John Butler

On 5/13/2022 at 9:47 AM, Sean Coleman said:

One of the elements in Minoxgate is Guy Rose.Is he right or wrong? He’s one or the other…..

If he’s right, he handled a Minox, opened it, saw (removed and re-inserted?) it’s film, and closed it. Maybe fondled and coveted it, it was an expensive item and no doubt a quality piece of kit. I know I’d like to see one close up. Then Fritz (booo,hisss) lets him to stick to his guns which is strange - he’s telling him he doesn’t have  to toe the Feebie line? This IS the complicit 1960’s DPD we’re talking about. 

If Guy Rose is wrong, then he imagined or mis-remembered the whole episode - in which case he needs a check up from the neck up - or he’s telling porkies. But to what end? Attention? Fame? To be inserted into history? 

Mucho puzzlemento 

 

 

This is simply another example of not accepting what a witness says because you don't want it that way.  Why should Detective Rose need a check up from "the neck up".  Are you saying the man was mentally incompetent because he didn't agree to go along with the FBI's corrupt scheme to change the evidence?

I suppose Rose and Stovall imagined seeing a roll of film in the "light meter". 

2 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

JFK will be Lincoln or Pearl Harbor one day. And that'll be a sad thing to see because it's one of the five most vital stories of our nation's history and it deserves our better angels.  

Is it a sad truth that the historians will have their way and 50 years down the road Oswald will still be the lone killer of President Kennedy?  Look at the history books in the public schools today.  I haven't for 25 years, so I am going to assume they are still saying that Oswald murdered Kennedy and he was the lone shooter.  I think that tradition is still there.

Does that mean that all of the work done by many good and great researchers saying there was a conspiracy will account for nothing and go down a future drain?  

On 5/8/2022 at 3:52 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I don't see any good reason to trust the official accounts of what Oswald is supposed to have said about the bus journey, especially when the only reliable witness we have, Roy Milton Jones, contradicts the lone-gunman narrative.

This is the heart of Jeremy's work.  Denying anything that contradicts the "lone-gunman narrative" which is essentially the Warren Commission conclusions.  If witness statements support evidence for a conspiracy, then this must be countered at all costs.

Even if the WC supports the notion of Oswald's bus ride, it must be countered if it "contradicts the lone-gunman narrative".

Jeremy finds facts as inconvenient and "un-nuanced" when they don't agree with his beliefs.  Being an intelligent fellow, he will find the language to refute whatever you say.  The difference between 5'9" and 5'11" would be simply an age difference, or a measurement mistake, or an unreliable witness.  Whatever it takes and I'm sure it will sound reasonable to some.  But, when you look at what he says it is simply assumptions with little evidence to back it up.

On 5/10/2022 at 4:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

You accept that Oswald entered his rooming house in Oak Cliff about 1 pm with Earlene Roberts there?

I'm not convinced that's true. The ROKC guys make a plausible case that Oswald may not actually have been living there. See, e.g.:

In this instance he refers to others for the factual evidence to back up his position.  Nearly everyone I have seen or read, Jeremy excluded, believes Oswald rented a room from Earlene Roberts.

And, when you go to this reference it indicates the opposite of what Jeremy said.  You can tell from the portions of the transcript of the witnesses that Oswald was hiding his address and eventually gave it up.  He never denied living on North Beckley.  This is not in accord with Jeremy's thinking.  

His "plausible case" simply isn't there.

12 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Then Fritz (booo,hisss) lets him to stick to his guns which is strange - he’s telling him he doesn’t have  to toe the Feebie line? This IS the complicit 1960’s DPD we’re talking about.

This is something I have noticed also.  It seems when people toe the FBI line, or County, or DPD line they are often allowed something different to say that seems to go against the usual behavior.  For example, Mary Moorman was allowed to say that the first shot was the head shot and the one where she took her Polaroid.  Then she said she heard more than 3 shots.  All came after the head shot.  The important part of her testimony is that she and Jean were down by the Grassy Knoll as her Polaroid indicates.  

Maybe this is to "prove" the witnesses' character and bona fide some other aspects of their testimony.  I don't know what to make of it.  It is something that is noticeable with some testimonies. 

I think in Rose's case something different is happening.  Probably Fritz's anger at having to send all of the evidence to the FBI and some of it coming back modified perhaps.  Or, the FBI asking for things to be modified.  

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But seriously, notwithstanding how questionable the Weberman and Hemming book is in much else, I see no sign that any of the other photos are not authentic in that book, as distinguished from the hilarious and creative commentary Hemming offers on them. 

So I'm back to authentic, Michael Paine, and therefore is not Oswald. 

Greg,

Do you know how to tell the difference between Army and Marine personnel in the 1950s?  I suspect you don't.  I could be wrong.  There are clear differences in their uniforms and the way they wore those uniforms.  Paine's army photos were mixed in with Oswald's Marine photos to confuse the issue on who's minox that was that was found in the garage. 

I guess Oswald was stealing Paine's minox when the police officer found it in Oswald's seabag.  Or, as I suggested earlier Oswald may have jumped forward in time and use it to photograph things and then left it in his seabag over the years until it was found in Ruth's garage in Oswald's seabag.

This is one of the alleged Michael Paine Army photos.  It is neither Michael Paines or an Army photo.  These men are in the Marines.  Their uniform and dress say so.  You may be looking at the original Lee Harvey Oswald.

Speaking of Lee Oswald in Minsk, or one of the Lee Oswalds in Minsk.  I am not sure many people have seen this photo of the folks on the bridge in Minsk taking pictures of themselves.  I don't know who the male is in the photo with Marina and her friend.  

The picture on the left hand either came from photos found at the Paines or from Alan Weberman.  I had never seen the man in this photo before.  I believe everyone more or less believed that the only people there were Oswald, Marina, and her friend.  Now, there is some one else.

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I feel 98% sure its the same person. The bleachy shot with Ozzie makes him look more youthful, it’s why fashion photographers often use flash. I also know that diet + exercise + lifestyle + genetics can make a man look 10 years younger than his birth certificate states. David Sinclair (Harvard biologist, professor), author of Lifespan explains this adequately. What’s the rubble in the background? Where is this actually supposed to be? 
 

It was the CIA that De Gaulle accused of being responsible for an attempt on his life, in a letter to JFK, or more loosely worded. 

Chris,

I am fairly sure its Oswald and Souetre, but no supporting evidence.  Or, genetics can keep you young in appearance until about 30.  I was still being carded for booze at age 26-27.  If his is 1960 or there abouts Souetre could be 29 or 30 years old.  

The rubble in the background is left over from WWII.  A good deal of the buildings in Minsk were rebuilt from that kind of rubble.  Notice the wall in the back of this photo.  This is just outside the lab or area that Oswald worked in at the Minsk plant.  It is from the rubble of other buildings.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

JB: Greg,

Are you in denial?

 

John, are you trying to be the master of the obvious?  When Dennis M comes out of the woods to back Greg I think its game, set, match.

No.  Just poking a stick at some of the lame reasoning one finds on the forum concerning Oswald matters.  I wish folks would pay attention to your next comment.

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t see resemblance to Oswald’s Minsk buddies, but I’m not convinced it’s Souetre either.

I can go along with that.  I can also go along with it being Souetre.  I just don't have evidence to prove either way.

11 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Have any of the posters on this thread read either of the two new books on Skorzeny?

I don't know anything about Skorzeny post WWII.  I should read up on him.

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes I deny the one on the left is Oswald because there is no plausibility that a photo of Oswald would be in Michael Paine's photos from his Army years. I agree it looks a bit like Oswald, but Oswald was not the only person on earth who looked like Oswald. Or to put it another way, Oswald looks a bit like that other guy with the long sideburns even though not the same person and the photos were taken a decade apart in time.

If you had other independent proof that there were Oswald photos mixed in with the Michael Paine photos that would be a different matter. But you cannot use this photo to prove there exist any Oswald photos in the mix, since identification of the same person in both photos is uncertain. It is the other grounds that all of those photos were Michael Paine's that is the cause for concluding that this one is too, and therefore not a photo of Oswald.

I didn't know you were a proponent of Harvey and Lee.  I think Alan Weberman is a more believable fellow than yours.

Will you deny these are the same Oswalds?  One in Japan about 1958 and the other leaving Russia about 1962?

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jean Paul Ceulemans sent another document from the DPD archives, which I wish I could show here but I get an error message saying its 3 mb size will not be permitted. It is a handwritten inventory receipt for the photographic equipment in the DPD evidence photo published in Savage, First Day Evidence, now being disbursed to Ruth Paine as the return of her and Michael Paine's property, including the light meter. The disbursement is dated Aug 12, 1964, by H.W. Hill of the Property Bureau, Dallas Police Department, and is signed by Ruth Paine indicating she receiving the items of her and Michael's property back. Jean Paul comments: 

"And as seen in the return of the property the light meter is returned by the DPD... not the camera....

"This returning of the light meter is in fact admitting it always was one in evidence 375....

"Gus might have never admitted it, but how then about the return..."

That's not really relevant when early on the camera was claimed to be Michael's camera.

12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Weberman does not even understand the most basic fact that all of those photos are from Michael Paine's camera and taken by Michael Paine.

You sure about that?  You need to go back at look at Michael Paine's army photos.  I have and believe I can separate Oswald's and Paine's.  He was in the army during the Korean War.  Army uniforms are quite different from Marine Corps uniforms even a few years later in 1958.  Lacking on the uniform of Oswalds is a large white name stripe.  Those are on all army uniforms of that period for personnel in the US Army.  You were subject to Article 15 punishment if you wore your uniform without a name stripe.  The photo also shows that the uniform lacks a unit patch.  Really bad form in the US Army.  He has on a tan belt and US Army belts were black.

There are too many Marine/Army discrepancies for this to be an army uniform worn by Oswald in that photo.   

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

John B., rather than supposing that is a photo of Souetre paling around with Oswald in Minsk, I suggest the man to the right of Oswald in your photo is one of Oswald's coworkers or friends in this group shot of Oswald in Minsk, perhaps either the guy to the upper left, or alternatively to the immediate right, of Oswald below. 

None of these guys look like Oswald's arm in arm buddy.

No resemblances at all.

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

John,

Sorry. In 1959, Jean-Rene Souetre was the Captain of the GCPA 40/541 Commandos d'lair  (Air Commandos - a rapid reaction fighting force), serving in Algeria. He was the Captain of this regiment from November, 1957 to April, 1960.

Steve Thomas

Thanks Steve,

This was the kind of answer I was looking for.  However, the Oswald in Russia time period is from 1959 to 1962.  

What happened to Souetre after he left his regiment in 1960?  Any ideas?

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

That isn't Oswald. Just because Weberman or Gerry Hemming said so doesn't make it so. Since that was one of the photos from Michael Paine's film and camera taken at the time of his military tour of duty, among other photos of his Army compatriots, that is who this one would be, some unidentified fellow soldier of Michael Paine's. Nothing to do with Oswald.  

Greg,

Are you in denial?  Or, is the above statement "nuanced" as done by others who I think are in denial?

This is the first time I have heard that this photo of Lee Oswald is not Lee Oswald.  This photo was developed by the National Archives from film found in Ruth Paine's garage.  Maybe Hemming that great spy and story teller slipped this camera film into Ruth Paine's garage so it would be swept up with the DPD dragnet and later claimed as Michael Paine's film.  Or, maybe as Lee Oswald's film.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As Jean Paul Ceulemans wrote me:

 

"It is my opinion that the DPD made a simple mistake as you can see in the picture (actually a jig-saw puzzle pic from the internet but it is correct in it's details). for one that is not used to having seen one before...

"The fact they said it had a film in it... I don't know, a second mistake with one of the Minox canisters ?

"Because the total number of film don't add up... (film in the camera + other minox film found) 

"We now have different sets of pictures of which show the camera. AND IF the DPD was correct AND IF the golden one is correct wouldn't he have described as being a golden one.....

"Anyway, too much assumptions to prove anything, certainly not enough to accuse the Paine's of evidence fraud....

"Unless the DPD comes up with a picture showing the camera (and not the light meter)-"

Are you or are you not representing this camera as the one owned by Michael Paine?

Another question?  Did Lee Oswald reach forward in time to seize Michael Paine's Minox and take the following picture at Atsugi years earlier that Alan Weberman had the National Archives develop?  I believe this is before he knew Paine or Paines.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But one also has to expect some earnest garbled explanations early on.

I too think this.  However, how does one decide whether is early on garbled information or the truth.  It is reported as if it is the truth.  So, much for that nowadays and perhaps just so in the past. 

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don’t understand “lone nutters” unless they are being paid to argue that side, or they have such a trust in government, they just won’t look or consider any evidence that shatters their view.

Ditto.  Ditto in the extreme.  The current crop is aptly described.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jean Paul Ceulemans

Your friend has made a mistake according to Alan Weberman.  The camera you show is not the same camera that Weberman says in in the National Archives.

These are not the same cameras.  Besides, the photo shown by Doudna is open increasing its length making it appear larger than it really is.

Another question?

What this pointed to in the picture?

Some where I have read or seen something that suggests the person with Oswald in this photo taken in Russia is Jean Souetre.  I couldn't find that on a recent search of the forum and net.

I'm not sure, but this fellow with Oswald looks like photos of Souetre.  Souetre was born in 1930.  This fellow doesn't quite look like 29-32 in age.  This would be 1959 to 1962 for the years Oswald was in Russia.  He might be a young 30ish.

So, is this Souetre?  

I put together this to help decide.

There are resemblances in hairline and chin.  But, that may be coincidental.  If that was Souetre in the photo with Oswald above, is it just another sinister character associated with Oswald?  There is a long line of sinister characters starting with the Russian Colonel in Japan.

Your opinion will be valued.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think the evidence you've laid out suggests another scenario as well. It seems likely Oswald knew he was in deep and was going on the run. Perhaps he put on a blue jacket at the rooming house, with the gray jacket on top.

Pat,

Where's the proof of a grey jacket?  A medium grey jacket?  Light or medium gray that looks like CE 163 the blue, Russian jacket.  There's evidence or a light tan/grey jacket of the short waisted kind exhibited in the Hunter Photo.  Not a longer jacket such as CE 163.  Marina says she washed these jackets and they were never sent to the cleaners.  There's always a problem with her veracity.  But, why would she lie about washing jackets and not sending them to the cleaners.  Particularly, when a cleaning tag was found in one of the jackets.  Surely, she would have went along with the story if it was important at the time.

What did this medium grey jacket look like.  Is there a photo representation of it?  I haven't seen any evidence of a medirm gray jacket so how can Greg postulate a 3 jacket theory?

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Oswald in Dallas had a heavier-weight dark-blue jacket (C163) and a lighter-weight medium-gray jacket (no photo known; per argument not the light-gray almost white jacket C162 of the Tippit killer).

It is my opinion that the light, colored Oswald jacket is not the one shown in CE 162.  If you compare the following you will see what I am talking about.

The jacket Oswald is wearing in the hunter photo has a wider collar, a breast pocket, and different cuffs.  CE 162 appears to have a breast pocket, but it looks like a wrinkle. 

The hunter photo may show a light grey jacket or a light tan jacket.  I don't believe it is white.

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

If the photo in the middle is verified Oswald the jacket the jacket he is wearing is not the dark-blue C163 to both left and right above, but could be the first known photo of Oswald's medium-gray jacket that he wore to work Fri morning Nov 22.

I don't see where you get that from.  The center photo is of Oswald in Russia with a friend (who is suspected of being an assassin).  The Jacket Oswald is wearing is identical to photo no. 2 and is a dark blue color rather than a light or medium grey.

WC CE 163 is the jacket Oswald is wearing in the photo taken in Minsk.  It is not a light or medium grey in color.

First off it is not light or medium grey.  Secondly, it is the kind of jacket one would find in a militarized country such as Russia.  Watch K dramas and you will see the same thing in Korea where all young men have to serve in the military.  

The color, the collar, pockets, zipper length, and epaulettes match.  

Jeremy claimed I am trying to hide something by posting on a different single issue several times.

I do that for clarity and simplicity.  Short posts are easier to read than longer posts, say Greg Doudna for instance.  Longer posts get boring and confusing after awhile.