JACKIE USING THE SAME MINOX SPY CAMERA OSWALD HAD

[Vince Palamara]

From Clint Hill’s new book: JACKIE USING THE SAME MINOX SPY CAMERA OSWALD HAD!

 

 

[Vince Palamara]

(And no- I am in no way, shape or form casting aspersions on Jackie- just commenting on her use of the same controversial spy camera that Oswald had)

[Guest]

Starting 1956-1957 Minox was heavily promoting the camera using all the rich and famous they could find, including Dulles and Hoover.   They kept on doing this for some 5 years.   

 

PS : Hoover/Dulles pictures in Minox magazine removed

Removed to save on attachments space

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Vince Palamara]

11 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Starting 1956-1957 Minox was heavily promoting the camera using all the rich and famous they could find, including Dulles and Hoover.   They kept on doing this for some 5 years.   

Thanks for this info!

[Guest]

In the spring of 1963 they used this phote (Jacqueline Kennedy and Lee Radziwell) in their members-magazine

Photo's removed to save on attachments space

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Joe Bauer]

Quirky interesting.

[Guest]

In their advertising during 1955-1960 there is little or no reference anymore to the "spy-reputation". 

It was all about using it on family-trips, many actresses posing with a Minox, stuff like that.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Now... if your wife caught you staring at the previous picture, just let her read this and you'll be fine (you might want to buy her a new handbag however...) PS : adv. is 1959

 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
picture removed to save space

[Guest]

On the Minox, with the early version made in Riga the quality was “not bad”,  compared to other camera’s in that era that is.   And it’s reputation as a spy-camera was still going strong, and even the German poopoo's were handing them out as luxury/novelty items already.  

But the first type they had started building post WW II in Germany had a fault in the design, most of those cameras were called back, this process took some years*.  But they would rebuild those to the design of the latest versions at the time.

*the fault was the lens being a very small fraction of a mm too long,  when setting the distance the tiny lens goes back and forth.  It really was extremely close,  not all camera's had the problem.  Technically the problem was about the lens possibly touching the film, when the fimtransport moved the film it could cause scratches or even block completely.  Sometimes they would fix the "problem" when camera's came in for service or because something else had broken down.

By 1956 the reputation as a spy-camera was pretty much over and out (pretty normal as this is 17 years after it was introduced).  So they went in a totally different direction in advertising, making it a luxury gadget.  But, frankly,  the quality of the pictures hadn’t improved much.  There were a number of problems.  You had to keep it really really really steady (the extremly small lens wasn't helping).  Faster films (extra light-sensitive)  were available, but it didn’t do much good to the sharpness of the photos.   One of the biggest problems was… light… you really needed lots of it.   Nice for a sunny day on the beach, but otherwise… nope…

Now, they did sell a lot of options to handle the problems, BUT it made the camera no longer the small pocket-size (if you had to carry all that stuff with you) :

- the tripod to keep it stable

- the flash-attachment and bulbs (or the later battery operated flash) for more light

- a separate light-meter to tune the amount of light in combination with the shutter-exposure-time, later models had the light-meter built-in and synchro-flash 

- a flash-fan (yep, we need more light…)

- a waist-level viewfinder (to keep the camera steady to your waist, and look in the viewfinder from above) to reduce the problem with a relatively long shutter time

- an angle-view-finder (that pretty much was the last spy-gadget if you like)

The versions that had stuff build-in were nearly twice as large (compared to the early models).

Often referred to is the “copy-stand”, for making pictures of documents (basically it was like a 4-pod with the legs set wider apart to fit a page under the camera, set at the right height.    That was nice BUT it needed (again…) an extra light-source of some kind, or a very bright room… or take it outside in the sun (not ideal for a spy huh…).

And there are the usual misconceptions :

- some have written the film could only be processed in the Minox Lab.  That is simply not true, the film could be processed anywhere, Minox even sold a DIY / home-developing kit, the process is exactly the same as with other films (stabilize the negative in fluids, use the negative to process on film-paper)

- serial-numbers… o boy… the list that was on the USA website for a long time did not differentiate in subtypes, also the numbers where assigned in Riga and Germany.  And there was the huge problem of parallel import.  Cfr. the beginning of using the “II” reference  for cameras sold within the USA.  Combined with the call-back of early Minox cameras with the production fault, and rebuilding them to fit the latest standards.  You can find plenty of information on e.g. the II with early serial-numbers, I will not go into that again…, just to say, a II with low serial number is not extra-ordinary, or does not belong to a “special” series

On the trouble between DPD and FBI. Perhaps some intelligent inspector  should have simply asked the following :

- are these your initials/markings on “this item” ?

- how did you know there was a film inside ?

- how did you open the camera ? B.t.w., it’s a 2-step process, the second step is to prevent accidental opening when a film is inside (e.g. in case the user had forgotten it), easy IF you know how, otherwise you WILL be struggling (just like I did when I tried opening one the first time)

- did you know opening ANY camera with partially exposed film in it will ruin at least a few of the last photos taken with that camera ?  Like with all other cameras you need to go to the end of the film, or at least a number of frames past the last exposed frame to secure all previously exposed film

- there is sort of a give-away in the story (at least part of it) when the serial number was written down for the first time, this was probably also the first time the camera was opened… If DPD opened it (as they said later on I believe),  they would have noticed the serial number,  you really can’t miss it.  But we all know things didn’t go as they should have, so what can say, I sure don’t see it in the evidence photo (all I see is empty case and chain).         And a Minox light-meter can easily be confused with a Minox camera, as the Minox light-meter  was the only one that had a viewfinder like a camera…    No… pfffftt… I’m not going there anymore, anything could have happened, I wasn’t there…. 

Anyway, I will be happy to answer any technical questions you might have on the Minox, I like those little marvels for what they are, and that’s it…

The weather is nice today, I’m going out to take some photo’s.  Photography is still one of my other hobbies…   my latest “thing” is taking pictures of bugs…  As the temperature is going down, those darn critters  don’t fly/run as fast as they do in the summer…

Edited November 14, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans