far-fetched, is it? Please note Hill here starting off by telling us those inventory sheets were prepared on the 26th at DPD with most of the photos of these items not producing images and blamed on the DPD. The photo equipment all belonged to Oswald... a reoccurring theme is Oswald and his camera equipment wherever they may be... To be able to name the brand on the "self-timer" suggests to me it says so on the outside of the case. As to "how a mistake" could happen... consider it wasn't a mistake... more like covering tracks after the fact. my $.02 DJ

The rectangular object above the empty camera case does not agree in size and shape with any Minox camera I see on Google Images. All the Minox miniature spy cameras I see appear longer and narrower than the rectangular object in the photo below, plus have dials and so forth which the unbroken flat surface of the rectangular object in the photo below does not. But this is an answerable question. Either that rectangular object above the empty camera case is a Minox camera or it isn't. What is the truth about that rectangular item? Is it or isn't it? What do people here think? A MINOX camera is not shown in these DPD images. I put in this image to illustrate the cameras named do not mention "and the case" despite both of these cameras being in one. The "light meter" seen in the lower portion of the image is not written into the DPD inventory And as you mentioned, the item above the case looks more like a box containing something than a MINOX camera of any type. And the chain will come into play next... In STOVALL Exh A, 2nd page we see the same two items listed together. Now we both agree a MINOX camera is listed on a number of "inventory" lists which includes a lined notebook with recovered items typed in with their corresponding inv #. Please let's notice the 2 items STOVALL listed are not given an inventory # whereas the MINOX camera itself, does, despite the case being in the photo and the camera, not. By not including the camera in the photograph (for which the FBI and DPD were working together) the door was left open for "corrections" later as necessary. Correcting early evidence does remain a pattern for the FBI and the WCR advocates for years to come. I hope that addressed the questions you referred to earlier... DJ

del

Chauncey Holt.doc THANKS TO BILL KELLEY

Besides, isn't this thread about the Minox taken from Oswald and nothing to do with Zapruder or the SBT? So let's not get this all muddled up with silly things like facts. #375 - last on the page starts: "One Minox Camera"

John... WARNING WARNING RABBIT HOLE... COINTELPRO tactics at work... AVOID Confrontation at all costs Miss ya John... but don't miss the terrible lack of vision or comprehension for which a select few here always can be counted upon. As an older and wiser man, those tactics just don't hold water anymore... Hope you and yours are well... DJ 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Hi Sean... The story of the cement filled Minox comes from my friend John Armstrong who frequented the archives for many years. He was actually one of the last researchers to be allowed to physically see and touch much of the evidence. In any case He told me a few stories about the evidence he came across... One being that this was indeed cemented shut and was the Minox everyone denies existed. Two was the microfilm canister supposedly containing the Klein's order for the rifle... the canister was empty. Here is a bit more about the Minox.. I apologize if I am repeating other info already posted, I did not read the entire thread as I've been thru this countless times over the years. And yes, the seriel number for this camera belonged to a series not available to the public.. well remembered Sean!

Here you go guys Morales there in the white with hat... Westbrook far right

Hey there Ron, The passage we believe was used is on the 3rd floor from the City Hall DPD building to the Courts building wand is at the end of the south east wing of the 3rd floor. This area was senior DPD staff only with Curry at the west end and all the Deputy Chiefs. The first office as you go down the hall to the "meat and potatoes" staff is Westbrook's. The other pass-through between the buildings we show, was at the main stair landings. While someone other than Westbrook is very possible, adding yet another man to the "in the know" list of players may not have been in his best interest. Besides... has anyone ever found what and where WESTBROOK went and did after the Friday of Oswald's arrest? The toughest question for us was how the timing of bringing Oswald down 1 minute after the Pierce/Putnam/Massey car passes in front of the cameras coincides with when Ruby walked up. A video on the subject found on Youtube suggested that those windows were to the room Oswald was being interrogated within... that was not the case but it did lead us to those windows being the most logical spot for a spotter to be.... given they knew Ruby would enter via the parking lot (which the WCR called an "alley"). Side note: describing it as an "alley" does suggest that Ruby may have walked around the building or hugged the building thru the parking lot until reaching what appears to be an alley leading directly to that door: Remember, Brock and Worley were the only two officers between the stairs and the ramp and they were removed by 11am. Removed by a combination of Pierce, Putnam & Dean responding to orders which are hard to pin down. In the few minutes before the shooting we have a stationary middle camera filming as people come and go. This is the camera that shows the Pierce car moving thru and up the Main ramp about 1 minute before the shooting yet it had been running for quite some time. Studying the film we do not see Ruby pass in front of this camera to arrive at his position. As we wrote, the railing was an easy pass through and nicely hidden from sight. Ruby then just appears next to Croy after the Pierce car passes (which is how I believe Ruby is able to describe the car and passengers in his made-up trip down Main and then down the ramp. I believe we alluded tot he HSCA having not only found this entrance but concludes it the most likely way Ruby gets into the basement... Add the removal of officers and the exact timing of Oswald's arrival and I believe we are very close to the truth. Then there are these passages from that section: HSCA Vol 9 5A (586) Edward E . Pierce, also a building maintenance employee, stated that the door leading from the alley into the first floor was constructed in such a manner that it had to be locked from the outside every time an individual left the building in this fashion. Otherwise it would remain open. Pierce said that on Sunday morning the door was probably opened and closed several times prior to the shooting because the porters were working and needed to get into the alley. (286) Capt. William Westbrook, a member of the DPD special investigative unit, indicated in 1978 that the alley door was not checked that morning (287) (although his basis for this statement was not clear). (587) Servance reiterated the mechanics of the alley door to the Warren Commission and added that the third door at issue-the one leading from the first-floor corridor to the fire escape stairwell-was also unlocked all the time. (288) (598) The alley route was the most likely alternative because of the factors of time and distance, the lack of security in the garage area and along the entire route, and the testimony concerning the security at the doors along the route. This possibility was not considered or investigated by the FBI or the Dallas Police Department and was virtually ignored by the Warren Commission.

Whole bunch of words to once again add and say nothing. Well done Jon…. You do understand that these vapid statements of yours will eventually require some substantiation. But u got opinion and hyperbole down. Why not find a safe little place to spout ur incredulity… ur WAY outta ur league, or don’t u notice that either?

Even a broken clock is right 2x a day… lol But overturn ALL the H&L evidence? Simply too much of it. Namaste… DJ

Real stickler is that Kostikov er al were being watched and recorded wherever they were in Mexico. Many of these meetings occur Sept 27/28 yet if they wanted Oswald in Mexico not a single report in the month of Sept’s CIA summary reports mentions the CIA awareness of these meets. No voice recordings from within the Soviet compound has Oswald speaking. Like all the players there is no reason to believe KGB officers, whose job it is to turn westerners, or Azcue’s with the same job for Cuba, would have treated a wanna be “redefector” the way they described… almost as bad as the never dying Paz party disinformation…

I have the deepest respect and appreciation for DL and Best Evidence…. That said there is something about “chain of custody” that continues to be overlooked. https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html This provable chain is but one of numerous ways to “Authenticate” evidence for admissibility. To make it “Real”. There are ways to establish this chain which includes a statement from those involved establishing such a fact. (Like with CE884 and the sealed plat.) The fact is, identifying marks on evidence doesn’t overshadow when and where and how these marks are made…. (Again, like the initialing of the pistol at the station hours after “recovery” doesn’t tie that pistol to the scene of the crime) I think these concepts make it doubly hard to understand the provenance of any of the offered evidence… FWIW… DJ IV. REAL EVIDENCE. Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence. To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901. Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality. The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing. The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony. The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used

JM, And when one refuses to only repeat the same unsupported opinions rather than engage in debate with citing evidence… we just keep turning the other cheek? How many vapid posts do u enjoy in rebuttal of any of your researched conclusions? Have u seen today’s self appointed forum overlord provide anything concrete in rebuttal or is it the same tired feckless double talk we get any time H&L is brought up? Why do none of these nay sayers ever address Ely and that memo or the obvious differences in who made statements and who served with the taller Lee? what are the consequences for opinion stated as misinformation in rebuttal to physical evidence anyway?

Agreed…. Go look at the evidence for oneself and come to one’s own conclusion. John has some far out there hypotheses which may come off as his statements in fact…. If Chris didn’t turn everything on its edge and make far reaching hypotheses AND THEN PROVE THEM, we wouldn’t have a fairly detailed map of how we arrive at just over 6 feet of viewable film on a 25ft roll of film spliced in 6 places… the so called “original or “master” as the SS called it. As for Tracy, much of his rebuttal centers around, “why would it be that way when it could be this way”? And shrugging repeated cases of official evidence off as mistakes…. As if the military doesn’t know who they are sending where. tracy at least presents a case and in some areas his rebuttals are spot on… I too do not agree with every page written about H&L… but there has yet to be an explanation for what I posted above. Or the obvious differences in the 2 men’s physiques. Back to back, one CE directly conflicts with the next…. John Ely was right.

Here is something simple for u…. Explain how these are the same person and what is the DoD doing with that induction photo? Please provide something more than ur opinions

again big brain… what have u done to investigate the hundreds of conflicts showing the existence of these 2 men? been doing this just as long, spoken with and collaborated with many u mention and many more. if you actually have something to offer in rebuttal other than your pathetic opinion, you would. But since you can’t be bothered with actual research, actual evidence, actual documentation all you do is appoint yourself opinion N A Z I and pollute these pages… Maybe try looking into Allen Felde and John Ely and what they say about our man Ozzie. C’mon Jon, show us that big brain and use more than ur opinion to debate/refute what is offered. Why is John Ely so confused and Rankin/Jenner so insistent? Finally oh sage of the forum, are u even aware that El Toro and Santa Ana were 2 separate and distinct bases… not one big base…. But u knew that right? You have all this research and analysis at ur fingertips, RIGHT?

So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic. what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ? Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought… but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

Hi Paul. yes… th full write up is on k&k in one of the Mexico chapters… the couple decided/reported on were the Brill’s but their entry papers had the name transposed, if I remember correctly, so I remember a search for the “Allen’s” Then again, they were looking at just getting him there by any means possible.. the “card” is provided by OCHOA.