followup "Tulsa Man Discovers What May Be Assassin's Spy Camera"
DRoberdeau
channel 8 newstory of a year ago quoted below?
<QUOTE>
11-14-01
"Tulsa Man Discovers What May Be Assassin's Spy Camera"
EXCLUSIVE - ONLY ON NEWSCHANNEL 8
Reporter: Jerry Giordano Posted By: Kevin King
Tulsa - An exclusive investigation that's been more than a year in the
making may be hard to believe. A Tulsa man discovered a spy camera taped
to the back of a dresser, but there's more. That spy camera may have
belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. The man shared his story only with
NewsChannel 8's Jerry Giordano.
Joe San Miguel may have stumbled across a missing piece of American
history -- a Minox spy camera, circa 1963.
"When we checked it out on the internet, it was like 'Wow! Oswald had one
of these.'’"
Joe is referring to Lee Harvey Oswald, assassin of President John F.
Kennedy. In Dallas in 1963, some records indicate police removed a camera
exactly like it from Oswald's possessions. Problem is, it somehow
disappeared and has never been seen since. Perhaps, until now.
How did Joe find the camera? It was taped to the back of a dresser drawer
bought at a Salvation Army store in Dallas. "I was pulling out drawers to
match socks is all I was doing", he said. "There was so much dust like it
had never been moved. You could literally see the dust."
But did that camera actually belong to Lee Harvey Oswald, and if it did,
exactly what, if anything, is on the film. We went with Joe and his uncle
to find out.
But finding a place to develop film this old on this type of camera wasn't
easy. The closest place, ironically, is where it all began, in Dallas.
It's a five-hour trip and with each passing mile, Joe wonders whether what
is on the film could change the course of history.
"I don't want to be famous. But, if there's a story behind it, Oliver
Stone could make a movie out of this. And if we could prove the crime,
that's the main thing."
And the next afternoon, we took the camera and the film to Expert Imaging
for what's certain to be a painstaking developing process. But Joe's
entourage suddenly got bigger. He hired a high-powered Boston attorney to
protect his rights and his property. A film expert from Kodak was also
brought in for the process.
But, even those who do this for a living aren't optimistic about finding
anything that could survive this test of time. "It requires a lot of TLC
if you will, because film this old is gonna suffer the effects of age,
heat, moisture variability. The result could be a very brittle film that
could be easily damaged."
Bottom line -- damaged film means no pictures, not to mention no proof of
who the camera actually belonged to.
It's a long and nerve bending process, attempting to develop pictures
taken nearly four decades ago. But, amazingly, some images did survive.
Joe is ecstatic.
"Definite images of kids, people, a picture of a woman with a house in
back. We're hoping to use addresses off houses to id people. It's
exciting."
But, exactly who those people are and how they may relate to Lee Harvey
Oswald is a question that is still being investigated. San Miguel's
attorney and his mother-in-law are both in Louisiana to meet with
relatives of Lee Harvey Oswald, trying to confirm who is in those
pictures. They've also met with Oswald's widow, Marina to show her what
they found.
Both Joe and his attorney are very confident that the camera did indeed
belong to Lee Harvey Oswald. The pictures are being copyrighted and we're
not allowed to show you them yet. KTUL management was able to get a
glimpse of the pictures and the images are obviously very old, in black
and white, showing a number of different people and locations.
Now that we have seen the pictures, we can begin to help San Miguel
investigate who those people are. We'll bring you the latest on the
investigation as it becomes available.
<END QUOTE>
Don
CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/ROSEwillisANNOUNCEMENT.wps
"The appearance of the term 'micro dots' on page 44 of Lee Oswald's
address book aroused our supsicions, particularly in that it was
associated with the address of the photographic firm where he was once
employed."
----MEREDITH GARDNER, U.S. National Security Agency, Soviet-Codebreaker
Brian Cubbage
> Both Joe and his attorney are very confident that the camera did indeed
> belong to Lee Harvey Oswald. The pictures are being copyrighted and we're
> not allowed to show you them yet.
Oh, sheeeeesh! Just wait 10 years for the next development..... So typical!
Brian
kvis...@insightbb.com
Please help me out here. If the camera did indeed belong to Oswald then it
should belong to Marnia as she was his heir. If the camera doesn't belong to
them how and the hell can they get the picture (which don't belong to them
either) copyrighted.
viking
twalsh
> Good Day.... Has anyone ever seen/read anything following up the Tulsa, OK
> channel 8 newstory of a year ago quoted below?
>
> <QUOTE>
>
> 11-14-01
>
I don't see any reason why they think this camera belonged to Oswald.
If I bought something, even in Dallas, and found a camera hidden in
it, I would not automatically conclude it's Oswald's camera. I
thought maybe they had seen some of the pictures and then decided it
might be Oswald's, but from reading the story it seems they decided it
was his before getting them developed and even now after having them
developed, they have no obvious proof and continue to believe it is
Oswald's camera. I could maybe see it if this type of camera was
exceedingly rare, but I don't believe that is the case. It's
equivalent to buying an old trunk in Massachusetts, finding a golf
club in it, and deciding it must be one of JFK's golf clubs because he
owned a set. Sounds very fishy to me.
Ricky Tobias
>
>On 13-Nov-2002, bwcu...@yahoo.com (Brian Cubbage) wrote:
>
>> Both Joe and his attorney are very confident that the camera did indeed
>> > belong to Lee Harvey Oswald. The pictures are being copyrighted and
>> > we're
>> > not allowed to show you them yet.
>>
>> Oh, sheeeeesh! Just wait 10 years for the next development..... So
>> typical!
>>
>> Brian
>
>Please help me out here. If the camera did indeed belong to Oswald then it
>should belong to Marnia as she was his heir.
Yes and she could make that legal claim or totally deny it was
Oswald's. Unlike stolen property which must always be returned to the
heir this appears to be lost and found property so she may not have a
claim.
>If the camera doesn't belong to
>them how and the hell can they get the picture (which don't belong to them
>either) copyrighted.
Copyright simply requires paying the fees and some paperwork filed
with the office. If they get it copyrighted Marnia would still have a
claim on that copyright so that it is hers. The only way to prove the
camera was Oswald's would be if Oswald took pictures of family on that
roll of film which have not been published. It sounds like a story to
sell newspapers.
>
>viking
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Dave Reitzes
>
>I don't see any reason why they think this camera belonged to Oswald.
>If I bought something, even in Dallas, and found a camera hidden in
>it, I would not automatically conclude it's Oswald's camera. I
>thought maybe they had seen some of the pictures and then decided it
>might be Oswald's, but from reading the story it seems they decided it
>was his before getting them developed and even now after having them
>developed, they have no obvious proof and continue to believe it is
>Oswald's camera. I could maybe see it if this type of camera was
>exceedingly rare, but I don't believe that is the case. It's
>equivalent to buying an old trunk in Massachusetts, finding a golf
>club in it, and deciding it must be one of JFK's golf clubs because he
>owned a set. Sounds very fishy to me.
Actually, it's even less credible than that, because the original
"Oswald's Minox" claim revolves around a Minox camera confiscated from the
Paine house by the Dallas police, then turned over to the FBI. (The LN
version is essentially that the camera was eventually returned to its
rightful owner, Michael Paine; the CT version is essentially that the
camera was memory-holed by the FBI.) Obviously, this is a bit difficult to
reconcile with the story that popped up last year, which may explain why
practically everyone ignored it.
Dave
Perpetual Starlight: Original fiction, music and more
http://www.reitzes.com
JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassination
http://www.jfk-online.com