Is there or is there not a Minox camera in this DPD evidence photo?

[David Josephs]

del

 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by David Josephs

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Anything I said would not be accepted as an answer

On the contrary, all John has to do is provide evidence to justify his claim. Here it is:

Quote

I believe the Zap film was altered to support the lone gunman theory.

Why is John so reluctant to justify his claim? I've asked him three times now, and he still hasn't come up with anything.

What do we see in the Zapruder film that supports the lone-gunman theory?

[John Butler]

David,

The last statement on this image I thought was really fascinating, but likely to be undoable.

Altogether great info and to the point.

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler writes:

On the contrary, all John has to do is provide evidence to justify his claim. Here it is:

Why is John so reluctant to justify his claim? I've asked him three times now, and he still hasn't come up with anything.

What do we see in the Zapruder film that supports the lone-gunman theory?

I can't answer the unanswerable question.

"Demand Impossible Proof

No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by."

[Richard Price]

This discussion has gotten somewhat off topic, but I have no problem with that.  I enjoy reading all the lively arguments on this site.  I think we can put the original question to bed, though.  There is no Minox camera in the subject photo.  The question, as it has been from the very beginning, is not its presence, but why is it absent.  There are multiple DPD personnel who claim it was there, there is also paperwork stating it is there, and there are check marks on listings that say it was there AND transferred to the hands of the FBI.  This is evidence in a murder case (possibly the murder of the century), not someone standing on the sidewalk and witnessing a random event which they had no idea was going to happen and then trying to testify what they saw.  The only inconsistency I see in this is the FBI claim (and the photo now in evidence).  I believe there was information that MORE than one photo was taken of the evidence.  I don't like to speculate as it is not generally beneficial in a world of facts.  If multiple pictures were taken and the camera was simply picked up momentarily for examination by someone, it might explain its absence.  Nothing would have been thought of as amiss if they knew there were other photos already taken (just a thought).

[John Butler]

15 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

This discussion has gotten somewhat off topic, but I have no problem with that.  I enjoy reading all the lively arguments on this site.  I think we can put the original question to bed, though.  There is no Minox camera in the subject photo.  The question, as it has been from the very beginning, is not its presence, but why is it absent.  There are multiple DPD personnel who claim it was there, there is also paperwork stating it is there, and there are check marks on listings that say it was there AND transferred to the hands of the FBI.  This is evidence in a murder case (possibly the murder of the century), not someone standing on the sidewalk and witnessing a random event which they had no idea was going to happen and then trying to testify what they saw.  The only inconsistency I see in this is the FBI claim (and the photo now in evidence).  I believe there was information that MORE than one photo was taken of the evidence.  I don't like to speculate as it is not generally beneficial in a world of facts.  If multiple pictures were taken and the camera was simply picked up momentarily for examination by someone, it might explain its absence.  Nothing would have been thought of as amiss if they knew there were other photos already taken (just a thought).

Very well said.

[David Josephs]

On 4/10/2022 at 10:50 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The photograph below is of the physical evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department from Ruth Paine's garage that first weekend, and was in the possession of Rusty Livingstone of the DPD Crime Lab until first published in 1993 in Gary Savage, First Day Evidence. This photograph should settle for good the debate over whether officer Gus Rose of the Dallas Police found a Minox camera that weekend as reported on the DPD inventory lists.

Either a Minox camera is in this photograph or not. This will be an up or down, yes or no, answer.

The Dallas Police said they found a Minox camera but no light meter, according to their lists. The FBI lab said the DPD had sent a Minox light meter but no Minox camera. The FBI said the Dallas Police must have made a mistake in identification, confused what actually was the light meter they sent as if was a camera (even though an FBI man signed off on receipt of the evidence list in Dallas before the evidence arrived to the FBI lab). The Dallas Police stuck by their story. So much debate.

This photograph will decide, for it is a DPD photograph of what the DPD actually had, never mind what their inventory list claimed. Nothing else matters. This photo settles the issue one way or the other.

First Day Evidence believes the Dallas Police Department was right and the FBI wrong on the Minox camera issue. First Day Evidence says there is a Minox camera in this photograph. The photograph appears on p. 208 and underneath it a caption reads: "in the center of the photo is the small Minox camera located on top of the open camera case".

Officer Gus Rose was shown this photo and thought he saw the Minox camera in this photo. 

"After I [Gary Savage] told Gus [Rose] about Rusty's photograph, he seemed pleasantly surprised. He told me that he had initialed the camera and asked if his initials were visible n the photograph. I told him I'd take a look. Although hard to see in a blowup of the photograph, an area does appear to have been marked by a dark pen. Later on, Rusty and I showed the photograph to Gus, and he stated that it appeared to be the camera that he found and initialed. He said that 'There was film still in it, and we examined it and looked at it and noted that there was film still in it. But after that, I never saw it again after we put it in the property room.'" (p. 212)

All parties agree that in the upper left of the bottom right quadrant of the photo is a Minox light meter inside an open Minox light meter case. All parties agree that in the middle of the photo about three-quarters up is an empty Minox camera case (that it is empty is clear in blowup). On those two points, no one disputes.

The dispute concerns that rectangular object above the camera case. First Day Evidence has a blowup of the area around the camera case on p. 209 which I am unable to show here.

The rectangular object above the empty camera case does not agree in size and shape with any Minox camera I see on Google Images. All the Minox miniature spy cameras I see appear longer and narrower than the rectangular object in the photo below, plus have dials and so forth which the unbroken flat surface of the rectangular object in the photo below does not.

But this is an answerable question. Either that rectangular object above the empty camera case is a Minox camera or it isn't. What is the truth about that rectangular item? Is it or isn't it? What do people here think?

 

  

The rectangular object above the empty camera case does not agree in size and shape with any Minox camera I see on Google Images. All the Minox miniature spy cameras I see appear longer and narrower than the rectangular object in the photo below, plus have dials and so forth which the unbroken flat surface of the rectangular object in the photo below does not.

But this is an answerable question. Either that rectangular object above the empty camera case is a Minox camera or it isn't. What is the truth about that rectangular item? Is it or isn't it? What do people here think?

A MINOX camera is not shown in these DPD images.

I put in this image to illustrate the cameras named do not mention "and the case" despite both of these cameras being in one.  The "light meter" seen in the lower portion of the image is not written into the DPD inventory

 

And as you mentioned, the item above the case looks more like a box containing something than a MINOX camera of any type. And the chain will come into play next...

In STOVALL Exh A, 2nd page we see the same two items listed together.

 

Now we both agree a MINOX camera is listed on a number of "inventory" lists which includes a lined notebook with recovered items typed in with their corresponding inv #.  Please let's notice the 2 items STOVALL listed are not given an inventory # whereas the MINOX camera itself, does, despite the case being in the photo and the camera, not.

By not including the camera in the photograph (for which the FBI and DPD were working together) the door was left open for "corrections" later as necessary.  Correcting early evidence does remain a pattern for the FBI and the WCR advocates for years to come.

I hope that addressed the questions you referred to earlier...

DJ

   

Edited November 20, 2022 by David Josephs

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks Richard Price. So there is agreement on at least two facts: no Minox camera in the DPD photo, and there is paperwork saying one was shipped to the FBI. You make the point that the camera's absence in the photo is not decisive that the camera existed in DPD possession (somewhere outside the photo), in agreement with the paperwork saying there was one shipped. 

But if you will stay with me here, please follow... (and I hope respond).

If those were the only two facts that would be one thing. But please, please consider the following additional facts which cannot be avoided but must be addressed and explained:

• (i) In the DPD paperwork there is Minox camera film. There are two reported Minox cameras from the Paine house: the one on the DPD paperwork at the time of the DPD photo (which shows no Minox camera), and another Minox camera said by Michael Paine to belong to him, turned over at a later date when it was requested. Michael Paine also identified all of the photos that were developed from the Minox film in the paperwork as his photos, taken by him. Which Minox camera (of the two reported at the Paine residence) do the rest of the Minox accoutrements such as the undeveloped film go with? One, the other, both?
• (ii) The light meter in the DPD photo. Why is it not on the paperwork of what DPD sent?
• (iii) If DPD sent a Minox camera as the paperwork says, why did FBI say they never received one?
• (iv) If DPD did not send a Minox light meter as their paperwork says (that they did not), why did FBI say they received one?
• (v) There is expert testimony that Dallas Police officers did not normally use nor were familiar with Minox cameras. There is expert testimony that a Minox light meter would be easy to confuse as a Minox camera, by someone unfamiliar. (Drain)
• (vi) There definitely was a Minox light meter in the DPD photo. Which of the two reported Minox cameras in the Paine house does that light meter go with? 
• (vii) If there were two Minox cameras in the Paine house/garage, each will have had a light meter. But only one light meter is in the DPD evidence photo. Is there not a missing second light meter to go with the second Minox camera (if there were two Minox cameras)?

Is not the only possible solution indicated from the evidence that the paperwork saying there was a Minox camera is wrong? Not as a matter of maybe or conjecture or could be, but as a matter of simple clear to-the-point evidence?

• the FBI said they never received a Minox camera, even though the paperwork says one was shipped to FBI. First clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.
• In the DPD evidence photo is an item which testimony says could be confused in appearance as a Minox camera by police officers not familiar with Minox cameras or alert to the differences, i.e. a plausible mechanism for how a mistake in the paperwork concerning a mistaken ID of a Minox camera could happen, according to expert testimony.
• The specific item identified by expert testimony as the potential mechanism for a mistaken identification of a Minox camera in the paperwork--a Minox light meter--by coincidence is visible in the evidence photograph but missing in the DPD paperwork. Second clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.
• By an amazing further coincidence, that specific item right there in the evidence photo, the light meter, is however reported received by the FBI even though the paperwork says no light meter was shipped! How does the light meter which is visible in the evidence photo skip over to being received by the FBI without being on the intervening list of items sent? A real puzzle!(?) Third clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.
• A physical Minox camera elsewhere in the house is turned over by Ruth and Michael Paine, identified by Michael Paine as his one and only Minox camera in the house and identified by Michael Paine as associated with all of the Minox accoutrements in the evidence photo (light meter, undeveloped film, camera case, etc.). Fourth clue there was a mistake in the paperwork.
• Finally, there is no Minox camera in the DPD evidence photo, consistent with the other indications of a mistake in the paperwork. Fifth clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.

Why the notion of DPD paperwork inerrancy, like scriptural inerrancy, and with it an outlandish conspiracy supposing many perjuries and crimes willingly committed by close to a half dozen persons who keep it secret for life and why would they risk criminal penalties on themselves for this in the first place? And for what? All to disappear an Oswald Minox camera for which there is no evidence Oswald had one in the first place? (Oswald had no other expensive equipment; Marina never saw him with one; nobody else saw him with one; the Minox film when developed has all been identified as Michael Paine's Minox photos; no paperwork establishes that any Minox equipment belonged to Oswald instead of Michael Paine.)

How is it that two oddities claimed by the FBI in what they received--no Minox camera; one Minox light meter--without FBI ever having seen the DPD evidence photo--agree on both counts with the DPD's own evidence photo?

Not one oddity, but two. How could FBI, without any knowledge of that DPD evidence photo, have reported it received (0 camera, 1 light meter) what the DPD evidence photo shows (0 camera, 1 light meter)? 

(Even though the paper work shows: 1 camera, 0 light meter) 

How did that DPD evidence photo happen to agree with what FBI received, against the paperwork? Not only on the missing Minox camera. But on the light meter too?

The evidence and Occam's Razor says a paperwork error and an officer mistake is what happened.

p.s. David Josephs, thanks for your answer but I cannot agree with this: "By not including the camera in the photograph (for which the FBI and DPD were working together) the door was left open for "corrections" later as necessary." I do not believe it is accurate that the FBI had anything to do with the DPD evidence photo. This seems to be introducing yet further complexity unnecessarily.   

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.

But John hasn't presented any evidence! No-one has raised any bars. No-one has demanded impossible proof.

John made a claim:

Quote

I believe the Zap film was altered to support the lone gunman theory.

I've asked him, four times now, to provide evidence to justify his claim. All he needs to do is cite a scene or incident or event in the Zapruder film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory.

If any such evidence exists, John shouldn't have any trouble finding it. Come on, John! Give us the evidence from the Zapruder film that supports the lone-gunman theory! You can do it!

Of course, as I've demonstrated already, the Zapruder film in fact contradicts the lone-gunman theory.

The problem, which I imagine even John has worked out by now, is that if the Zapruder film does not support the lone-gunman theory, how could anyone have altered it to support that theory?

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What do we see in the Zapruder film that supports the lone-gunman theory?

 

It's not what is in the Z film that supports the lone gunman theory, it's what is not in the film that supports the theory. I've already told you what three of those things are.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

18 hours ago, David Josephs said:

The rectangular object above the empty camera case does not agree in size and shape with any Minox camera I see on Google Images. All the Minox miniature spy cameras I see appear longer and narrower than the rectangular object in the photo below, plus have dials and so forth which the unbroken flat surface of the rectangular object in the photo below does not.

 

While it is true that there are ways that the rectangular object above the camera case doesn't look like the Minox camera, there ARE ways that it does look right. For example, it's size is approximately correct, and it has rounded edges.

Here are the ways that it doesn't look right:

1. The camera case looks more  oblong than the object.
2. The object looks too short to be a Minox camera.
3. There seems to be a seam along the side of the object. As though the object is a box with s top lid that can be opened up.
4. There are no dials or lenses to be seen on the object.

 

I will now attempt to explain how the object can truly be a Minox in spite of the differences in my list. Here is an explanation for each difference in my list:

1. In the following photo (which has nothing to do with Oswald's belongings or the JFK assassination), the case appears to be more oblong than the camera. And yet this is a real Minox camera and case pair. Therefore I conclude this to be an optical illusion, and we are likely seeing a similar illusion in the DPD photo above.
   
   
    
2. The size of Minox cameras changed from model to model. The bottom-most model shown here is the Minox Riga, and the one to its left is the Minox A.
   
   
   
   These two models are the smallest cameras ever manufactured by Minox. The can be so small because they do not include a built-in light meter -- an external one must be used. They must be "closed" before they will fit in their case, and closing them will make them smaller. I think that the object in the DPD photo is shorter than Minox cameras we see on the internet because the one in the DPD photo is an older model (Riga or A) and is closed.
3. That "seam" on the side of the object could just be some tiny print.
4. If the camera is flipped over, we would see no dials or lens.

 

I believe that the object in the DPD photo is a Minox Riga or A camera that has been closed and flipped over, which lets us see no dials.

Sources:

https://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/camera/minox/riga/index.htm
https://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/camera/minox/a/index.htm

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• The size of Minox cameras changed from model to model. The bottom-most model shown here is the Minox Riga, and the one to its left is the Minox A.
  
  
  
  These two models are the smallest cameras ever manufactured by Minox. The can be so small because they do not include a built-in light meter -- an external one must be used. They must be "closed" before they will fit in their case, and closing them will make them smaller. I think that the object in the DPD photo is shorter than Minox cameras we see on the internet because the one in the DPD photo is an older model (Riga or A) and is closed.
• That "seam" on the side of the object could just be some tiny print.
• If the camera is flipped over, we would see no dials or lens.

Sandy,

I will add these versions to your types:

There is another kind that I owned when I was in Korea in 1967-1968.  I bought it at a "kimchi" shop.  These were small shops with limited things to sell.  What a Minox camera was doing there I have no idea.  Well, except the Koreans were legendary thieves and rumored to be able to steal anything.  It probably came from 2nd ID intelligence.  I believe these were the same people who kept Oswald's files.

The camera I had was completely featureless.  It appeared to be of brushed aluminum.  It was like the Minox EC and had to be opened to get at the controls.  I bought film for it at the PX.  After I did that the camera vanished from my locked wall locker.  Here's a pic showing from Dec. 1967 showing where I bought the camera.  Frankie's Store in Chang Pa Ri.  It was rumored if you had the money you could buy anything there.

This photo was taken with a Minox camera.  The photography is ok, but the development was not great since I had never developed photos before.  It was a good camera for photographing anything.

Everything in the 2nd division area looked pretty much like this.  No permanent structures could be built since they would be destroyed if there was an invasion by North Korea.    

[Greg Doudna]

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?

Edited April 26, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Ron Bulman]

3 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?

It's not a parlor game.  No bonus points.

[Ray Mitcham]

In regard to the Minox in custody, who was responsible for filling it with some substance (?) to stop the opening and identifying the source?