More on the Minox light meter mistakenly identified as a camera

[John Butler]

Will you deny these are the same Oswalds?  One in Japan about 1958 and the other leaving Russia about 1962?

[Greg Doudna]

Yes I deny the one on the left is Oswald because there is no plausibility that a photo of Oswald would be in Michael Paine's photos from his Army years. I agree it looks a bit like Oswald, but Oswald was not the only person on earth who looked like Oswald. Or to put it another way, Oswald looks a bit like that other guy with the long sideburns even though not the same person and the photos were taken a decade apart in time.

If you had other independent proof that there were Oswald photos mixed in with the Michael Paine photos that would be a different matter. But you cannot use this photo to prove there exist any Oswald photos in the mix, since identification of the same person in both photos is uncertain. It is the other grounds that all of those photos were Michael Paine's that is the cause for concluding that this one is too, and therefore not a photo of Oswald.

[John Butler]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes I deny the one on the left is Oswald because there is no plausibility that a photo of Oswald would be in Michael Paine's photos from his Army years. I agree it looks a bit like Oswald, but Oswald was not the only person on earth who looked like Oswald. Or to put it another way, Oswald looks a bit like that other guy with the long sideburns even though not the same person and the photos were taken a decade apart in time.

If you had other independent proof that there were Oswald photos mixed in with the Michael Paine photos that would be a different matter. But you cannot use this photo to prove there exist any Oswald photos in the mix, since identification of the same person in both photos is uncertain. It is the other grounds that all of those photos were Michael Paine's that is the cause for concluding that this one is too, and therefore not a photo of Oswald.

I didn't know you were a proponent of Harvey and Lee.  I think Alan Weberman is a more believable fellow than yours.

Edited May 12, 2022 by John Butler

[James DiEugenio]

JB: Greg,

Are you in denial?

 

John, are you trying to be the master of the obvious?  When Dennis M comes out of the woods to back Greg I think its game, set, match.

[James DiEugenio]

From the first edition of Conspiracy:

Gus Rose found the Minox in a Marine seabag.  It was listed with Oswald's belongings at DPD HQ.  Until the FBI took them to Washington.  Two months later, the FBI contacted the DPD and tried to alter the manifest.  They claimed that the equipment did not include a Minox camera, but a Minox light meter.

The police did not change it, and Rose insists that it was a Minox camera.

He is emphatically supported by assistant DA Bill Alexander, who saw the Minox just after its seizure.  😗

Follow this one:

Alexander then says he worked the camera since he had one.

A staff lawyer for the HSCA said that the item seized was indeed a camera. (p. 202)

Two more witnesses.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Here is the Dallas Police Department's receipt of return of the Paines' property to Ruth Paine which they took in the search of Fri Nov 22, including the Minox light meter--the same light meter that is in the DPD evidence photo before DPD gave it to the FBI; the same light meter the FBI received from DPD; the same light meter DPD called a "camera" instead of a "light meter" in DPD's list of what they gave to the FBI.

The burning question: if Gus Rose never found a light meter (since the list reads "camera" instead of "light meter", where did FBI in Washington, D.C., get the light meter they sent back to Dallas? And why is it an exact match to the one in the DPD photo before anything was sent?

Answer: because the item was a light meter going both directions. Not too complicated. Gus Rose can talk 15 years later to HSCA and get the day wrong when he found the item, and DiEugenio can quote Bill Alexander speaking a mere 30 years later in Sneed, without addressing the police photos at the time, and attack me personally as if trying to have me driven away or discredited. But it won't change the facts, nor will it change how deeply shameful it is for DiEugenio to continue to falsely accuse Ruth Paine of having forged Michael Paine's Minox camera in January 1964, and falsely accuse both Paines of having been in a conspiracy with the FBI to fabricate claims of Michael Paine to his own Minox camera equipment. And shameful to those who continue in a group-think follower mentality in which this is acceptable.  

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Recall, the whole unholy charade between the Paines and the FBI did not begin until late January.

Therefore, what Alexander saw was Oswald's camera.

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

I don't know whose camera it was but I know better than to trust the DPD on this issue.

But I must say, Greg, that I would bet everything I own that that's Oswald in the photo. I have always scoffed when people show two pictures of Oswald and say "Look, it's Harvey, or Lee, or whatever!" The reason: I was in the record business and had my photo taken with celebrities dozens of times, and I look far more different from picture to picture than the supposedly two Oswalds do in the photos supposedly proving they are different people. In fact, when shown pictures of me from decades past, my son can not recognize me, and is as likely to point out someone else in the picture as me when asked to point me out.

There's also this. I've taken up (actually resumed after a 40 year-break) a hobby while rehabbing from my cancer year. This has entailed buying and sorting through tens of thousands of baseball cards, and sorting them into books. I've singled out about 500 players from the 40's to current day and have put their cards in chronological order, to essentially tell their story. It also shows how some players experimented with facial hair and some players got fat, etc. As a result, I have become acutely aware of how men can change in appearance over time.

And I can guarantee you that it's Oswald in both photos in your comparison. 

Now, if there's no way that the one photo can be Oswald without it marking Michael Paine as a xxxx, so be it. I would personally look for another explanation, such as a role of film belonging to Oswald being misrepresented as a role of film belonging to Paine. 

[Greg Doudna]

Good comments Pat. On the match of the photos with Oswald, three factors: first, all the photos are Michael Paine's early 1950s therefore not possible that Oswald is in an early 1950s photo of Michael Paine. Second, all the spitting-image matches of people in photos which are not true. My brother looks exactly like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and I have had a lot of fun with him with that over the years. Think of all the matches to the three tramps photos, people who see TSBD's Shelley passing out leaflets with Oswald in a photo in New Orleans, happy face on Mars, and etc. and etc. 

And third, the assumption that the photo is genuine even though its sole claim to authenticity is it is published in the Weberman book along with other photos which are deemed authentic of Michael Paine's Minox. 

On this third point, I noticed just now where Weberman gives the source of that photo. (I hope you are sitting down, for this rock-solid basis for an authenticity of a photo.)

"[Gerry] Hemming took the picture below with Oswald's Minox." (bottom of p. 11, followed by the photo p. 12, of Weberman, The Oswald Code [2014])

Well I guess that settles it! Its Oswald because Hemming himself took that photo of Oswald, and if you don't believe it just ask him, he'll tell you himself! (Hemming is deceased now actually but it doesn't matter--he was so full of BS.)

But seriously, notwithstanding how questionable the Weberman and Hemming book is in much else, I see no sign that any of the other photos are not authentic in that book, as distinguished from the hilarious and creative commentary Hemming offers on them. 

So I'm back to authentic, Michael Paine, and therefore is not Oswald. 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! To quote Paul Hoch, it is my theory and it is mine 🙂 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dj_X3vexak.

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

JB: Greg,

Are you in denial?

 

John, are you trying to be the master of the obvious?  When Dennis M comes out of the woods to back Greg I think its game, set, match.

No.  Just poking a stick at some of the lame reasoning one finds on the forum concerning Oswald matters.  I wish folks would pay attention to your next comment.

Edited May 13, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But seriously, notwithstanding how questionable the Weberman and Hemming book is in much else, I see no sign that any of the other photos are not authentic in that book, as distinguished from the hilarious and creative commentary Hemming offers on them. 

So I'm back to authentic, Michael Paine, and therefore is not Oswald. 

Greg,

Do you know how to tell the difference between Army and Marine personnel in the 1950s?  I suspect you don't.  I could be wrong.  There are clear differences in their uniforms and the way they wore those uniforms.  Paine's army photos were mixed in with Oswald's Marine photos to confuse the issue on who's minox that was that was found in the garage. 

I guess Oswald was stealing Paine's minox when the police officer found it in Oswald's seabag.  Or, as I suggested earlier Oswald may have jumped forward in time and use it to photograph things and then left it in his seabag over the years until it was found in Ruth's garage in Oswald's seabag.

  

This is one of the alleged Michael Paine Army photos.  It is neither Michael Paines or an Army photo.  These men are in the Marines.  Their uniform and dress say so.  You may be looking at the original Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Greg Doudna]

A detail I noticed on the Fri Nov 22 police list of property taken by police out of Ruth Paine's house that day: at the bottom of the list is typed: "Voluntarily given Dallas PD by Ruth Paine and Mrs. Oswald at Paine's residence, Irving, Texas 11/22/63" (below).

The Dallas Police Department had a rather elastic definition of the meaning of "voluntary", according to this account:

""Within minutes, the police were hauling off boxes of the Paines' and the Oswalds' belongings, while Ruth protested in vain. A neighbor, Dorothy Roberts, watched this front-lawn drama, which must have resembled an eviction, thought that she had never seen Mrs. Paine so angry." ("Marina and Ruth" [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/12/03/marina-and-ruth])

The only voluntary thing Ruth Paine did was invite the officers to step inside her front door so they could sit down inside and talk more easily. That was interpreted as consent to go through the house and take stuff. 

 

 

[Sean Coleman]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

A detail I noticed on the Fri Nov 22 police list of property taken by police out of Ruth Paine's house that day: at the bottom of the list is typed: "Voluntarily given Dallas PD by Ruth Paine and Mrs. Oswald at Paine's residence, Irving, Texas 11/22/63" (below).

The Dallas Police Department had a rather elastic definition of the meaning of "voluntary", according to this account:

""Within minutes, the police were hauling off boxes of the Paines' and the Oswalds' belongings, while Ruth protested in vain. A neighbor, Dorothy Roberts, watched this front-lawn drama, which must have resembled an eviction, thought that she had never seen Mrs. Paine so angry." ("Marina and Ruth" [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/12/03/marina-and-ruth])

The only voluntary thing Ruth Paine did was invite the officers to step inside her front door so they could sit down inside and talk more easily. That was interpreted as consent to go through the house and take stuff. 

 

 

Would H.W.Hill (property clerk whose name appears on the pictured property clerks invoice) have physically admitted the listed items into custody - ie. eyeballed & touched them, or just copy a list handed to him? If copied, is there a similar list to compare it to?

One of the elements in Minoxgate is Guy Rose.Is he right or wrong? He’s one or the other…..

If he’s right, he handled a Minox, opened it, saw (removed and re-inserted?) it’s film, and closed it. Maybe fondled and coveted it, it was an expensive item and no doubt a quality piece of kit. I know I’d like to see one close up. Then Fritz (booo,hisss) lets him to stick to his guns which is strange - he’s telling him he doesn’t have  to toe the Feebie line? This IS the complicit 1960’s DPD we’re talking about. 

If Guy Rose is wrong, then he imagined or mis-remembered the whole episode - in which case he needs a check up from the neck up - or he’s telling porkies. But to what end? Attention? Fame? To be inserted into history? 

Mucho puzzlemento 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Sean Coleman

[John Butler]

12 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Then Fritz (booo,hisss) lets him to stick to his guns which is strange - he’s telling him he doesn’t have  to toe the Feebie line? This IS the complicit 1960’s DPD we’re talking about.

This is something I have noticed also.  It seems when people toe the FBI line, or County, or DPD line they are often allowed something different to say that seems to go against the usual behavior.  For example, Mary Moorman was allowed to say that the first shot was the head shot and the one where she took her Polaroid.  Then she said she heard more than 3 shots.  All came after the head shot.  The important part of her testimony is that she and Jean were down by the Grassy Knoll as her Polaroid indicates.  

Maybe this is to "prove" the witnesses' character and bona fide some other aspects of their testimony.  I don't know what to make of it.  It is something that is noticeable with some testimonies. 

I think in Rose's case something different is happening.  Probably Fritz's anger at having to send all of the evidence to the FBI and some of it coming back modified perhaps.  Or, the FBI asking for things to be modified.  

[Greg Doudna]

12 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

One of the elements in Minoxgate is Guy Rose.Is he right or wrong? He’s one or the other…..

If he’s right, he handled a Minox, opened it, saw (removed and re-inserted?) it’s film, and closed it. Maybe fondled and coveted it, it was an expensive item and no doubt a quality piece of kit. I know I’d like to see one close up. Then Fritz (booo,hisss) lets him to stick to his guns which is strange - he’s telling him he doesn’t have  to toe the Feebie line? This IS the complicit 1960’s DPD we’re talking about. 

If Guy Rose is wrong, then he imagined or mis-remembered the whole episode - in which case he needs a check up from the neck up - or he’s telling porkies. But to what end? Attention? Fame? To be inserted into history? 

Mucho puzzlemento 

I think it would fall into a familiar pattern. He makes an honest mistake, doesn't remember it, when called on it insists he did not make a mistake. People all the time will not admit mistakes. Refusal to admit a mistake one knows inside one might have made is common. "This is my story and I'm sticking to it". "To what end?" Why do people refuse to admit mistakes in daily life, at work, in the academic world, wherever? Some people just don't like to admit they were wrong. Remember how often we have heard Gus Rose quoted saying he was sure he took film out of the camera (therefore it could not have been a light meter)? This transcript may make that a little ambiguous.

  

Did he and Stovall actually initial the light meter? I notice Stovall never seemed to have taken a position on backing up Rose on the item being a camera instead of the light meter that FBI returned to Dallas saying that is what Dallas PD had sent.