Jump to content
The Education Forum

More on the Minox light meter mistakenly identified as a camera


Recommended Posts

The following came to me thanks to Jean Paul Ceulemans of Belgium, who has been a collector of Minox cameras for a number of years as an avocation. That plus an interest in the JFK assassination led him to dig up photos from Dallas Police Department archives that may not have previously been known. In the photo (below) is seen the light meter. Jean Paul writes:  

"About the Minox-'situation', I do believe the DPD made a mistake in saying the light-meter was a camera. There is no Minox in the 'big' picture, nor is it in 'other' pictures. See those 'other' pictures attached, I do not know if you have seen these. These all come from the DPD archives collection entitled: John F. Kennedy, Dallas Police Department Collection (https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/) and was provided to The Portal to Texas History (https://texashistory.unt.edu) by the Dallas Municipal Archives (https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/partners/DSMA/). 

Jean Paul also found in these Dallas Police archives a copy of the DPD evidence sheet (below) in which for evidence #375 where the list says "Minox camera" there is a DPD handwritten correction beside it, "Lite meter says FBI".

The light meter in the photo below is the same light meter in the DPD evidence photo (previously discussed) taken by DPD before turning the items over to the FBI. It is clearly a light meter in the photos, not a camera as originally listed on the sheet.

 

956930583_375version1.thumb.jpg.54dfd882ff3cc2726701c2612490052f.jpg

metapth337373_xl_DSMA_91-001-0710059-2363_33.thumb.jpg.2efce77bb231e7a1781978f06b7c4d04.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes there is a contradiction between Gus Rose testifying fifteen years in defense of his claim that he found a Minox camera, and police photos at the time showing not a camera but a light meter. Who is right? Is it possible ever to know?

By analogy: in a contradiction between police photos of a crime scene taken the day of the crime, and a conflicting witness testimony concerning the identity of a physical object at that crime scene very easy to confuse with another similar looking item, which is correct? Is it possible ever to know? Fallible human witness memory on the one hand, and a police photo on the other, differing on identification of an object ... hmm.

When I was in flight training for my private pilot's license, the first rule learned when in clouds and loss of visual, was "trust your instruments" even when your inner-ear balance says otherwise, as to what is level. 

In this case, trust the police photos. The DPD evidence photo published in Savage, First Day Evidence, proved that the FBI had not invented out of thin air the light meter. That DPD evidence photo showed it was a light meter, and not a camera, that the DPD had before they sent it to the FBI. The reason the FBI said they received a light meter and not a camera is because that is what happened; proved by the DPD's photo of their evidence prior to sending it to FBI. 

So this is not he says vs. he says (FBI lab versus Gus Rose). This has police photo evidence, which runs counter to the police narrative (in this dispute with FBI) and therefore is even more credible.  

Sure Fritz backs up his man, Rose. They didn't like the FBI. Fritz backing up Gus Rose adds zero weight to anything substantive in assessing this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As Jean Paul Ceulemans wrote me:

minox-camera-and-light-meter-classic-visions.jpg.b2f0d46bd7ca61395f5ce4558e439e1a.jpg

 

"It is my opinion that the DPD made a simple mistake as you can see in the picture (actually a jig-saw puzzle pic from the internet but it is correct in it's details). for one that is not used to having seen one before...

"The fact they said it had a film in it... I don't know, a second mistake with one of the Minox canisters ?

"Because the total number of film don't add up... (film in the camera + other minox film found) 

"We now have different sets of pictures of which show the camera. AND IF the DPD was correct AND IF the golden one is correct wouldn't he have described as being a golden one.....

"Anyway, too much assumptions to prove anything, certainly not enough to accuse the Paine's of evidence fraud....

"Unless the DPD comes up with a picture showing the camera (and not the light meter)-"

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jean Paul Ceulemans

Your friend has made a mistake according to Alan Weberman.  The camera you show is not the same camera that Weberman says in in the National Archives.

doudna-weberman-minox-camera-compare.jpg

These are not the same cameras.  Besides, the photo shown by Doudna is open increasing its length making it appear larger than it really is.

Another question?

What this pointed to in the picture?

version1-thumb-greg-doudna-1.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John you are misrepresenting me, and misrepresenting Jean Paul Ceulemans whom I was quoting. There was no claim that the jigsaw puzzle photograph of the Minox camera and light meter were a photo of either of the two Minox cameras in the Archives (one Michael Paine's and another unrelated). 

Jean Paul Ceulemans showed those simply for purposes of illustration as to how similar the two items could look to someone unfamiliar with the difference.

Please, take better care to represent accurately. It is not helpful and is a distraction to go through several go-arounds to clear up misrepresentations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Jean Paul Ceulemans:

About this John Butler's reaction,
the puzzle picture is the top side of the camera (where the control dials are)
the Weberman picture is the down-side
 
There are 2 opening "mode's"
 
  • a little to load the film and make a picture (dialing the topside and pushing the small button

  • further more opening : you have to use your nail and push/slide to do that ) : gives acces to the film chamber (there is 2nd slide underneath the cover)

Here's a good clip showing the sides and opening the 2 covers: 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As Jean Paul Ceulemans wrote me:

minox-camera-and-light-meter-classic-visions.jpg.b2f0d46bd7ca61395f5ce4558e439e1a.jpg

 

"It is my opinion that the DPD made a simple mistake as you can see in the picture (actually a jig-saw puzzle pic from the internet but it is correct in it's details). for one that is not used to having seen one before...

"The fact they said it had a film in it... I don't know, a second mistake with one of the Minox canisters ?

"Because the total number of film don't add up... (film in the camera + other minox film found) 

"We now have different sets of pictures of which show the camera. AND IF the DPD was correct AND IF the golden one is correct wouldn't he have described as being a golden one.....

"Anyway, too much assumptions to prove anything, certainly not enough to accuse the Paine's of evidence fraud....

"Unless the DPD comes up with a picture showing the camera (and not the light meter)-"

Are you or are you not representing this camera as the one owned by Michael Paine?

Another question?  Did Lee Oswald reach forward in time to seize Michael Paine's Minox and take the following picture at Atsugi years earlier that Alan Weberman had the National Archives develop?  I believe this is before he knew Paine or Paines.

lee-oswald-atsugi-minox-camera.jpg

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Are you or are you not representing this camera as the one owned by Michael Paine?

No, am not.

Ceulemans says it is the same kind as owned by Michael Paine.

17 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Another question?  Did Lee Oswald reach forward in time to seize Michael Paine's Minox and take the following picture at Atsugi years earlier that Alan Weberman had the National Archives develop?  I believe this is before he knew Paine or Paines.

That isn't Oswald. Just because Weberman or Gerry Hemming said so doesn't make it so. Since that was one of the photos from Michael Paine's film and camera taken at the time of his military tour of duty, among other photos of his Army compatriots, that is who this one would be, some unidentified fellow soldier of Michael Paine's. Nothing to do with Oswald.  

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

That isn't Oswald. Just because Weberman or Gerry Hemming said so doesn't make it so. Since that was one of the photos from Michael Paine's film and camera taken at the time of his military tour of duty, among other photos of his Army compatriots, that is who this one would be, some unidentified fellow soldier of Michael Paine's. Nothing to do with Oswald.  

Greg,

Are you in denial?  Or, is the above statement "nuanced" as done by others who I think are in denial?

This is the first time I have heard that this photo of Lee Oswald is not Lee Oswald.  This photo was developed by the National Archives from film found in Ruth Paine's garage.  Maybe Hemming that great spy and story teller slipped this camera film into Ruth Paine's garage so it would be swept up with the DPD dragnet and later claimed as Michael Paine's film.  Or, maybe as Lee Oswald's film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Butler said:

Greg,

Are you in denial?  Or, is the above statement "nuanced" as done by others who I think are in denial?

This is the first time I have heard that this photo of Lee Oswald is not Lee Oswald.  This photo was developed by the National Archives from film found in Ruth Paine's garage.  Maybe Hemming that great spy and story teller slipped this camera film into Ruth Paine's garage so it would be swept up with the DPD dragnet and later claimed as Michael Paine's film.  Or, maybe as Lee Oswald's film.

No, it isn't Oswald. Nothing more complicated than that. It is Michael Paine's film, the photo was taken by Michael Paine, nothing at all to do with Oswald. Just forget Weberman and Hemming on photo interpretations, they are not reliable at all. Weberman did get real photos, the photos themselves are authentic, but just forget their interpretations. Weberman does not even understand the most basic fact that all of those photos are from Michael Paine's camera and taken by Michael Paine. And Hemming was a Godzilla scale intentional BS artist--and that's not an overstatement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean Paul Ceulemans sent another document from the DPD archives, which I wish I could show here but I get an error message saying its 3 mb size will not be permitted. It is a handwritten inventory receipt for the photographic equipment in the DPD evidence photo published in Savage, First Day Evidence, now being disbursed to Ruth Paine as the return of her and Michael Paine's property, including the light meter. The disbursement is dated Aug 12, 1964, by H.W. Hill of the Property Bureau, Dallas Police Department, and is signed by Ruth Paine indicating she receiving the items of her and Michael's property back. Jean Paul comments: 

"And as seen in the return of the property the light meter is returned by the DPD... not the camera....

"This returning of the light meter is in fact admitting it always was one in evidence 375....

"Gus might have never admitted it, but how then about the return..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Weberman does not even understand the most basic fact that all of those photos are from Michael Paine's camera and taken by Michael Paine.

You sure about that?  You need to go back at look at Michael Paine's army photos.  I have and believe I can separate Oswald's and Paine's.  He was in the army during the Korean War.  Army uniforms are quite different from Marine Corps uniforms even a few years later in 1958.  Lacking on the uniform of Oswalds is a large white name stripe.  Those are on all army uniforms of that period for personnel in the US Army.  You were subject to Article 15 punishment if you wore your uniform without a name stripe.  The photo also shows that the uniform lacks a unit patch.  Really bad form in the US Army.  He has on a tan belt and US Army belts were black.

There are too many Marine/Army discrepancies for this to be an army uniform worn by Oswald in that photo.   

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jean Paul Ceulemans sent another document from the DPD archives, which I wish I could show here but I get an error message saying its 3 mb size will not be permitted. It is a handwritten inventory receipt for the photographic equipment in the DPD evidence photo published in Savage, First Day Evidence, now being disbursed to Ruth Paine as the return of her and Michael Paine's property, including the light meter. The disbursement is dated Aug 12, 1964, by H.W. Hill of the Property Bureau, Dallas Police Department, and is signed by Ruth Paine indicating she receiving the items of her and Michael's property back. Jean Paul comments: 

"And as seen in the return of the property the light meter is returned by the DPD... not the camera....

"This returning of the light meter is in fact admitting it always was one in evidence 375....

"Gus might have never admitted it, but how then about the return..."

That's not really relevant when early on the camera was claimed to be Michael's camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...