Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

VInce Bugliosi could not have done better by his process of argument by length and charcterization.  "I say". "She says"

Its not what someone says its what was on the evidence list, what was testified to my credible witnesses, how the list was then altered.

You take ten paragraphs to obfuscate what I wrote in two.

I do not know what this means: "This second camera has nothing whatever to do with Oswald and is entirely irrelevant. You say this second Minox was really Oswald's camera and that the Paines were lying when they said it was theirs. Then you say that second Minox was not Oswald's"

Flapdoodle.  This is what I wrote, and they are the key sentences:

"The police already found Oswald's Minox. (Italics in original) The Paines are  now trying to say they missed it, and by saying it was really Mike's they are separating that camera from Oswald.  But now, Mike says this: the light meter found by the cops was really his also, not Oswald's. "

The second Minox was never Oswald's.  Oswald's MInox was deep sixed by Hoover.  And I am very clear about this and do not know why you would obfuscate it. But that would not do because the Dallas authorities insisted they had found the Minox in their original search. It was on their list and there is even a picture of it on the property room floor that I have seen.  So the simple matter is that the police were calling BS on the FBI's revised story which was making the first Minox disappear and saying they only found a light meter.  This got to be a serious problem as to the credibility of the FBI.  So, as with the Tague strike, Hoover went to work altering the evidence and camouflaging the record with plenty of help from the Paines.  Now, the added, second  Minox was Mike's.  And we were all supposed to forget about Oswald's Minox.  Which would have indicated he was some kind of undercover agent.

No WC inquiry into this piece of evidence substitution and subterfuge.  No HSCA inquiry since Paines are not called.  But Gus Russo trots out Mikey and in 1993 on the  lying PBS special Mikey  says the Minox camera found was his.

No it was not.  The Minox camera found in November by the Dallas police was Oswald's.  The Paines then substituted another Minox to cover up for Hoover.  There are two Minoxes in the Archives today.  BTW, Ruth helped the WC on this camera issue later again.  She said the Stereo Realist camera was hers.  She recalled this in August, nine months later.  The Paines had now effectively left  Oswald with just one pocket camera.  Just like normal people.  Not spies.

Its that simple to understand.  No Bugliosian bloviation necessary.


 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

James D, if I misrepresented what you said I apologize and want very much to represent accurately. But I still do not understand what you mean by "it" when you say

"The police already found Oswald's Minox [the original DPD search and inventory]. The Paines are now trying to say they [DPD] missed it [Oswald's Minox] [the Paines are saying that??? where???]and by [the Paines] saying it [Oswald's Minox, the one that DPD found that is missing] was really Mike's [??] they [the Paines] are separating that camera [the one Michael retrieved from the coffee can] from Oswald [by the Paines claiming that the camera in the coffee can belonged to Michael Paine]."

The brackets are my attempt to accurately grasp your intent--do I have that right? Are you saying Michael Paine was lying or truthful when saying the coffee-can Minox belonged to himself? Who do you think the coffee can Minox belonged to? Do I understand you correctly that you see it as objectionable that Michael Paine claims that the coffee-can camera belongs to himself? 

I also do not follow how the later production of a Michael Paine Minox of the coffee can--which nobody to my knowledge has ever claimed was Oswald's camera--removes the earlier issue of the Oswald Minox identification by DPD and what happened to it. As I understand it FBI's position is there never was an Oswald Minox because DPD mislabeled it. I don't see how this later Michael Paine camera (in the coffee can) affects or changes or enters into that FBI explanation. An apple and an orange, two distinct cameras, unrelated to each other. I am just not following you here on the level of basic comprehension.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

James D, if I misrepresented what you said I apologize and want very much to represent accurately. But I still do not understand what you mean by "it" when you say

"The police already found Oswald's Minox [the original DPD search and inventory]. The Paines are now trying to say they [DPD] missed it [Oswald's Minox] [the Paines are saying that??? where???]and by [the Paines] saying it [Oswald's Minox, the one that DPD found that is missing] was really Mike's [??] they [the Paines] are separating that camera [the one Michael retrieved from the coffee can] from Oswald [by the Paines claiming that the camera in the coffee can belonged to Michael Paine]."

The brackets are my attempt to accurately grasp your intent--do I have that right? Are you saying Michael Paine was lying or truthful when saying the coffee-can Minox belonged to himself? Who do you think the coffee can Minox belonged to? Do I understand you correctly that you see it as objectionable that Michael Paine claims that the coffee-can camera belongs to himself? 

I also do not follow how the later production of a Michael Paine Minox of the coffee can--which nobody to my knowledge has ever claimed was Oswald's camera--removes the earlier issue of the Oswald Minox identification by DPD and what happened to it. As I understand it FBI's position is there never was an Oswald Minox because DPD mislabeled it. I don't see how this later Michael Paine camera (in the coffee can) affects or changes or enters into that FBI explanation. An apple and an orange, two distinct cameras, unrelated to each other. I am just not following you here on the level of basic comprehension.

Why was Michael Paine hiding a very expensive spy camera in a coffee can?  I guess all that Cabot - Lodge money came in handy for such toys.  We all know Ozzie didn't have the money for such so who gave him his, for what purpose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying simply this:

1. Oswald had a Minox camera.  This was left in the Paine garage.

2.  The DPD found this camera along with two other pocket cameras belonging to Oswald. According to Rose they found the Minox inside of Oswald's seabag.

3.  Hoover deep sixed the original Oswald Minox.  It happened sometime after the 26th. Because DeBrueys and DPD officer English acknowledged it on a preliminary list that day for transfer to FBI. After this, it is clear and obvious, that once the property got to Washington  the Minox disappeared from the evidence inventory list as revised by FBI, and according to Armstrong it was eliminated from evidence pictures by the Bureau.

4. The DPD calls this out as a bunch of BS.  The FBI even tried to get Gus Rose to change his story about finding the Minox camera.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS? They want Oswald's Minox to go away. Just like Hoover wanted the Tague curbstone strike to go away.  But Rose will not back down.  He saw the camera and it was sent to the FBI.

5. End of January: Hoover decides to enlist Shanklin and Odum to create a story to explain away how the Minox disappeared.  And he asks them specifically to go to Ruth Paine as one way to solve the problem.

6. Now, the Paines say, yeah they remember they had a Minox laying around and yeah they tried to get the police to notice it but it was ignored. This is a key deception.  The police did take Oswald's camera. No one had to point to it since it was in his seabag.  This shell game by Mike now lays the groundwork for disposing of Oswald's camera and switching it with this second MInox.  Paine even tried to say that the police took HIS light meter, not Oswald's.

7. Odum now tells Hoover that they have discovered a Minox, and the DPD is fine with that and have given up their prior claim to finding one..  Which is another lie. Rose never gave up his claim, and the  FBI was examining the original Minox as early as 11/25, two months before the Paines and Odum  pulled their stunt. 

8. Last turn of the screw: Ruth Paine claims the Stereo Realist was her camera. In August. Nine months after the fact.  The Paines have now claimed two of the three pocket cameras that the DPD said were Oswald's. 

9.  On PBS in 1993, Mike and Gus Russo say the camera found was really his. Not true.

 

I really do not know how i can make this evidence alteration by the Paines and FBI any more clear.  Mike Paine was very friendly with Odum.  They were buds. On the stand, with say Carol Hewett as the examining attorney, the Paines would have been ripped to confetti on this issue alone.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

or the horses ass. I wouldn't believe anything this guy says.

Thanks Ron,

I'm not sure he's worth going into the history of the beat movement about, but he does seem like a meth freak

 

uh...heh heh

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

James D. I follow your points #1-5. But I still am not clear on your answer to this question: (in your reconstruction) who was the true owner of the coffee-can Minox which Michael Paine said belonged to Michael Paine? 

I do not understand, are you saying: in #6 Michael Paine lied in saying that the light meter was his (MP's); in #8 Ruth Paine lied re the Stereo Realist being hers (RP's); and in #9 Michael Paine lied in saying the Minox found in the coffee can was his (MP's)? And that those three specific items all really belonged to Oswald, in addition to a fourth item, the Oswald Minox camera found by DPD then lost in FBI custody? Such that Oswald was the true original possessor of all three of those cameras just named and the light meter, none of which belonged to the Paines? And then the Paines lied and committed perjury in claiming ownership of two of those cameras and the light meter so as to assist in the FBI's coverup?

I think the FBI destroyed Oswald's Minox found by the DPD and covered it up, but I do not see any obvious reason for supposing that the Paines were lying, or can reasonably be held responsible for what the FBI did with Oswald's Minox. 

If Michael Paine said that he tried to tell the DPD on Nov 22 about his own Minox (the one in the coffee can which was later produced), and that Minox actually was his, what is the problem you see with Michael Paine later recounting that? It had nothing to do with Oswald's Minox which DPD picked up on Nov 22, because the camera in the coffee can Michael Paine was talking about was a different camera, right? Why are you so hostile toward Michael Paine for talking about his own camera (the one in the coffee can which Michael Paine said belonged to Michael Paine)? He wasn't talking about OSWALD's Minox, the one DPD picked up. He was talking about his own (MP's) Minox (the one in the coffee can). I will stop here on this thread which is your thread and thanks.   

 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2020 at 12:40 AM, David Lifton said:

((edited and modified, 6/21/2020 - 430 AM PST)).

The numbered list you provided --while attempting to be "comprehensive" --does not provide an accurate picture.  The idea that what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63 represented a coup was first voiced by M.S. Arnoni in a series of articles in his publication "The Minority of One," (TMO).  TMO was available at the UCLA Research Library and I spent hours studying his writings back in 1965/1966.  Another pioneer was Vincent Salandria who (along with Thomas Stamm) went to the National Archives, and viewed the Zapruder film and then came his (Salandria's) articles in Liberation magazine. Still another "first generation" researcher was Josiah Thompson, who --in 1966 (approx) --was hired as a consultant by LIFE, visited Dallas, interviewed witnesses, and had "early access" to the Zapruder film. Furthermore, and speaking only for myself, I learned a lot from speaking with--and meeting with - Raymond Marcus, during that same period.  Another member of the SoCal "group" was Maggie Field, and still another Lillian Castellano.  All of this activity by "first generation" researchers--this complete immersion in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, and the realization that the Warren Commission was not just "wrong" but perhaps deliberately so (i.e., an outright fraud) --- took place between 1964 and late 1966. (Furthermore, all of it was "pre-Internet," by several decades).  District Attorney Garrison entered the scene in February 1967, making his headline-producing announcement that he had "solved" the Kennedy assassination; and then, in March, charging New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy.  It was around May 1967 (or perhaps a bit later)  when I first met with him --- more than once, and for several hours.  

(The chronology of my own involvement is laid out, in detail, in the opening chapters of Best Evidence, which was first published (in hardcover) in Jan 1981, which was a Book of the Month Club selection;  and then (again) by three more publishers: Dell [1982], Carroll and Graf ["Trade paper," 1988], and Signet [paperback, 1993]).  Your point number 8 --that Garrison was "[the] first critic who said JFK's murder was a coup d'etat," is incorrect-- completely incorrect.  I had any number of conversations with Ray Marcus on this very subject (back in 1964/1965).  Also, and on the subject of "coup," a most important book is (i.e., "was") "Coup d'etat," by Edward Luttwak,  first published by Harvard University Press in 1968, and reprinted a number of times since.   That book provided a methodical way to examine the JFK assassination (from the standpoint that it was a coup); and led me to focus on the Secret Service -- specifically, the White House Detail ("WHD") of the Secret Service as the key to understanding the mechanics of any plot. 

Bottom line: there's a very solid published record about how thinking developed --among early JFK researchers --about the JFK assassination; and, should you wish to get an overview, there are two lengthy articles in Esquire Magazine --one in December 1966, and then a follow-up several months later  (Just Googe "Esquire" and "assassination theories").  Garrison was not the progenitor of the ideas on your numbered list,  and to believe that is a gross oversimplification.  The original books on this case -- "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy," by Joachem Joesten (1964 or 1965),  Inquest (by Edward Epstein, July 1966), and Rush to Judgement (by Mark Lane, August 1966); marked the beginning.  Two other "first generation" researchers were Ray Marcus and Maggie Field.  Later (in 1968, I believe) came Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, and my own work (Best Evidence ) was published in 1981.  My final chapter -- Ch. 32 ("The Assassination as a Covert Operation")-- explicitly argues that the assassination was an "inside job" and leaves little doubt that we are talking about a coup.  FWIW-- and this is admittedly subjective --it was always my impression that Garrison's "political theory" (i.e., his very public talk about a "coup") emerged after a Spring 1967 trip to Los Angeles, and the extensive contacts that he had--at that time--with Ray Marcus and Maggie Field (mentioned above).  In particular, your point #9 --that a purpose of JFK's murder was to change the foreign policy of the U.S. (a polite way of saying, "to escalate the Vietnam War", e.g., starting with Tonkin Gulf, august 1964) -- is developed in The Minority of One (TMO), and was a subject of intense discussion among the two Southern California researchers (mentioned above, along with another,  Lillian Castellano) with whom I was in contact back in those days. A good "snapshot" of the situation can be found in a New Yorker article published in June 1967, called "The Buffs," by writer Calvin (Bud) Trillin.  Years later (circa 1992), some of this history blossomed into a Ph.D. thesis of John Newman, which then (in 1992/93) became his published book, "JFK and Vietnam."  If you will study the materials I have mentioned, and arrange everything in "chronological order," you will have a much more accurate understanding of how the JFK controversy emerged, and the role played by District Attorney Garrison. 

I am not taking issue with some of the "particulars" you raise; rather, I'm trying here to focus on "the big picture."

In many ways, Garrison can be viewed as "just another JFK researcher" --the big difference being that, as D.A. of New Orleans, he could charge people with crimes, and actually present evidence to a Grand Jury (which he did). Unfortunately (and this was the serious downside of his investigation) the principal person he charged --businessman Clay Shaw--was, IMHO, completely innocent of any wrong doing. The result was legal proceedings which produced national publicity and historically important testimony (e.g., the Shaw Trial testimony of Col. Finck, one of the Bethesda autopsy doctors) and much other testimony and documentation-- all if which led to a "not guilty" verdict (Spring 1969). The trial also led to the first public showing of the Zapruder film (in a New Orleans courtroom)  which shows that JFK was thrust "back and to the left" by the force of a shot to JFK's head (which received world wide publicity, and was featured in Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, "JFK").  Personally, I don't believe the Clay Shaw had a blessed thing to do with JFK's death, but his prosecution --the prosecution of an innocent man, and a situation that was right out of Kafka -- became the center of Garrison's "quest" for the truth.

David,

Whatever it was that Shaw and "Oswald" were a part of in the summer of 1963 in Clinton, Louisiana, I doubt that it had much to do with the assassination plot. Further, I agree that Shaw simply could not have known that "Oswald" was to be the patsy for the assassination, and therefore, he simply could not have been anywhere near the top of the conspiracy to murder JFK.

Why not?

Because Clay Shaw called Dean Andrews on Saturday evening, 11/23/63 and asked him to go to Dallas to represent "Oswald"! We know that "Oswald" was shot the next morning, but obviously Shaw did not know then that was the plan - otherwise, he never would have made the phone call!

Did "Oswald" call Shaw on Saturday evening from the Dallas jail and request help in getting a lawyer,?

Almost certainly.

CD-1444-21.jpg?resize=753,1024

And did the Warren Commission then hide the fact that "Oswald" called and talked to  an unknown party for 30 minutes Saturday evening? And has way too much focus been made of the "Oswald" call that did NOT go through (the "Raleigh Call") and far too little to the call that did go through?

Did Shaw then immediately call Andrews and ask for help for "Oswald"?

Yes!

Despite the best efforts of Shaw's lawyers to impugn Dean Andrews, it is clear: Clay Shaw called Andrews (and used the name "Clay Bertrand'). 

No reasonable doubt is possible on that point, and therefore, Shaw did not know what "Oswald's" role was in the conspiracy (i.e. designated patsy.)

Was Shaw a longtime CIA asset, and did he have contact with "Oswald" in the summer of 1963?

You bet.

Was Shaw glad that JFK was gone?

Very probably.

Did the CIA screw with the Garrison investigation using every media asset they could muster? (Were they afraid that Shaw might start talking about agency connections from the summer of 1963?)

Yes, absolutely true.

But was Clay Shaw himself "in the loop" about "Oswald's" role in Dallas and his fate? And therefore, was Shaw an active organizer in the plot to kill President Kennedy?

No evidence exists. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - your reasoning seems sound to me. I had not thought of it that way before. What are your thoughts generally on what Shaw was up to with Oswald in summer 1963? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Paul - your reasoning seems sound to me. I had not thought of it that way before. What are your thoughts generally on what Shaw was up to with Oswald in summer 1963? 

Thanks, Paul.

While we can only guess at Shaw's assignment, we do know that the effect of "Oswald's" radio debate with Bringuier in New Orleans on August 21 was to discredit the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. (Once "Oswald" was revealed, on air, as a defector to the United States, anything further he might have had to say would have been disregarded in the minds of any listeners.) That the CIA notified the FBI that they were running an operation to do exactly that has been known since the publication of the 1975 Church Committee's Volume V, page 65:

"The CIA also took an interest in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with which Oswald was -associated. According to the FBI documents, on September 16, 1963, the CIA advised the FBI that the "Age anti-Castro propaganda] advised that his Agency will not take action without first consulting with the Bureau, bearing in mind that we wish to make certain the CIA activity will not jeopardize any Bureau investigation."ncy is giving some consideration to countering the activities of [the FPCC] in foreign countries." 100 The memorandum continued: CIA is also giving some thought to planting deceptive information which might embarrass the Committee in areas where it does have some support. Pursuant to a discussion with the Liaison Agent, [a. middle level CIA official working on."

Most researchers, including me, agree that the "Oswald"/Bringuier debate was exactly the result of such a CIA plan (even though the CIA didn't get around to notifying the FBI until after the "debate" took place.}

Is it reasonable to assume that Clay Shaw was involved with "Oswald" in an earlier, similar plan to discredit voter registration drives in Louisiana when he and "Oswald" were in Clinton together?

I think so.

Was there also some sort of (aborted?) attempt involving "Oswald" to smear the New Orleans Committee for Peaceful Alternatives by association with "Oswald"?

According to N.O. Lt. Francis Martello's WC testimony, there may well have been:

"It should be noted at this time during prior investigation conducted, while I was a member of the Intelligence Unit, information was developed that Fair Play for Cuba Committee literature was found in the 1000 block of Pine Street, New Orleans, which was near the residence of Dr. LEONARD REISSMAN, a professor at Tulane University. This investigation was conducted by me.
As I remember, Dr. REISSMAN was reported to be a member of the New Orleans Council of Peaceful Alternatives which is a 'ban the bomb' group recently established in the city and had conducted meetings and two or three demonstrations in the city. Knowing that Dr. REISSMAN was reportedly a member of the New Orleans Council of Peaceful Alternatives I thought there might be a tie between this organization and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
"When OSWALD stated that meetings of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had been held on Pine Street, the name of Dr. REISSMAN came to mind. I asked OSWALD if he knew Dr. REISSMAN or if he held meetings at Dr. REISSMAN's house. OSWALD did not give me a direct answer to this question, however I gathered from the expression on his face and what appeared to be an immediate nervous reaction that there was possibly a connection between Dr. REISSMAN and OSWALD; this, however, is purely an assumption on my own part and I have nothing on which to base this. I also asked OSWALD if he knew a Dr. FORREST E. LA VIOLETTE, a professor at Tulane University. I asked him this question because I remembered that LA VIOLETTE allegedly had possession of Fair Play for Cuba literature during the year 1962."

To sum up, we know that 

1. The CIA was trying to discredit the FPCC, and the Bringuier/"Oswald" "debate" was certainly part of that.

2. The voter registration drive in Clinton was suspicious as hell - or so it sure seemed to the black people in line that the white guys around were not on their side. (Probably correct.)

3. The New Orleans COPA was the subject of an investigation (by Martello himself!) to see if the FPCC could be linked to it, and maybe it could!

4. And finally, we might suspect that the "Oswald in Mexico City" charade (even if he never set foot there, as most people strongly suspect), could be viewed as yet another step in the CIA's admitted plan to smear the FPCC "in foreign countries." 

(The "Oswald" in Mexico City charade/narrative may well have had several purposes, including the framing of "Oswald" as an assassin, and/or hunting a mole, but one of the many outcomes was certainly to tarnish the FPCC.)

So, Clay Shaw was a CIA asset who helped with #2 above. We also suspect, because of Shaw's role in the New Orleans International Trade Mart, that "Oswald's" presence there while  FPCC leafleting was no coincidence. Shaw probably had some hand in that, too.

Did Shaw play some role to counter COPA? Did Shaw have anything to do with Mexico City?

I don't see any evidence for those.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul. Yes, I am aware of the smear FPCC campaign, and the Clinton voter drive incident, which can be tied to Shaw. I see your point that leafleting in front of the Trade Mart might be linked to Shaw as well. MC seems likely to be tied to the CIA/FBI anti - FPCC operation also. Your main point is well taken. Even if Permindex was somehow involved through connections to OAS terrorists, or Otto Skorzeny, or whatever, Shaw’s phone call, if it did happen, appears to show that he would still have been out of the loop. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hi Paul. Yes, I am aware of the smear FPCC campaign, and the Clinton voter drive incident, which can be tied to Shaw. I see your point that leafleting in front of the Trade Mart might be linked to Shaw as well. MC seems likely to be tied to the CIA/FBI anti - FPCC operation also. Your main point is well taken. Even if Permindex was somehow involved through connections to OAS terrorists, or Otto Skorzeny, or whatever, Shaw’s phone call, if it did happen, appears to show that he would still have been out of the loop. 

Yeah, at the end of the day, the Dean Andrews/Clay "Bertrand" phone call story aside, we just don't have any evidence that Shaw was manipulating "Oswald" in October or November. That assignment was for others, not the least of whom was Ruth Paine, the lady who kept "finding" evidence so helpful to the Warren Commission's lone-nut theory. Could our "Oswald" have been contacted/handled in Dallas by Roy Truly, Bill Shelley, Capt. William Westbrook, David Atlee Phillips and/or others?

Sure.

But not by Clay Shaw from afar in New Orleans.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 5:24 PM, James DiEugenio said:

VInce Bugliosi could not have done better by his process of argument by length and charcterization.  "I say". "She says"

Its not what someone says its what was on the evidence list, what was testified to my credible witnesses, how the list was then altered.

You take ten paragraphs to obfuscate what I wrote in two.

I do not know what this means: "This second camera has nothing whatever to do with Oswald and is entirely irrelevant. You say this second Minox was really Oswald's camera and that the Paines were lying when they said it was theirs. Then you say that second Minox was not Oswald's"

Flapdoodle.  This is what I wrote, and they are the key sentences:

"The police already found Oswald's Minox. (Italics in original) The Paines are  now trying to say they missed it, and by saying it was really Mike's they are separating that camera from Oswald.  But now, Mike says this: the light meter found by the cops was really his also, not Oswald's. "

The second Minox was never Oswald's.  Oswald's MInox was deep sixed by Hoover.  And I am very clear about this and do not know why you would obfuscate it. But that would not do because the Dallas authorities insisted they had found the Minox in their original search. It was on their list and there is even a picture of it on the property room floor that I have seen.  So the simple matter is that the police were calling BS on the FBI's revised story which was making the first Minox disappear and saying they only found a light meter.  This got to be a serious problem as to the credibility of the FBI.  So, as with the Tague strike, Hoover went to work altering the evidence and camouflaging the record with plenty of help from the Paines.  Now, the added, second  Minox was Mike's.  And we were all supposed to forget about Oswald's Minox.  Which would have indicated he was some kind of undercover agent.

No WC inquiry into this piece of evidence substitution and subterfuge.  No HSCA inquiry since Paines are not called.  But Gus Russo trots out Mikey and in 1993 on the  lying PBS special Mikey  says the Minox camera found was his.

No it was not.  The Minox camera found in November by the Dallas police was Oswald's.  The Paines then substituted another Minox to cover up for Hoover.  There are two Minoxes in the Archives today.  BTW, Ruth helped the WC on this camera issue later again.  She said the Stereo Realist camera was hers.  She recalled this in August, nine months later.  The Paines had now effectively left  Oswald with just one pocket camera.  Just like normal people.  Not spies.

Its that simple to understand.  No Bugliosian bloviation necessary.


 

Jim,

Do you believe Kerry Thornley's basic role was to articulate the "Oswald was a would-be commie/potential assassin while he was in the Marines" line and that's why the Warren Commission gave him so much love?

(That's how I see him.)

Did Thornley play any other role in the framing of "Oswald"? In particular, did he ever impersonate "Oswald", either in Dallas or New Orleans? (Garrison himself wondered whether Thornley could have been the stand-in for the backyard photos taken at Neely Street, though I suspect they were created after the assassination in a rushed effort to shore up the case against a still very much alive "Oswald" on Saturday.)

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
×
×
  • Create New...