David Josephs Posted April 26, 2022 Share Posted April 26, 2022 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Fifth appeal: is no one who still thinks the paperwork saying a Minox camera was shipped to FBI is accurate, able to give a straight answer to the following question? The Minox light meter in the DPD evidence photo--how did it come to be received by the FBI lab in the evidence shipped to it by DPD, when there is no Minox light meter in the DPD paperwork of what was sent? Bonus points for also answering who that Minox light meter belonged to, and why you think so. More bonus points for proposing a plausible mechanism for the error in the paperwork concerning the light meter--how could such a mistake possibly have happened? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted April 26, 2022 Share Posted April 26, 2022 53 minutes ago, David Josephs said: As to "how a mistake" could happen... consider it wasn't a mistake... more like covering tracks after the fact. my $.02 Always worth reading. This brings back memories on what one would see in a Minox with the camera fully opened. 56 minutes ago, David Josephs said: 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. A big question that a lot of folks have not considered is why Ruth Paine allowed her husband's possessions to be taken by the DPD officers. With all of Oswald's cameras, camera equipment, and other items there why was Michael's alleged possessions included? Michael Paine was not a criminal or criminal suspect. He was not charged with a crime or was a suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted April 26, 2022 Share Posted April 26, 2022 1 hour ago, John Butler said: A big question that a lot of folks have not considered is why Ruth Paine allowed her husband's possessions to be taken by the DPD officers. With all of Oswald's cameras, camera equipment, and other items there why was Michael's alleged possessions included? Michael Paine was not a criminal or criminal suspect. He was not charged with a crime or was a suspect. Because these possessions could have been material in the Dallas police's investigation of the Kennedy assassination due to Oswald's presence in the Paine's home? And because the Paines had nothing to hide? Why is that so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted April 27, 2022 Author Share Posted April 27, 2022 David Josephs--I think you have correctly identified the rectangular object above the camera case, which appears to be a metal case. You identify it as a self-timer, specifically a Hansa self-timer on an evidence list. I think you nailed it, and in so doing have advanced this discussion. Although I could not find an exact match on Google Images for a Hansa self-timer, this looks close: And this, different brand Autoknips, looks like it could be identical (though not a Hansa). So that object is solved! A camera self-timer! But I have to press you on a different point. We see in the DPD evidence photo a number of Minox accessories and other items and some "Michael Paine" name-tags. Michael Paine identified those items as belonging to him, and such items were later returned to the Paines, a return of their property. The light meter--Michael Paine's. The Minox camera case--Michael Paine's. The binoculars--Michael Paine's. The name-tags reading "Michael Paine"--Michael Paine's. So all these Minox accessories, including now the self-timer, were identified by both the Paines and FBI when later returning them, as Michael Paine's. Everything Minox there in that DPD photo except for a Minox camera itself. All of this Minox equipment in the DPD evidence photo (accoutrements except for a Minox camera), is Michael Paine's, identified by Michael Paine as his, accepted by the FBI as Michael Paine's and returned to him because his, and right next to the Minox camera case and that self-timer in the DPD evidence photo, plain as day, are "Michael Paine" name-tags. And yet, in answer to the question of who does that Minox equipment in the DPD evidence photo belong to, you answer with certainty, "The photo equipment all belonged to Oswald"! And you give as reason for your certainty an explanation which makes no logical sense to me: 21 hours ago, David Josephs said: The photo equipment all belonged to Oswald... a reoccurring theme is Oswald and his camera equipment wherever they may be... What does "a reoccurring theme" (elsewhere) of discussions of Oswald and other cameras identified as Oswald's have to do with identification of ownership of these items? That is not logical. Those Minox photographic accessories in the DPD evidence photo are photographed right next to Michael Paine name tags; Michael Paine identified all of that Minox equipment as his; there is no evidence that any of that Minox equipment found by police in the Paine house belonged to Oswald (as opposed to Michael Paine). No one disputes that police took some Paines' property by mistake when intending to take Lee Oswald's things. How then can you be certain in asserting "the [Minox] photo equipment [in the DPD evidence photo and on the evidence paperwork] all belonged to Oswald"? On what grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 Well done DJ, defo a timer box! The presence of the chain/strap has always puzzled me but it seems amongst Minox’s many variations a chain could be attached to the camera or the case. I think the evidence pic shows the latter. Puzzlement over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 35 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: How then can you be certain in asserting "the [Minox] photo equipment [in the DPD evidence photo and on the evidence paperwork] all belonged to Oswald"? On what grounds? 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. 47 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: What does "a reoccurring theme" (elsewhere) of discussions of Oswald and other cameras identified as Oswald's have to do with identification of ownership of these items? That is not logical. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 28 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said: Well done DJ, defo a timer box! thanks Sean... I have my moments. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted April 27, 2022 Author Share Posted April 27, 2022 14 minutes ago, David Josephs said: 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 David, asking you for your evidence justifying a claim you make is not me lacking ability to do research. It is asking you for your reasons or evidence. I am familiar with the flawed Hewett article. You answer that Oswald had a known history of photography such as his work at Jaggers, all true. That it would be plausible that Oswald would like to work with a Minox if he had one is not contested. But It is implausible that Oswald could afford one, or afford all of the Minox accoutrements (whereas cost of such a high-end camera was no obstacle to Michael). Oswald shows no ownership of expensive equipment in any other case. But when you go to say "no indication Michael had any interest in cameras or photography", that is not in agreement with the record. The FBI interviewed Michael and Michael told the FBI how he bought his Minox camera, gave details, told of his use of it. Michael identified the photos developed from the Minox film as his photos. (So have most other researchers.) It is true that Michael's interest in photography as told to the FBI was just normal/personal/recreational kind of picture-taking. But to say there is no indication Michael had any interest in a Minox camera when there are FBI interviews clearly saying he did, and then to cite the opposite of what the documents say as your evidence that he therefore could not have had a Minox camera that he said he did have, does not strike me as logical. The costliness of that Minox equipment is consistent with Michael ownership. The claim of identification of it from Michael, and FBI accepting that Michael's claim was correct, is consistent with Michael ownership. Ruth saying it was Michael's is consistent with Michael ownership. The "Michael Paine" nametags taken by police from the same drawer as that Minox accessory equipment, all Michael Paine belongings in that drawer, is consistent with Michael ownership. The Minox photos developed being Michael's photos are consistent with Michael ownership. And against that there is just nothing, in any evidence, that is not consistent with Michael ownership of that Minox camera equipment, the light meter, the self-timer et al. But maybe the story of Oswald with a Minox is just too good of a story to need any evidence? 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: But maybe the story of Oswald with a Minox is just too good of a story to need any evidence? 🙂 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? 17 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: But to say there is no indication Michael had any interest in a Minox camera when there are FBI interviews clearly saying he did, and then to cite the opposite of what the documents say as your evidence that he therefore could not have had a Minox camera that he said he did have, does not strike me as logical. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: David, asking you for your evidence justifying a claim you make is not me lacking ability to do research. It is asking you for your reasons or evidence. I am familiar with the flawed Hewett article. You answer that Oswald had a known history of photography such as his work at Jaggers, all true. That it would be plausible that Oswald would like to work with a Minox if he had one is not contested. But It is implausible that Oswald could afford one, or afford all of the Minox accoutrements (whereas cost of such a high-end camera was no obstacle to Michael). Oswald shows no ownership of expensive equipment in any other case. But when you go to say "no indication Michael had any interest in cameras or photography", that is not in agreement with the record. The FBI interviewed Michael and Michael told the FBI how he bought his Minox camera, gave details, told of his use of it. Michael identified the photos developed from the Minox film as his photos. (So have most other researchers.) It is true that Michael's interest in photography as told to the FBI was just normal/personal/recreational kind of picture-taking. But to say there is no indication Michael had any interest in a Minox camera when there are FBI interviews clearly saying he did, and then to cite the opposite of what the documents say as your evidence that he therefore could not have had a Minox camera that he said he did have, does not strike me as logical. The costliness of that Minox equipment is consistent with Michael ownership. The claim of identification of it from Michael, and FBI accepting that Michael's claim was correct, is consistent with Michael ownership. Ruth saying it was Michael's is consistent with Michael ownership. The "Michael Paine" nametags taken by police from the same drawer as that Minox accessory equipment, all Michael Paine belongings in that drawer, is consistent with Michael ownership. The Minox photos developed being Michael's photos are consistent with Michael ownership. And against that there is just nothing, in any evidence, that is not consistent with Michael ownership of that Minox camera equipment, the light meter, the self-timer et al. But maybe the story of Oswald with a Minox is just too good of a story to need any evidence? 🙂 What percentage of photography interested persons bought and used Minox cameras back then? Is it a camera a normal family man would want over so many other larger cameras that would be easier to use? A dinky little spy camera for what - family photos, kids, Ruth, camping? How many people in the JFK Dallas motorcade crowd took pictures of JFK passing by using a Minox? Wouldn't the ownership of such an unusually specific type and use camera beg a lot of questions? Michael Paine always begged a lot of questions imo. His family political background. His interests in other people's political views more than normal. His own attendance at political gatherings? Maybe he was taking pictures of people at these gatherings with his Minox? A camera not easily noticed or seen by others being photographed due to it's unusually small size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted April 27, 2022 Author Share Posted April 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: How would you explain the Minox sized photos in Ozzie's possession taken well before he ever met the Paines? What are you referring to? Edited April 27, 2022 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 (edited) On 4/26/2022 at 7:34 AM, David Josephs said: 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? I agree... it is a tiny self timer in a case: Edited April 27, 2022 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sean Coleman said: The presence of the chain/strap has always puzzled me but it seems amongst Minox’s many variations a chain could be attached to the camera or the case. I think the evidence pic shows the latter. Puzzlement over. I was puzzled as well by how the chain could be attached to the case. Now I know! Edited April 27, 2022 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: What are you referring to? 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said: What percentage of photography interested persons bought and used Minox cameras back then? Is it a camera a normal family man would want over so many other larger cameras that would be easier to use? A dinky little spy camera for what - family photos, kids, Ruth, camping? How many people in the JFK Dallas motorcade crowd took pictures of JFK passing by using a Minox? Wouldn't the ownership of such an unusually specific type and use camera beg a lot of questions? Michael Paine always begged a lot of questions imo. His family political background. His interests in other people's political views more than normal. His own attendance at political gatherings? Maybe he was taking pictures of people at these gatherings with his Minox? A camera not easily noticed or seen by others being photographed due to it's unusually small size? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now