Jump to content
The Education Forum

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions


Recommended Posts

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #23

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the

small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince

me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz

told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz

stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -

First Day Evidence, pg 212

"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination

investigation was J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the

camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office

on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It

listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De

Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property

Bureau.

However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De

Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a

'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of

'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the

fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day

Evidence, pg 214

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned

by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive camera... and it

seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence operatives

because of their small size.

LNT'ers will almost certainly fall back on "simple denial" for this question,

should they be brave enough to attempt it. They may attempt to argue that the

Minox camera found in November actually belonged to Michael Paine, who at the

behest of the FBI went into his garage in Jan '64 and "found" a Minox camera -

although this raw anachronism won't affect LNT'ers...

Any LNT'er honest enough to admit that Oswald owned a Minox, and that the FBI

went to extraordinary efforts to hide that fact?

eof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David G. Healy Posted Yesterday, 04:21 PM

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #23

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the

small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince

me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz

told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz

stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -

First Day Evidence, pg 212

"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination

investigation was J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the

camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office

on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It

listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De

Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property

Bureau.

However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De

Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a

'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of

'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the

fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day

Evidence, pg 214

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned

by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive camera... and it

seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence operatives

because of their small size.

LNT'ers will almost certainly fall back on "simple denial" for this question,

should they be brave enough to attempt it. They may attempt to argue that the

Minox camera found in November actually belonged to Michael Paine, who at the

behest of the FBI went into his garage in Jan '64 and "found" a Minox camera -

although this raw anachronism won't affect LNT'ers...

Any LNT'er honest enough to admit that Oswald owned a Minox, and that the FBI

went to extraordinary efforts to hide that fact?

eof

Review the complete topic (launches new window)

David,

The fact that LHO had in his possessions a Minox camera and the fact that the official record has later been altered to indicate he did NOT have one in his possession, should indicate to all researchers that this is indeed a key point in understanding who LHO was. Further, the official investigation must have had a pre-determined outcome, which did not include LHO's Minox camera.

This ranks right up there with the Odio incident and other key evidence disregarded by the Warren commission, all of which would have pointed the investigation towards a conspiracy - which of course was not part of the pre-determined single assassin conlcusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

The fact that LHO had in his possessions a Minox camera and the fact that the official record has later been altered to indicate he did NOT have one in his possession, should indicate to all researchers that this is indeed a key point in understanding who LHO was. Further, the official investigation must have had a pre-determined outcome, which did not include LHO's Minox camera.

This ranks right up there with the Odio incident and other key evidence disregarded by the Warren commission, all of which would have pointed the investigation towards a conspiracy - which of course was not part of the pre-determined single assassin conlcusion.

indeed it does, Antti..... thanks for the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...