Oswald's Minox camera

[Tom Hume]

 

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

A model "III" was produced from 1951 thru 1953 with serial numbers 31275 thru 58499.  (p169 H&L)

This doc says the serial number of the Minox was "27259".

https://www.scribd.com/document/203141248/Oswald-Minox-Camera

[James DiEugenio]

Yes Tom, it is supposed to be 27259.  And that one is very likely the one that the Paines produced for FBI agent Bardwell Odum, after Hoover made the first one dissolve into never never land.

If you can believe it the Warren Commission never noticed the difference in the evidence lists, that is after Hoover altered the list and made Oswald's  Minox disappear.  So therefore the Paines were never asked about this issue.  And to my knowledge, the HSCA did not ask them either.  And yes, it is supposed to be a Minox III.

Both of the cameras were produced for the HSCA to show to Marina who failed to recall either one. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pgs. 241-42)

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The second Minox camera was created after Oswald's  was made to disappear.

 I mean both John Armstrong and Carol Hewett went over this years ago.

It is in his book and a couple of lectures he did and Carol's milestone essay is in the book The Assassinations.

Hoover was very troubled by the fact that the DPD had confiscated Oswald's MInox camera. So he did three things to attempt to neutralize the problem.  

1. He changed the camera into a light meter

2.  He altered the original property list to deep six it

3.  He told the local FBI to get together with Ruth Paine to help solve the problem.  Which they did. They created a second Minox and deep sixed the first one.  This is some of the strongest evidence of an FBI cover up and the Paines' participation in it.  Because it is so well documented.

James,

That is, "well documented" according to "Harvey & Lee" science fiction writer John Armstrong and laughing-lawyer Carol Hewett (who dropped out of JFK Research over 20 years ago).

The amusement never stops.

What stuff,
--Paul Trejo

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Both of the cameras were produced for the HSCA to show to Marina who failed to recall either one. 

Which makes perfect sense since she'd never heard of a Minox camera until after JFK was Assassinated.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

That is, "well documented" according to "Harvey & Lee" science fiction writer John Armstrong and laughing-lawyer Carol Hewett (who dropped out of JFK Research over 20 years ago).

The amusement never stops.

What stuff,
--Paul Trejo

 

Blow it out your $$$ Paul....

The complete garbage they allow you to post here day after day is bad enough... but when you attack someone who runs circles around you in every possible way - enough is enough.

Here he is ladies and gentlemen - the blind man insulting the sun for being too bright....

In all my travels I've never seen someone so self-satisfied at being wrong at every opportunity as you...

You wear ignorance and shallowness like a badge of honor Paul... and you drag down the entire Forum with every attempt at those soapbox serenades which invariably begins with...  "In my opinion....." followed by regurgitated garbage and a couple tautologies you claim as evidence.

I see your name on a thread and I shy away...  you intellectually pollute these threads Paul... 

Now I'm sure you cannot be stopped from posting simply due to the kindergarten level of your analysis and the complete lack of substantiation... and you probably can't be stopped because of your need to repeatedly insult your betters.....

....you might consider this play on the old adage: 

Better to be thought a fool and keep quiet than to repeatedly post on this forum and effectively remove all doubt.

[James DiEugenio]

David:

Which of the two cameras did Armstrong handle in the Archives?  Was it the Minox III?  

And as I recall, at one of his addresses, he said it was sealed shut, right?  You could not open it.

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

David:

Which of the two cameras did Armstrong handle in the Archives?  Was it the Minox III?  

And as I recall, at one of his addresses, he said it was sealed shut, right?  You could not open it.

Cemented shut was how he put it....  it was much heavier than the Minox he owns.... as if filled with cement.

No, it could not be pried open....

The III, yes... the image I posted comes from his CD...

[Tom Hume]

So the Minox model “III”s were serial numbered 31275 thru 58499, BUT the Minox Armstrong handled was both a model “III” and bore the serial number 27259? Or am I confused?

[David Josephs]

I'll ask John...  

I think that was the point... Wasn't supposed to be available to the public...  Yet my gut tells me it's not the original.

Its shut so you can't confirm or deny its the original or the one used to take the photos...

From what I remember of those conversations...

DJ

[Michael Walton]

48 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

So the Minox model “III”s were serial numbered 31275 thru 58499, BUT the Minox Armstrong handled was both a model “III” and bore the serial number 27259? Or am I confused?

Tom, thanks for this. I hope we can get to the bottom of this.  I'd always assumed that the only doc available is the inventory list but it's a good post of Tom's showing that teletype talking about the SN and in that doc the Paines mentioning it was theirs.

Another potential issue - can John Armstrong really be trusted?  When I say this it has nothing to do with ROKC and Greg Parker and all of that.  But I've read plenty from others (non ROKC) on this forum about John Armstrong's "research" being dubious.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

I don't know if you heard me on Black Op Radio this week, but I addressed this question.

Many of the people who attack John, have not read his book.  I would be willing to wager you have not.  Or if they did read it, they have not read the whole thing.  Which is about 950 pages long.  I have no time for those kinds of people.  When I read a book and write about it, I read the whole thing whether its long, like Waldron's, or relatively short like Morley's.  And as anyone can tell, i footnote the review which proves I read the book.

When I first got John's book, I decided to map out two weeks of my life to read it.  And I was going to do it straight through.  So for two weeks one summer, I drove to my favorite Mimi's restaurant.  For about five hours each afternoon I read the book from cover to cover, and checked out the footnotes to a fair degree.  That is the only way one can appreciate the combination of scope and detail that his book entails.

John did something that no one ever did before.  He owned a very large home in Tulsa when he started his research.  He decided to send away for every single declassified document the FBI had on Oswald.  He then devoted a room in his house to lining up every document he got in chronological order from beginning to end.  That is how he noticed the discrepancies in the record.  And that is what he details in his book. He then looked up witnesses that no one had ever talked to before. Traveling as far away as Argentina  to do so. Please let me know if anyone else has done this.

Having read his book I can say this about it:  Even if you do not buy his central thesis about the dual Oswalds, you could carve out another entire book of about 600 or so pages from the research he did on other key subjects. And it would still be an extremely valuable book, better than over 95% of the books out there.  For example, no one, and i mean no one, ever explained the serious evidentiary problem with the rifle purchase, or the fact that the rifle in evidence is not the one the WC said Oswald ordered. And they knew it. That point drives the other side into epileptic seizures e.g.. Von Pein.  Because, on its own, it exonerates Oswald. And it is finally gaining some traction, since Bill Simpich used it at the mock trial with the guy who was our single most effective witness, former police officer Brian Edwards.  (Unfortunately, he was the last witness.) 

To use another example, John's chapter on Mexico City is one of the three best source materials in the entire literature on that subject. What I like about his one hundred page essay on this is that 1.) He discovered new materials, and 2.) He does not go beyond what he can prove by a preponderance of the evidence. (No barium meals or strategic deceptions.)  No one before had ever examined the trip down and back up as he had. 

Third, and what we are talking about here directly and indirectly, John examined the whole serious problem of the cameras the DPD found at Ruth Paine's garage and examined the record of the testimony and actions in that regard like no one else has before or since.  To use one example, the Imperial Reflex camera that the WC determined took the infamous BYPs was not on the DPD property report after the second day.  It was introduced into evidence much later through Ruth Paine and Robert Oswald, after it was determined that none of the cameras in evidence could have produced the BYPs.

Three other brief examples.  It was John who discovered the whole imbroglio about Marina and the phony Tex Italia shell company that seems instrumental in changing Marina's testimony about Oswald in MC. (Among other things.) It was John who discovered the very long secret analysis by the HSCA as to why they could not buy Marina as a witness. They actually charted out about 35 or so instances where she changed her story, sometimes more than once.  (Lifton did not even know this existed when I mentioned it. He then asked me for it.)  That one drives Trejo nutty since he wants us all to buy into Marina. Third, it was John who located Albert Schweitzer college in Switzerland and took pictures of the building and supplied its history. 

I could go on and on and on. But it would just add more to this record of achievement.  John's book is footnoted throughout.  And a lot of his evidence is supplied on the disc that comes with the book.  

When John says he went to the Archives and handled the MInox there, it happened. That is how he found out about how Hoover altered the evidence lists in the first place.

Edited November 28, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mike:

I don't know if you heard me on Black Op Radio this week, but I addressed this question.

Many of the people who attack John, have not read his book.  I would be willing to wager you have not.  Or if they did read it, they have not read the whole thing.  Which is about 950 pages long.  I have no time for those kinds of people.  When I read a book and write about it, I read the whole thing whether its long, like Waldron's, or relatively short like Morley's.  And as anyone can tell, i footnote the review which proves I read the book.

When I first got John's book, I decided to map out two weeks of my life to read it.  And I was going to do it straight through.  So for two weeks one summer, I drove to my favorite Mimi's restaurant.  For about five hours each afternoon I read the book from cover to cover, and checked out the footnotes to a fair degree.  That is the only way one can appreciate the combination of scope and detail that his book entails.

John did something that no one ever did before.  He owned a very large home in Tulsa when he started his research.  He decided to send away for every single declassified document the FBI had on Oswald.  He then devoted a room in his house to lining up every document he got in chronological order from beginning to end.  That is how he noticed the discrepancies in the record.  And that is what he details in his book. He then looked up witnesses that no one had ever talked to before. Traveling as far away as Argentina  to do so. Please let me know if anyone else has done this.

Having read his book I can say this about it:  Even if you do not buy his central thesis about the dual Oswalds, you could carve out another entire book of about 600 or so pages from the research he did on other key subjects. And it would still be an extremely valuable book, better than over 95% of the books out there.  For example, no one, and i mean no one, ever explained the serious evidentiary problem with the rifle purchase, or the fact that the rifle in evidence is not the one the WC said Oswald ordered. And they knew it. That point drives the other side into epileptic seizures e.g.. Von Pein.  Because, on its own, it exonerates Oswald. And it is finally gaining some traction, since Bill Simpich used it at the mock trial with the guy who was our single most effective witness, former police officer Brian Edwards.  (Unfortunately, he was the last witness.) 

To use another example, John's chapter on Mexico City is one of the three best source materials in the entire literature on that subject. What I like about his one hundred page essay on this is that 1.) He discovered new materials, and 2.) He does not go beyond what he can prove by a preponderance of the evidence. (No barium meals or strategic deceptions.)  No one before had ever examined the trip down and back up as he had. 

Third, and what we are talking about here directly and indirectly, John examined the whole serious problem of the cameras the DPD found at Ruth Paine's garage and examined the record of the testimony and actions in that regard like no one else has before or since.  To use one example, the Imperial Reflex camera that the WC determined took the infamous BYPs was not on the DPD property report after the second day.  It was introduced into evidence much later through Ruth Paine and Robert Oswald, after it was determined that none of the cameras in evidence could have produced the BYPs.

Three other brief examples.  It was John who discovered the whole imbroglio about Marina and the phony Tex Italia shell company that seems instrumental in changing Marina's testimony about Oswald in MC. (Among other things.) It was John who discovered the very long secret analysis by the HSCA as to why they could not buy Marina as a witness. They actually charted out about 35 or so instances where she changed her story, sometimes more than once.  (Lifton did not even know this existed when I mentioned it. He then asked me for it.)  That one drives Trejo nutty since he wants us all to buy into Marina. Third, it was John who located Albert Schweitzer college in Switzerland and took pictures of the building and supplied its history. 

I could go on and on and on. But it would just add more to this record of achievement.  John's book is footnoted throughout.  And a lot of his evidence is supplied on the disc that comes with the book.  

When John says he went to the Archives and handled the MInox there, it happened. That is how he found out about how Hoover altered the evidence lists in the first place.

Bravo!

See, my legal theory perspective revolves around coincidences. They show show much of the truth, one way or the other.  This case is surrounded by coincidences.  The Minox camera example fits nicely in my analysis.  That is, while there are coincidences in every case, some strange and bizarre,  this one goes beyond a scientific explanation of pure coincidences.  When the coincidences become so great that they show a pattern, then one must begin to assume that they are not coincidences.  Here, we have a document inventory showing a camera.  Some suggest that this camera belonged to the Paine's.  A reasonable explanation.  But, then you dig deeper and see more.  Then as you see the mud surrounding the true evidence, you realize that the mud was put there as opposed to a true coincidence.  Bravo Jim, you pushed the mud aside and provided the evidence of what happened.  The mud is the proof that I believe actually shows what really happened.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Cory.

I agree about the mud.  Its everywhere in this case.  Too much to be coincidences.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Cemented shut was how he put it....  it was much heavier than the Minox he owns.... as if filled with cement.

No, it could not be pried open....

The III, yes... the image I posted comes from his CD...

Malcolm Blunt told me it was shut, he did not know with what, but it was impossible to open.

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Cory.

I agree about the mud.  Its everywhere in this case.  Too much to be coincidences.

The Evidence has been and will always be the Conspiracy... it can’t point to anything else....