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

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

Greg,

Lee and Harvey Oswald were spies.  Lee was more into radar.  Harvey was the camera man.  Harvey needed that MInox in Russia (of course secretly).  The Russians would have known what that was and what it was for.  

Some of the photos developed for Alan Weberman was from Minox film showing Lee Oswald in the Philippines.  So, what does that say?  Simply, that Lee had the Minox for a long time.  He had the camera before Harvey went to Russia.  The two shared various things over time.  Clothes, equipment, and Marina. 

It wasn't a matter if he could afford one.  These were given to people who worked in intelligence.  His type of Minox was not sold to the public. 

Are you saying that the other cameras there at Ruth's house were Michael's possessions?  I have never heard that before. 

As far as Oswald owning an expensive Minox, it seems to me you are setting up a strawman to knock down.  Let me know if I have misread what you are saying.

More than likely Harvey had the Minox when he worked at Jaggers, Chile, Stovall.  Supposedly, he was enroute to Cuba on another agent provocateur adventure.  He memorized Cuban towns, villages, rivers, mountains, etc.  These maps that he was making or assisting Jaggers, etc. were U2 photos of Cuba.

The Minox would be handy to copy those photos for later study and memorization.    

[John Butler]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

When did he identify this equipment as his possessions.  Because someone placed name tags near things doesn't mean it was his.

Could you add more detail to this in order to clarify what you are saying.

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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...

 

David,

Thanks for these clearer photos of Lee Oswald in the military.  These add quite a bit to my ID character traits of Harvey and Lee.

1.  Lee Oswald's nose was wider than Harvey's.  This is clearly seen in these photos.

2.  The double bend of the upper rim of Harvey's ear is not matched by Lee's ear which doesn't have that double bend.  The right hand photo gives a clear indication that this is so.

3.  Lee's chin is wider than Harvey's and does not have the dip or bend present in Harvey's.

4.  Harvey has a receding hairline which he covers up with a comb over.  Lee doesn't have this problem.

Thanks again David.  These two photos are enough to clearly separate Harvey and Lee.

And, none of the above look like this guy.  Except for the parts of Harvey.

Now, back to the cameras.

Edited April 27, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

The two shared various things over time.  Clothes, equipment, and Marina.

Well, it only took 12 pages for this thread to devolve into "Harvey and Lee" nonsense. John, out of curiosity, if Marina was aware that she "shared" two nearly identical husbands and was in on the plot, why on God's green earth did she consent to the 1981 exhumation?

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Well, it only took 12 pages for this thread to devolve into "Harvey and Lee" nonsense. John, out of curiosity, if Marina was aware that she "shared" two nearly identical husbands and was in on the plot, why on God's green earth did she consent to the 1981 exhumation?

We haven't devolved into "Harvey and Lee" nonsense.  There is no such nonsense, but a well grounded in facts theory on the mysterious Lee Harvey Oswald.    This was a comment for David Josephs on his nice pictures showing Lee Oswald, and then I said let's return to the cameras.  You are derailing the discussion by sidetracking here.   

I said nothing about Marina being in the plot.  I said Marina had two husbands.  She said that in an interview with Nerin Gun working for a French magazine in 1964.  1981 is a lot different than 1963-64 for Marina.  If you don't understand that then read up on her life.

As best as I can remember at this point Marina said something like I had two husbands.  Lee, a kind man and father of my children, and Harvey, a mean and crazy man who killed the president.  She said this in the 1964 interview.  Marina was a Russian spy.  Gun spoke of meeting her in 1963 at the DPD shortly after the assassination.  And, then again later in 1964.  He remarked on her language ability in 1963 has non-existent and then fairly fluent in 1964.

This is all I am going to say on this since I don't wish to side-track this discussion.  I find it quite interesting.  The things that have developed here are very fascinating.

 

 

  

Edited April 28, 2022 by John Butler

[Greg Doudna]

David Josephs-- you stated that all the photography equipment including the Minox accessories in the DPD evidence photo belonged to Oswald, none to Michael Paine. I asked your basis for certainty, and you answered in part that there was no evidence Michael Paine had interest in photography, therefore the Minox camera equipment could not belong to him since someone who had no interest in photography would not own a camera. (Most Americans owned cameras, but that was your argument that Michael Paine was exceptional and did not own a camera.) When I pointed out that Michael Paine in FBI interviews told quite a bit about his photography, his Minox camera, when and where he bought it in 1950, where he used it, identified photos he had taken, etc., you said that doesn't count as evidence because nothing reported from Michael Paine is reliable evidence. So you had a claim that Michael could not have owned any Minox camera equipment that was unfalsifiable. 

When I asked what basis was there for claiming that Oswald ever owned a Minox in the first place, you claimed there was some indirect evidence and referred to Minox-sized photos in Oswald's possession. I asked what you meant and it turns out you got that from the Armstrong book. How does Armstrong know any of the Minox-sized photos in the National Archives were taken by a camera belonging to Oswald? Well there seem to be two claims he makes for that: a Minox-sized photo of a buddy of Oswald's at Atsugi named George Hans Wilkins, and a Minox-sized photo of Oswald himself. I do not have the Armstrong book but I do have the Weberman book which also mistakenly claims one of the photos developed from the Minox film found in the police search Fri Nov 22 is a photo of Oswald, except it isn't. And on the claim that a photo of a George Hans Wilkins was a Marine buddy of Oswald's, I did some checking and cannot find any verification of that (nothing turns up on the Mary Ferrell site, etc.). It looks like that claim is based solely on the photograph itself and therefore Wilkins is a buddy of Michael Paine's (not Oswald's). (If he was a buddy of Oswald's then he will not be on a Minox photo.)

You know that Ruth and Michael Paine said that light meter, other Minox accessories, were Michael's property and asked for the light meter et al back, and did receive it back as their property. You say they were l ying simply in claiming that was their property simply because you say so. When asked how you know it was Oswald's property instead of theirs you refer to asking for evidence as an unreasonably high bar.

At the end you showed a photo and said it may be of Oswald and some argument that another copy of it could be from a Minox. I have no idea who that is a photo of but it is definitely not Oswald, from just looking at it. I found that photo comes from a 1959 Fort Worth newspaper article about Oswald. It is not a photo of Oswald, there is no verification of that photo as Oswald's anywhere else, and the newspaper therefore used some wrong photo of somebody else. In any case, nothing there proves Oswald had a Minox or that any Minox photos came from a camera owned by Oswald. Anyway, thanks for engaging the questions, we'll just have to disagree here.  

[Greg Doudna]

29 minutes ago, John Butler said:

This is all I am going to say on this since I don't wish to side-track this discussion.  I find it quite interesting.  The things that have developed here are very fascinating.

Thanks John, I appreciate that. On your question on the Paines' asking for their camera equipment to be returned to them that police took Nov 22, in the DPD evidence photo, that is in documents on the Mary Ferrell site in which Ruth after her WC testimony sought to get her and Michael's property back, and the items were returned to them, here (see both pages): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59606#relPageId=69. 

[Greg Doudna]

Harold Weisberg wrote sensibly on the Minox camera long ago (thanks to Steve Roe for bringing the reference to attention). Weisberg, responding to a person who wrote him asking about the Minox, letter dated 2/16/95:

"Dear Mr. Stewart,

"Thanks for the SASE. It is more than 20 years since I wrote Post Mortem and I'm sorry I forgot my source on the Minox. Did I say Ruth's? Maybe I learned later that it was Michael's. I'm sure it was not Oswald's. The cops grabbed all they could and they had an enormous amount of Paine property, including their phono records even.

"Don't deduce too much from having a Minox. I never use mine for other than snapshots to show my wife where I'd been. I carried a better camera for good pictures. But that fit in the pocket."

(http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Stewart James L/Item 01.pdf)

[Michael Crane]

Oswalds Minox had a 5 digit serial number & all of the commercially available ones had 6 digit serial numbers.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Michael Crane

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Oswalds Minox had a 5 digit serial number & all of the commercially available ones had 6 digit serial numbers.

That would preclude Michael Paine from publicly buying the Minox in 1950.

Edited April 29, 2022 by John Butler

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Oswalds Minox had a 5 digit serial number & all of the commercially available ones had 6 digit serial numbers.

I believe there must be some mistake in your source of information. Michael Paine's Minox camera serial number of 27259 (5 digits) falls within the range of serial numbers for all Minox cameras manufactured in the year 1950 which were all 5 digit serial numbers that year, between 25643-31274, according to this database: http://juliantanase.com/minox-serial-numbers/. 

Michael Paine's serial number dating his Minox to 1950 agrees with what he told the FBI, that that is when he bought it. 

[Michael Crane]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I believe there must be some mistake in your source of information. Michael Paine's Minox camera serial number of 27259 (5 digits) falls within the range of serial numbers for all Minox cameras manufactured in the year 1950 which were all 5 digit serial numbers that year, between 25643-31274, according to this database: http://juliantanase.com/minox-serial-numbers/. 

Michael Paine's serial number dating his Minox to 1950 agrees with what he told the FBI, that that is when he bought it. 

My source was Jim Marrs at a conference.He got it from a guy who got the info from Minox itself.

 

I'll be glad to look it up if you insist?

[Michael Crane]

Skip to around 1:08:30.

https://youtu.be/OsItiPfnzLI?t=4081

Edited April 30, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Skip to around 1:08:30.

https://youtu.be/OsItiPfnzLI?t=4081

Michael I see your point, this does get interesting. There was a quote from a Minox representative in NYC saying no Minoxes were commercially sold in the US below serial number 135000, reported in a 1978 newspaper article by Earl Golz. But all data published by the Minox corporation today of their historic serial numbers does not support the claim that there is anything amiss with the 27259 serial number of Michael Paine's Minox in itself, apart from the question of sales and distribution specifics. Please take a look at this: http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/minox/minox_serial.htm. In this database Michael Paine's serial number is seen to be a Minox II manufactured in 1949-1950.

Taken literally, the quote in the Golz 1978 article is a claim that no Minox cameras of any kind manufactured before 1957 were "distributed for commercial sale in this country [USA], according to Kurt Lohn". And taken literally, it is a claim that any Minox serial number below 135000 "is not a registered number... not a valid number", i.e. all Minoxes in the entire world, 100% of them, produced before 1957. (Minox serial numbers only went past 135000 in 1957 and later.) Without clarification it does not make sense that no Minox camera in the entire world before 1957 had "a valid number".

Michael Paine told the FBI he bought his Minox retail in a US store in I think 1950. 

The Earl Golz newspaper article: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/O Disk/Oswald Lee Harvey Property/Item 02.pdf.

I would be interested in an explanation of the quotation from Lohn of Minox Corp., NYC, in that Earl Golz article if anyone knows what was going on with that or could enlighten.

The question involves understanding the circumstances of Michael Paine's acquisition of his Minox II. (Nothing to do with Oswald.)