Oswald's Possessions Arrive In Washington, D.C.
curtjester1
and will link that up for all here to see. (Aberrations In Oswald's
Possessions)
In recent threads the subject was broached again, and it would be well
IMO if the surrounding material were included, both prior and after
the link, to get a better feel for the possesions, and the protocol's
and some of the more minute details, to get a better overall picture.
The link and this material all will have been taken from John
Armstrong's, Harvey and Lee and will cover pages 906-11.
Start:
From handwritten lists of evidence collected at 1026 N. Beckley
(Oswald's apartment) and 2515 W. 5th (Ruth Paine's), DPD secretaries
created typewritten inventories which were published in the Warren
Volumes and identified as exhibits "Stovall A," "Stoval B," and
"Turner Ex. No. 1."
Around midnight the Dallas police photographed the items of evidence
(Oswald's possessions), grouped together, on the floor of the police
station. During the evening FBI agents repeatedly approached Dallas
Police Chief Jesse Curry and insisted that all of the physical
evidence be released to the Bureau. Curry told the WC, "We got
several calls insisting we send this, and nobody would tell me exactly
who it was that was insisting, 'just say I got a call from Washington,
and they wanted this evidence up there,' insinuated it was someone in
high authority that was requesting this...."
(When WC member Allen Dulles heard Chief Curry's answer he knew the
"someone in high authority" was probably his close friend Lyndon
Johnson and, in order to avoid further probing questions, *abruptly
adjouned the hearing.* Dulles was the only member of the Commission
who understood the reason for sending Oswald's possession to the FBI
as quickly as possible. The reason was to identify and eliminate any
items of evidence which suggested there was a second Oswald or
suggested that Oswald was connected with U.S. Intelligence agencies.
When Curry's testimony resumed not another word was mentioned about
"someone in high authority."
(It was President Johnson's aide, Cliff Carter, who ordered DPD to
turn over all evidence to the FBI on Friday evening and there is
little doubt that it was LBJ who instructed Carter to phone DPD.)
Chief Curry told the Commission, "Around midnight of Friday night we
agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they say they would
bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and
when they were finished with it to return it to us." The Dallas
Police then gave all of the physical evidence, *without a written
inventory*, to FBI agent Vince Drain who departed from Carswell Air
Force Base aboard a C-130 tanker at 3:10 A.M. for Washington, D.C.
(SA Drain DID NOT testify before the Warren Commission.)
From the testimony of Jesse Curry the WC learned that the FBI had
taken Oswald's possessions to Washington D.C., during the early
morning hours of November 23rd. As seasoned lawyers, the Commission
members and their staff understood the "custodial chain of evidence"
from the DPD to the FBI had been broken. There was no written record
of the items taken by the FBI to Washington on November 23rd, nor was
there a written record of the items returned to the Dallas Police
three days later (November 26th).
(The Dallas Police and FBI prepared an inventory which listed the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, the .38 S&W pistol, bullet fragments, shell
casings, a blanket, Oswald's shirt, and paper and tape samples from
the TSBD. These items were photographed as a group at 9:00 P.M. by
Lieutenant J.C. Day prior to turning them over to the FBI (This
photograph also shows the TWO SPENT CARTRIDGES (not 3) which the
police found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.) But no inventory list
accompanied the hundreds of items of evidence, found by the Dallas
Police, to FBI Headquarters during the early morning hours of November
23rd.)
(At the FBI laboratory in Washington technicians conducted a test on
Oswald's shirt, one of the items inventoried and photographed, to
determine if a tuft of fibers found on the butt of the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle matched the fibers on the shirt. The subsequent FBI
report of November 23 said the fibers "match in microscopic
characteristics...the shirt of the suspect. These fibers could have
originated from this shirt." *But the fibers did not come from the
shirt Oswald was wearing at the TSBD on November 22. After arriving
an 1026 North Beckley Oswald changed clothes and wore a different
shirt to the Texas Theater.* The fibers found on the rifle could not
possibly have come from this shirt.)
James Cadigan, and FBI document specialist, received the confiscated
items (Oswald's possessions) at FBI headquarters in Washington. When
Cadigan first testified before the Warren Commission, the only
Commission member present was former CIA director Allen Dulles.
Cadigan said, "Initially, the first big batch of evidence was *brought
into the laboratory on November 23* and this consisted of many, many
items......It was*a very large quantity of evidence that was brought
it.*"
Commission attorney Melvin Eisenberg learned just how many items that
the FBI received when he asked Cadigan if he remembered one particular
item. Cadigan said, "On November 23, when the vast bulk of this
material came in it was photographed....to select one item out of
*four or five hundred*, I cannot, in all honesty, say I defnitely
called seeing this...." **Eisenberg now knew that "four or five
hundred" items of evidence, which belonged to Oswald were "brought
into the FBI laboratory on November *23rd*." **He also knew that no
inventory list accompanied these items from Dallas to FBI Headquarters
(Nov. 23) or from FBI Headquarters to Dallas (Nov. 26).**
BROWN FINGERPRINT INK. When the FBI laboratory received Oswald's
possessions on the early morning of November 23, many of the items
were immediately treated with a brown colored ink to check for
fingerprints. Under normal conditions, when the testing was complete,
items were re-treated with a special chemical that neutralized and
removed all traces of the brown fingerprint ink. This neutralizing
process was known as "desilvering" and was briefly mentioned by
Cadigan. WC Attorney Melvin Eisenberg ws discussing Oswald's FPCC
card and asked Cadigan, "Do you know why CE 820 was not processed or
desilvered? Cadigan replied, "Time was of the essence and ***this
material, I believe, was returend to the Dallas Police within two or
three days***.....There was insufficient time to desilver
it." (Eisenberg now knew that the hundreds of items of evidence
confiscated by the Dallas Police (Oswald's possessions) were SECRETLY
sent to FBI headquarers in the early morning hours of November 23, and
then quietly returned to the Dallas Police three days later (November
26)).
End of Part I - Then the continued portion of pgs 908-10 from the
previous post by this link:
Start of Part II and the Finish:
...From the part about the Minox Camera and Rose refusing to change
the inventory under the FBI's insistence...it proceeds:
(Both Drain and DeBrueys should have asked them who instructed them to
create a new inventory at FBI Headquarters.)
(In an attempt to keep the public from learning that Oswald owned a
miniature spy camera, which would suggest that he had intelligence
connections, the Bureau sought and received help from Ruth and Michael
Paine. On January 31, 1964 FBI Agent Bardwell Odum ALLEGEDLY obtained
a Minox II camera, serial number 27529, from Michael Paine. The
Bureau then announced that the Minox camera in their custody belong to
Michael Paine, and not to Oswald (nothing further was said about the
Minox camera to Dallas Police).)
(On June 23, 1964 FBI agent Warren DeBrueys ALLEGEDLY returned the
Minox camera to Ruth Paine in Irving, Texas. Michael Paine, on the
nationally televised broadcast television program Frontline (1994),
confirmed the Minox camera had been returned to him by the FBI and
said the camera was subsequently lost. **BUT THERE WAS STILL A
PROBLEM**)
The National Archives currently has a Minox *III* camera, found by the
Dallas Police in Ruth Paine's garage. This camera is inoperable, is
unable to be opened, and therefore the serial number remains unknown.
The Minox Corporation (and their website) advises that the Minox III
cameras were manufactured with serial numbers 31275 thru 58499.
Therefore, the Minox which the FBI obtained from Michael Paine on
January 31, 1964 (serial number 27259) was not the camera found by
Dallas Police which is now in the National Archives. The serial
number of Michael Paine's camera, listed on an FBI Airtel of 2/2/64,
shows that it was a MINOX *II* (Minox II cameras were manufactured
with serial numbers up to 31500. The FBI's attempt TO HIDE the fact
that Oswald owned a Minox camera is one of the best known and
documented examples of their attempts to alter and fabricate
evidence.)
In an attempt to hide these problems the FBI developed the 5 rolls of
the DPD film, and then *DESTROYED THE NEGATIVES that showed those
items of evidence that WERE DISCOLORED BY THE BROWN FINGERPINT INK.*
*They also DESTROYED NEGATIVES which showed times of evidence that had
been SWITCHED, ALTERED, or DESTROYED while in their custody.* The
remainder of the original 5 rolls of film was spliced together into
*TWO ROLLS*, which were then copied and sent to the Dallas Police
Department. *The Dallas City Archives has copies ot the 2 rolls
available for inspection, and THE SPLICINGS can be see easily.*
After the Dallas Police received the film Chief Curry noticed that
many of the negatives wre missing and notified the Special Agent in
Charge of the Dallas Office, Gordon Shanklin, by letter. On December
3rd Curry wrote, "On developing the microfilm it has been found that
items #164 thru 360 inclusive did not record." (Curry's letter shows
that *over half of the negatives, 196 total, were missing!!!)*
(The 1st roll of film in the Dallas City Archives contains negatives
#1 thru #163. The 2nd roll contains negatives #361 thru #451 (3 rolls
of original film were destroyed by the FBI.)
J. Edgar Hoover responded to Chief Curry's letter by claiming,
INCREDIBLY, that the missing negatives were the result of 'faulty
technique" by the Dallas Police photographer who photographed Oswald's
possessions. **If there was any faulty technique it could easily have
been seen, frame by frame, on the original 35 mm film, but 196
continuous frames were cut (physically removed) from the original 5
rolls of film.)
To placate Chief Curry the FBI re-photographed the "missing" items and
sent copies of the photographs to Dallas. But the new photographs did
not match the description of the items listed the joint DPD/FBI
inventory to match their new photographs which Hoover sent along with
a memo to Gordon Shanklin, SAC Dallas:
--------"The inventory list submitted by your office (joint FBI/DPD
list of Nov. 26. 63) has been superseded by the list furnished to your
office by the FBI laboratroy dated 2/1/64. The 11/26/63 list
submitted by your office in **incomplete and is not completely
accurate.**-------"
This memo is incredible!! Hoover told Gordon Shanklin that the joint
FBI/DPD inventory of November 26, 1963 was **"incomplete and not
accurate**", but there was nothing Shanklin could do. He dared not
argue with Hoover and simply followed instructions by providing a copy
of the new FBI inventory to Dallas Police.
(Even though the Dallas Police refused to change their inventory from
a Minox camera to a Minox light meter, the FBI changed their
inventory. They "re-photographed" item #375 (originally a Minox
camera) and sent a photograph to Dallas. The new photograph showed a
Minox light meter, but there was still a problem. Unbelievably
someone at FBI headquarters forgot to get rid of the Minox camera
found by the Dallas police in Ruth Paine's garage, and it was turned
over to the National Archives where it can be examined today.)
(The FBI's alteration of the DPD inventory and film is irrefutable
proof that the Bureau destroyed evidence in order to help fram Oswald
and keep the public from learning the truth about his connection to
U.S. intelligence and his background.)
End of Part II - Harvey and Lee - Pgs 906-11
CJ
curtjester1
> On 17 Dec 2008 21:13:14 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On the subject in the past a few months ago, I posted on the subject
> >and will link that up for all here to see. (Aberrations In Oswald's
> >Possessions)
>
>
> There is a photo of the evidence the Dallas cops collected, and it
> shows a Minox light meter, and a *empty* Minox case.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course all the film taken at Dallas that night was confiscated and
taken for 3-4 days, and the films and negatives were not the same when
they returned to Dallas. Be that as it may, how can one confuse a
light meter (huge) with a camera the size of one quarter the size of a
pack of cigarettes?! And to boot they took a roll of film out of it.
That can't be confused either could it? Hardly when there are people
who the WC didn't seem to want to interview that had pictures taken
with apparently his Minox camera. Some of these pictures ended up in
Life in February and pictures did end up in the National Archives.
These pictures are different than a 35 mm camera in size, so they can
be well postited to be of a Minox camera. The Minox camera is
supported by Daniel Powers in Armstrong's book, and the pictures the
National Archives has are the only time Oswald could be posited to
have used the Minox. The pictures are from Japan, The Phillipines,
Atsugi, Hawaii, and of his Marine buddy, George "Hans" Wilkins. The
picture in Life which there is no chain to where they got the photos
is also designated as CE 287 by the WC. Also Rose and Stoval listed
the camera on the original hand written notes.
curtjester1
> On 18 Dec 2008 08:55:52 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Of course all the film taken at Dallas that night was confiscated and
> >taken for 3-4 days, and the films and negatives were not the same when
> >they returned to Dallas.
>
>
James Cadigan's ORIGINAL deposition (pp. 59-60)..."Time was of the essence
and this material I believe, was returned to the Dallas police withing two
or three days.." Some DELETED this throught the original typewriter and
then wrote DELETE, so does not appear on page 434 of Volume VII of the
Warren Volumes.
> And I mean a *primary* source.
>
Original 63 page Deposition of James Cadigan, transcribed by Ward &
Paul, 4/30/64 pg. 49
Harvey and Lee pg. 980 footnote 170.
> >Be that as it may, how can one confuse a
> >light meter (huge) with a camera the size of one quarter the size of a
> >pack of cigarettes?!
>
> Look at the article I cited. It not only has photos of the evidence
> laid out on the floor, it links to a page of Minox cameras and light
> meters.
>
Look at your own picture real close.
> >And to boot they took a roll of film out of it.
>
> Citation!
>
Your picture.
> >That can't be confused either could it? Hardly when there are people
> >who the WC didn't seem to want to interview that had pictures taken
> >with apparently his Minox camera. Some of these pictures ended up in
> >Life in February and pictures did end up in the National Archives.
> >These pictures are different than a 35 mm camera in size, so they can
> >be well postited to be of a Minox camera. The Minox camera is
> >supported by Daniel Powers in Armstrong's book, and the pictures the
> >National Archives has are the only time Oswald could be posited to
> >have used the Minox. The pictures are from Japan, The Phillipines,
> >Atsugi, Hawaii, and of his Marine buddy, George "Hans" Wilkins. The
> >picture in Life which there is no chain to where they got the photos
> >is also designated as CE 287 by the WC. Also Rose and Stoval listed
> >the camera on the original hand written notes.
>
> The photos were taken by Michael Paine, whose camera it was.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
CJ
curtjester1
> On 18 Dec 2008 08:56:27 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 17, 9:17 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 17 Dec 2008 21:13:14 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >and will link that up for all here to see. (Aberrations In Oswald's
> >> >Possessions)
>
>
> >> There is a photo of the evidence the Dallas cops collected, and it
> >> shows a Minox light meter, and a *empty* Minox case.
>
> >>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm
>
> >> .John
> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/jfkresearch/minox.htm
>
> Look at the link I supplied, will ya?
>
Yep, but look at the site I gave you as well as what Tom posted.
http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm (Look for Guy Rose's testimony)
Stovall and Rose both initialled as in etched, their initials in the
base of the camera. Also Alexander tells about the camera.
> The DPD photo shows an empty Minox case, and a Minox light meter.
>
It also shows the roll of film next to the camera. This had to be
different than any film discovered in conjunction to Michael Paine, who
they said they retrieved two rolls of film from their place on 11/26/63.
CJ
curtjester1
> On 19 Dec 2008 13:33:08 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >Of course all the film taken at Dallas that night was confiscated and
> >> >taken for 3-4 days, and the films and negatives were not the same when
> >> >they returned to Dallas.
>
> >> Your source on that?
>
> >James Cadigan's ORIGINAL deposition (pp. 59-60)..."Time was of the essence
> >and this material I believe, was returned to the Dallas police withing two
> >or three days.." Some DELETED this throught the original typewriter and
> >then wrote DELETE, so does not appear on page 434 of Volume VII of the
> >Warren Volumes.
>
> to the Dallas cops.
>
That's all they complained about when they got the secret getaway evidence
returned. Curry wondered what happened to all the film and negatives, and
Hoover made up a lame excuse that his own photographers didn't use their
film correctly. Five rolls in Dallas reduced to two rolls.
> >> And I mean a *primary* source.
>
> >Original 63 page Deposition of James Cadigan, transcribed by Ward &
> >Paul, 4/30/64 pg. 49
>
> >Harvey and Lee pg. 980 footnote 170.
>
> How about posting a link to the primary source online?
>
These are from authors who write books that want people to buy them. One
would have to buy the book. There's SO MANY source cites. Gary Savage,
First Day Evidence was one, pg. 193, Vincent Drains testimony on 11/26 and
all sorts of them....
> >> >Be that as it may, how can one confuse a
> >> >light meter (huge) with a camera the size of one quarter the size of a
> >> >pack of cigarettes?!
>
> >> Look at the article I cited. It not only has photos of the evidence
> >> laid out on the floor, it links to a page of Minox cameras and light
> >> meters.
>
> >Look at your own picture real close.
>
> Where is any "Minox camera?"
>
Who knows, it could be anywhere with all the controversy surrounding it.
They even had it on the combined sheet after the goods were returned.
That's what the article is about all the changing of evidence and how they
were caught with the brown ink and desilvering of the evidence showing
differences. That was a spy camera, and they knew it would be hot
evidence. They wouldn't treat it cavalierly, and probably had it out, or
it was just deleted out of the photo, because that's what the FBI wanted
done. They made a picture of a Light Meter and sent it back to Dallas
trying to convince them that the Minox camera didn't exist, or didn't want
it to exist.
> >> >And to boot they took a roll of film out of it.
>
> >> Citation!
>
> >Your picture.
>
> Kindly point out the "roll of film" in my picture!
>
There is a roll, and I see down below you think it's 35mm. It doesn't
matter what film is there, Rose said he took a roll out of the Minox, and
also had 9 other rolls of that Minox film. It's obvious they tried to
dust it under the rug. The only think is, that too many people were
already involved, and some wouldn't retract their findings.
> I frankly don't remember when they took the film, but the photos on it
> were taken by Michael Paine.
>
One picture was of LHO's friend. They were places he had been. They had
to get Michael Paine to 'have' a camera and be involved. He already was
and was easy, but that's a whole another haystack.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >The Minox Camera from Jerry McLeer's site:
>
> > >http://www.geocities.com/jfkresearch/minox.htm
>
> > Look at the link I supplied, will ya?
>
> Yep, but look at the site I gave you as well as what Tom posted.
>
>
> Stovall and Rose both initialled as in etched, their initials in the
> base of the camera. Also Alexander tells about the camera.
>
> > The DPD photo shows an empty Minox case, and a Minox light meter.
>
> It also shows the roll of film next to the camera. This had to be
> different than any film discovered in conjunction to Michael Paine, who
> they said they retrieved two rolls of film from their place on 11/26/63.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
CJ - you're wasting your time with McAdams. He is like several claimed
CTers on here who accept NOTHING but governmental stuff as he always says
the same thing, I want PRIMARY as if the government is the end all, be all
in this case. If I were in his position I would want the same thing since
he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise (and only a quarter of one
with it!).
I like how John uses *primary* (*-*) brackets alot too, does that remind
you of anyone else?
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >The Minox Camera from Jerry McLeer's site:
>
> > > >http://www.geocities.com/jfkresearch/minox.htm
>
> > > Look at the link I supplied, will ya?
>
> > Yep, but look at the site I gave you as well as what Tom posted.
>
>
> > Stovall and Rose both initialled as in etched, their initials in the
> > base of the camera. Also Alexander tells about the camera.
>
> > > The DPD photo shows an empty Minox case, and a Minox light meter.
>
> > It also shows the roll of film next to the camera. This had to be
> > different than any film discovered in conjunction to Michael Paine, who
> > they said they retrieved two rolls of film from their place on 11/26/63.
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> CJ - you're wasting your time with McAdams. He is like several claimed
> CTers on here who accept NOTHING but governmental stuff as he always says
> the same thing, I want PRIMARY as if the government is the end all, be all
> in this case. If I were in his position I would want the same thing since
> he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise (and only a quarter of one
> with it!).
>
> I like how John uses *primary* (*-*) brackets alot too, does that remind
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, I know that, Rob. It's like preaching to the choir over there.
Just like to stir the pot over there, and see how the guvmint likes to
slither. I don't really have a clue on your *primary suspect* there,
but I like how he thinks one picture is *only primary* and all the
other evidence is *non* or *secondary*.
CJ
Bud
>
> > > Stovall and Rose both initialled as in etched, their initials in the
> > > base of the camera. Also Alexander tells about the camera.
>
> > > > The DPD photo shows an empty Minox case, and a Minox light meter.
>
> > > It also shows the roll of film next to the camera. This had to be
> > > different than any film discovered in conjunction to Michael Paine, who
> > > they said they retrieved two rolls of film from their place on 11/26/63.
>
> > > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > CJ - you're wasting your time with McAdams. He is like several claimed
> > CTers on here who accept NOTHING but governmental stuff as he always says
> > the same thing, I want PRIMARY as if the government is the end all, be all
> > in this case. If I were in his position I would want the same thing since
> > he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise (and only a quarter of one
> > with it!).
>
> > I like how John uses *primary* (*-*) brackets alot too, does that remind
> > you of anyone else?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh, I know that, Rob. It's like preaching to the choir over there.
<snicker> No, idiot, it`s the exact opposite. "Preaching to the
choir" is trying to persuade people that already think as you do.
> Just like to stir the pot over there, and see how the guvmint likes to
> slither. I don't really have a clue on your *primary suspect* there,
> but I like how he thinks one picture is *only primary* and all the
> other evidence is *non* or *secondary*.
It`s a pretty simple affair, the light meter got mis-identified as a
camera. Thats why there is a light meter shown, and no camera in the
evidence photo. This article presents the available information...
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm
> CJ
curtjester1
>
> > > > Stovall and Rose both initialled as in etched, their initials in the
> > > > base of the camera. Also Alexander tells about the camera.
>
> > > > > The DPD photo shows an empty Minox case, and a Minox light meter.
>
> > > > It also shows the roll of film next to the camera. This had to be
> > > > different than any film discovered in conjunction to Michael Paine, who
> > > > they said they retrieved two rolls of film from their place on 11/26/63.
>
> > > > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > CJ - you're wasting your time with McAdams. He is like several claimed
> > > CTers on here who accept NOTHING but governmental stuff as he always says
> > > the same thing, I want PRIMARY as if the government is the end all, be all
> > > in this case. If I were in his position I would want the same thing since
> > > he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise (and only a quarter of one
> > > with it!).
>
> > > I like how John uses *primary* (*-*) brackets alot too, does that remind
> > > you of anyone else?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Oh, I know that, Rob. It's like preaching to the choir over there.
>
> <snicker> No, idiot, it`s the exact opposite. "Preaching to the
> choir" is trying to persuade people that already think as you do.
>
preacher over there, and the choir folk just nod. Well, kind of like
yourself.
> > Just like to stir the pot over there, and see how the guvmint likes to
> > slither. I don't really have a clue on your *primary suspect* there,
> > but I like how he thinks one picture is *only primary* and all the
> > other evidence is *non* or *secondary*.
>
> It`s a pretty simple affair, the light meter got mis-identified as a
> camera. Thats why there is a light meter shown, and no camera in the
> evidence photo. This article presents the available information...
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm
>
>
Yeah, funny thing about the site, it avoids the other sites. Stovall
the guy who took the pic didn't take all of the 400-500 items, and
there was one small item that the article forgot, that being that the
guy who took the picture put his initials on the bottom of the minox
camera (not light meter). Oh, if you read what I posted, you might
have something more intelligent to say, than parroting somebody that's
not prone to discuss the case too much...<ho ho ho>
CJ
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> On Dec 20, 7:18 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, I know that, Rob. It's like preaching to the choir over there.
> > Just like to stir the pot over there, and see how the guvmint likes to
> > slither. I don't really have a clue on your *primary suspect* there,
> > but I like how he thinks one picture is *only primary* and all the
> > other evidence is *non* or *secondary*.
>
> > CJ
>
> likes to slither?
>
> Are you really so childish as to believe McAdams is part of a
> government anti-CT campaign of some sort? Or that you are 'stirring
> the pot' with your hard hitting minox camera posts?
>
Who would care? Are you the gov't police to tell people where or not
where to post? I would think that people that are interested in
evidence, protocols, and quality of evidence would be ones truly
interested in the case. LN'ers don't do that, so they do the
kindergarten stuff, like your doing here.
> Are you really so puffed up with self-righteous pomposity that you
> think you have something worthy and notable to contribute to the JFK
> assassination 'mystery'?
>
Over the self-rightous pomposity over the ones that forgot to
investigate inventory taking, and what might be in it, and go to the
extent of interview people who took that inventory, and follow the
history of the camera and photos derived from it? To that, yes.
> CJ, the minox camera 'mystery' has been explained to CTers like
> yourself for over 40 years. Move on and find a different mystery to
> solve. Try Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle.
>
Explaining is not evidence. That's pompous convincing without
evidence isn't it?
> I really think that posters like yourself and Rob Caprio cannot be
> more than fourteen or fifteen years old. It's hard to imagine grown
> men believing the tired, rehashed, long debunked sh*t you take as
> gospel from Crossfire, TMWKK or Black Ops Radio. It's either that, or
> your I.Q. is around 70.
Unfortunately our IQ's are much higher, and we have to go thru stuff
like the WR and Volumes to tell people that they are not an official
body of evidence, and more like a Grand Jury, to which there are many
procedures contrary to good interviewing, or the gathering of
evidence. That's why people like a Harold Weisberg will write a book
like Case Open to show why Case Closed is from one who doesn't know
much about the case, evidence, or anything vital to the intellect, or
anything remotely to treating the assassination as a bona fide
criminal case.
CJ
Bud
There is a light meter in the photo. Why wasn`t one listed on the
property list? A camera listed, but not shown. A light meter shown (in
a camera case no less), but not listed. Put on your thinking cap,
Sherlock.
curtjester1
hope we don't get you to read all the real evidence concerning this.
It's a fair warning. There were handwritten lists, typewritten, and
combined, one's with 5 pages, one's with 21 pages......
Don't get stuck in one LNT site, now.
http://www.geocities.com/jfkresearch/minox.htm
CJ
Bud
That doesn`t address what I said. Why doesn`t the light meter appear
on the property lists?
> I
> hope we don't get you to read all the real evidence concerning this.
> It's a fair warning. There were handwritten lists, typewritten, and
> combined, one's with 5 pages, one's with 21 pages......
Do they rely on 15 year old memories? Can you remember any action
you did 15 years later accurately? Did you eat dinner with anyone 15
years ago? What did they have?
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Ol' CJ is crackers. Let's not forget that he has offered Judyth
Vary Baker the opportunity to stay at his place in the States and when
she arrives he is going to do his best to reunite her with whichever
of *Harvey* and *Lee* that Jaby Ruby didn't plug back in '63.
Hey, Curt, has Judyth come to visit and have you been able to reunite
her with *Harvey* or *Lee* yet?
You better be careful, Curt. I'm sure the CIA are monitoring your
every move! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
curtjester1
> On 19 Dec 2008 20:57:20 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 19, 1:37 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 19 Dec 2008 13:33:08 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Your source on that?
>
> >> >James Cadigan's ORIGINAL deposition (pp. 59-60)..."Time was of the essence
> >> >and this material I believe, was returned to the Dallas police withing two
> >> >or three days.." Some DELETED this throught the original typewriter and
> >> >then wrote DELETE, so does not appear on page 434 of Volume VII of the
> >> >Warren Volumes.
>
> >> There is nothing there about the film being *different* when returned
> >> to the Dallas cops.
>
> >That's all they complained about when they got the secret getaway evidence
> >returned. Curry wondered what happened to all the film and negatives, and
> >Hoover made up a lame excuse that his own photographers didn't use their
> >film correctly. Five rolls in Dallas reduced to two rolls.
>
> developed from the film from Paine's camera.
>
No, the just photography process for evidentiary purposes in general,
especially the photos that DPD took of all of the confiscated items.
> >> >> And I mean a *primary* source.
>
> >> >Original 63 page Deposition of James Cadigan, transcribed by Ward &
> >> >Paul, 4/30/64 pg. 49
>
> >> >Harvey and Lee pg. 980 footnote 170.
>
> >> How about posting a link to the primary source online?
>
> >These are from authors who write books that want people to buy them. One
> >would have to buy the book. There's SO MANY source cites. Gary Savage,
> >First Day Evidence was one, pg. 193, Vincent Drains testimony on 11/26 and
> >all sorts of them....
>
> You aren't staying on topic.
>
There is no such thing as a 'primary source'. Evidence is evidence based
on quality, integrity, and following the protocol of law.
> You said that photos (from the Minox camera) were sent to the FBI, and
> then came back *different.*
>
No, the evidence in general. The Minox was on the FBI's list also, so
they had to take it off (obviously) and just put a reason to have light
meter only. They wanted to sell that concept back to DPD. It wouldn't
fly with the people who found it, and entered it into a list, and
photographed it.
> Kindly explain what evidence you have for that.
>
Stovall (the one you use the picture for) and Rose said they initialled
the bottom of the camera.
> And please *explain* the evidence. Don't cite books I would have to
> borrow from the library -- which I can't do even if I wanted to expend
> the effort, since I'm pretty much snowed in.
>
If your not going to use books, then how are you to gather evidence for
this case? The WC was only a typical Grand Jury, and had to depend on
many outside sources for their compilations. A lot of people poke holes
in it as well as use it. Certain authors specialize in certain aspects.
Obviously, a John Armstrong or a Harold Weisberg is going to know more
about FBI evidence and protocol than other authors.
> >> >> >Be that as it may, how can one confuse a
> >> >> >light meter (huge) with a camera the size of one quarter the size of a
> >> >> >pack of cigarettes?!
>
> >> >> Look at the article I cited. It not only has photos of the evidence
> >> >> laid out on the floor, it links to a page of Minox cameras and light
> >> >> meters.
>
> >> >Look at your own picture real close.
>
> >> Where is any "Minox camera?"
>
> >Who knows, it could be anywhere with all the controversy surrounding it.
>
> Huh???!!!
>
Your judging a small portion of LHO's claimed belongings by a picture.
There were 400-500 items testified to for what James Cadigan saw in
Washington. IOW, you can't bank on what you want to see out of a photo
and put your whole stake on it. You need to take evidence other's had to
say on the matter, and who dealt with the whole process. I mean you can.
It's just not wise or prudent, IMO.
> You told me to "look at your own picture real close."
>
> I have, and it shows a Minox light meter and an *empty* Minox case.
>
> In short, the DPD had, in their possession, a Minox light meter. And
> an *empty* Minox case.
>
> Either they had no Minox camera in their possession at that time, or
> they somehow failed to photograph it.
>
> And when the FBI claimed to have gotten a light meter -- it sure looks
> like they were telling the truth, since a light meter is in the photo.
>
No one is disputing a light meter. They also claimed a Minox camera
as well, until they wanted to change things.
> >They even had it on the combined sheet after the goods were returned.
> >That's what the article is about all the changing of evidence and how they
> >were caught with the brown ink and desilvering of the evidence showing
> >differences.
>
> But the FBI said they received a Minox light meter.
>
> The photo from the DPD shows a Minox light meter.
>
> It shows *no* Minox camera.
>
> Sounds like the FBI got it right, and the DPD messed up.
>
If the FBI really got it right, they wouldn't even have taken any of the
possessions. They weren't offically authorized too until the 26th. So,
they amongst destroying over half the photography filmed evidence, were
basically up to things that were making a mockery out of the evidence even
if it went to court. Like what was said, the chain of custodial evidence
was broken then. LHO would have walked on that alone.
> >That was a spy camera, and they knew it would be hot
> >evidence. They wouldn't treat it cavalierly, and probably had it out, or
> >it was just deleted out of the photo,
>
> Oh, my!
>
It only stands to reason since they made such a major issue over just one
item, and had to send agents to try to change the mind of Rose on three
separate occasions.
> The photo was made by the DPD, and has ever since sat in the Dallas
> Municipal Archives.
>
And there would have been a lot more, had not the rolls of film not been
destroyed. Of course too, the FBI added evidence. From the five
type-written pages they had, the FBI ended up with 21 type-written pages
when they took over the investigation from DPD, and when they combined
'inventories'.
> You are accusing the DPD of faking a photo to cover up the Minox
> camera, all the while they were screaming about how they found a
> Minox!
>
I don't have to. The witnesses that were key, corroborate, and the
amount of evidence in a picture is merely ancilliary.
> >because that's what the FBI wanted
> >done. They made a picture of a Light Meter and sent it back to Dallas
> >trying to convince them that the Minox camera didn't exist, or didn't want
> >it to exist.
>
> Did you even bother to look at the photo at the page I linked?
>
>
Yes, I have no problem with any of the photos.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >And to boot they took a roll of film out of it.
>
> >> >> Citation!
>
> >> >Your picture.
>
> >> Kindly point out the "roll of film" in my picture!
>
> >There is a roll, and I see down below you think it's 35mm. It doesn't
> >matter what film is there, Rose said he took a roll out of the Minox, and
> >also had 9 other rolls of that Minox film. It's obvious they tried to
> >dust it under the rug. The only think is, that too many people were
> >already involved, and some wouldn't retract their findings.
>
> But there is no Minox camera in the photo.
>
> There is a Minox light meter, which is what the FBI *said* was in the
> evidence they got.
>
> >> I frankly don't remember when they took the film, but the photos on it
> >> were taken by Michael Paine.
>
> >One picture was of LHO's friend.
>
> Citation!
>
It would be rather unlikely that Michael Paine would be taking
pictures of LHO's friend, eh?
You can try WC Exhibit 2, item P3, and FBI Airtel from Director, FBI,
to SAC Dallas 5/13/64
> And no, I don't want a citation from a conspiracy book, I want a
> primary source citation.
>
LOL!! You need to buy conspiracy books. They use the WC citations
galore.
> Just which of LHO's friends was on any photo on Minox film.
>
George "Hans" Wilkins. It's in the National Archives. The FBI only
looked into 8 of LHO's friends in the military. They should have looked
at all of them like some Conspiracy Author's did.
> >They were places he had been. They had
> >to get Michael Paine to 'have' a camera and be involved. He already was
> >and was easy, but that's a whole another haystack.
>
> You need to post evidence.
>
> And look at the photo.
>
Of course, thanks.
CJ
curtjester1
> TOP POST
>
> LOL! Ol' CJ is crackers. Let's not forget that he has offered Judyth
> Vary Baker the opportunity to stay at his place in the States and when
> she arrives he is going to do his best to reunite her with whichever
> of *Harvey* and *Lee* that Jaby Ruby didn't plug back in '63.
>
> Hey, Curt, has Judyth come to visit and have you been able to reunite
> her with *Harvey* or *Lee* yet?
>
contact names, Donald O. Norton. Then she would have Paul Harvey's, '
The Rest Of the Story'....:), and they could live happily ever
after.
> You better be careful, Curt. I'm sure the CIA are monitoring your
> every move! :-)
>
Naw, they're afraid of my contacts. They know not to mess with The
Big Whistle Blower!
CJ
curtjester1
> > I
> > hope we don't get you to read all the real evidence concerning this.
> > It's a fair warning. There were handwritten lists, typewritten, and
> > combined, one's with 5 pages, one's with 21 pages......
>
> Do they rely on 15 year old memories? Can you remember any action
> you did 15 years later accurately? Did you eat dinner with anyone 15
> years ago? What did they have?
>
>
Bud, I still remember many things in my childhood. What is so hard to
remember when the FBI asks you to change what you found a few days
after the assassination? Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
macabre.
CJ
Bud
In total, how much, 5 minutes a year? And how much of that is
accurate?
> What is so hard to
> remember when the FBI asks you to change what you found a few days
> after the assassination?
Naturally, they asked where the camera was. They asked, because one
wasn`t sent. A light meter was.
> Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
> these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> macabre.
Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
Like the Mauser rifle, the police made a mistake. Like the Mauser
incident, the evidence the kooks don`t have becomes more real to them
than the evidence in evidence.
curtjester1
> On 20 Dec 2008 21:37:57 -0500, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>
Then define it. You can't get any more 'primary' than a guy taking a
picture of a portion of the confiscated items of LHO, and say he
initialled the camera. A spy camera is unique. It's tiny.
> You are making a lot of assertions. I would like to know what
> documents or testimony you are quoting.
>
That's why people investigate minute things. They are going to come
up with stuff people aren't used to. Hopefully when I post these
things, people will become interested in purchasing their time they
spent in interviewing and going over documents, and visiting the
Archives to get into the topic with all their hundreds of attempted
verifications. "Wanting to know" is the first step. Get the book(s)
if you are going to get all the desired tidbits you would want to
know.
> >> You said that photos (from the Minox camera) were sent to the FBI, and
> >> then came back *different.*
>
> >No, the evidence in general. The Minox was on the FBI's list also, so
> >they had to take it off (obviously)
>
> What do you mean it was on their list??!!
>
Well, they had to create a new list and use the same # to incorporate
a light meter that the DPD did. They took a new photograph of the
light meter and tried to pawn it off on DPD for 'what should be' on
their list. Anyway, at that time the chain of custody was broken,
because they didn't have any list to go on.
> I thought their list had a Minox light meter and no camera? And this
> is what is supposed to be sinister.
>
Correct. Of course they didn't get rid of the camera they did have,
the Minox, and it ended up in the NA.
> >and just put a reason to have light
> >meter only. They wanted to sell that concept back to DPD. It wouldn't
> >fly with the people who found it, and entered it into a list, and
> >photographed it.
>
> >> Kindly explain what evidence you have for that.
>
> >Stovall (the one you use the picture for) and Rose said they initialled
> >the bottom of the camera.
>
> OK, are their initials on the bottom of any *camera?*
>
Should have been on everything.
> >> And please *explain* the evidence. Don't cite books I would have to
> >> borrow from the library -- which I can't do even if I wanted to expend
> >> the effort, since I'm pretty much snowed in.
>
> >If your not going to use books, then how are you to gather evidence for
> >this case? The WC was only a typical Grand Jury, and had to depend on
> >many outside sources for their compilations. A lot of people poke holes
> >in it as well as use it. Certain authors specialize in certain aspects.
> >Obviously, a John Armstrong or a Harold Weisberg is going to know more
> >about FBI evidence and protocol than other authors.
>
> Then cite the primary source documents.
>
>
Everything is as primary as can be. There is no guessing. Like the
Minox in the NA is not the Paine one as can be deducted by the serial
numbers for the models.
>
> >> >> >> Look at the article I cited. It not only has photos of the evidence
> >> >> >> laid out on the floor, it links to a page of Minox cameras and light
> >> >> >> meters.
>
> >> >> >Look at your own picture real close.
>
> >> >> Where is any "Minox camera?"
>
> >> >Who knows, it could be anywhere with all the controversy surrounding it.
>
> >> Huh???!!!
>
> >Your judging a small portion of LHO's claimed belongings by a picture.
> >There were 400-500 items testified to for what James Cadigan saw in
> >Washington. IOW, you can't bank on what you want to see out of a photo
> >and put your whole stake on it. You need to take evidence other's had to
> >say on the matter, and who dealt with the whole process. I mean you can.
> >It's just not wise or prudent, IMO.
>
> But the photo shows a light meter.
>
> And the DPD said there was no light meter, but rather a Minox camera.
>
??. Why do you think DPD said there was no light meter?
> >> You told me to "look at your own picture real close."
>
> >> I have, and it shows a Minox light meter and an *empty* Minox case.
>
> >> In short, the DPD had, in their possession, a Minox light meter. And
> >> an *empty* Minox case.
>
> >> Either they had no Minox camera in their possession at that time, or
> >> they somehow failed to photograph it.
>
> >> And when the FBI claimed to have gotten a light meter -- it sure looks
> >> like they were telling the truth, since a light meter is in the photo.
>
> >No one is disputing a light meter. They also claimed a Minox camera
> >as well, until they wanted to change things.
>
> What do you mean "no not is disputing a light meter?"
>
> I thought the FBI insistence that there was a light meter (rather than
> a camera) was evidence of a coverup?
>
The FBI is not going to be accused of covering up. They are the
accuseees.
> >> >They even had it on the combined sheet after the goods were returned.
> >> >That's what the article is about all the changing of evidence and how they
> >> >were caught with the brown ink and desilvering of the evidence showing
> >> >differences.
>
> >> But the FBI said they received a Minox light meter.
>
> >> The photo from the DPD shows a Minox light meter.
>
> >> It shows *no* Minox camera.
>
> >> Sounds like the FBI got it right, and the DPD messed up.
>
> >If the FBI really got it right, they wouldn't even have taken any of the
> >possessions. They weren't offically authorized too until the 26th. So,
> >they amongst destroying over half the photography filmed evidence, were
> >basically up to things that were making a mockery out of the evidence even
> >if it went to court. Like what was said, the chain of custodial evidence
> >was broken then. LHO would have walked on that alone.
>
> I don't think this is true, and it's not central to the "camera" issue
> anyway.
>
It's well documented, and it's why they wanted to cover up the fact
they took the evidence. They brought all the cameras to DPD on the
26th to make it look like the investigation was starting in their
hands at that time. That's when LBJ 'decreed it', but he knew all the
time how the evidence was going. They didn't take the inventory list
by DPD, so the chain was broken.
> >> >That was a spy camera, and they knew it would be hot
> >> >evidence. They wouldn't treat it cavalierly, and probably had it out, or
> >> >it was just deleted out of the photo,
>
> >> Oh, my!
>
> >It only stands to reason since they made such a major issue over just one
> >item, and had to send agents to try to change the mind of Rose on three
> >separate occasions.
>
> Which was legitimate, since the FBI had been sent a light meter and
> *not* a camera.
>
How can it be 'legit' when the detectives knew it was false? They
refused to back down, because they wouldn't say that it was a light
meter, but rather it was a camera.
> >> The photo was made by the DPD, and has ever since sat in the Dallas
> >> Municipal Archives.
>
> >And there would have been a lot more, had not the rolls of film not been
> >destroyed.
>
> What, precisely, is your evidence that "rolls of film were destroyed?"
>
Just re-read the posting from the beginning. All the FBI-Hoover-
Shanklin-Curry stuff is there and what rolls were taken, and what came
back, and the fact that the negatives were 'gone' as well for the
missing photos.
> >Of course too, the FBI added evidence. From the five
> >type-written pages they had, the FBI ended up with 21 type-written pages
> >when they took over the investigation from DPD, and when they combined
> >'inventories'.
>
> So what?
>
So when you have pictures and evidence of such a differing amount,
there is no quality, and there is no way like your trying to show,
that something was or wasn't there.
> Are you claiming that the FBI just rounded up things from flea markets
> and added it to the evidence?
>
Who knows. It would have to be scutinized.
> >> You are accusing the DPD of faking a photo to cover up the Minox
> >> camera, all the while they were screaming about how they found a
> >> Minox!
>
> >I don't have to. The witnesses that were key, corroborate, and the
> >amount of evidence in a picture is merely ancilliary.
>
> The photo shows a Minox light meter, and *no* camera.
>
Photos are just as subject to scrutiny like anything else. All the
films and photos of the assassination have been questioned to protocol
and authenticity and theft.
> WC Exhibit 2, item P3 SHOWS NO PERSON AT ALL!
>
I don't know if they guy on the pedestal was him or if it was just a
landmark that was depicted in the sentence with a series of photos
with the person. It stated there were numerous photos in the NA. The
only thing one could do would be to verify where where the snapper was
in relation to verified places he might have been.
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>
> As for "Director, FBI, to SAC Dallas 5/13/64" there are several
> documents in the NA database that fit this description.
>
Get the book. He also has a CD just for quotes and cites.
> I don't suppose you could give me an Archives Record Number, could
> you?
>
I am sure you could go to the NA and get to the Minox. Armstrong said
it was 'unworkable, meaning it looks sabotagued, weighing more than it
should and it doesn't have the ability to open to get the serial
number. You can't just check these out to one's possession.
> Have you actually seen this document, or are you taking the word of
> somebody like Armstrong?
>
Do you know somebody that has looked at what is being discussed, or
you just try to look like your attempting to smear someone's
character?
> >> And no, I don't want a citation from a conspiracy book, I want a
> >> primary source citation.
>
> >LOL!! You need to buy conspiracy books. They use the WC citations
> >galore.
>
> Well two you cited above don't work out.
>
Just have to keep working at it. Look at the McLeer site. Things
have to have a logic progression. The No Minox - Slough all to
Michael Paine, is exposed all too well.
> >> Just which of LHO's friends was on any photo on Minox film.
>
> >George "Hans" Wilkins. It's in the National Archives. The FBI only
> >looked into 8 of LHO's friends in the military. They should have looked
> >at all of them like some Conspiracy Author's did.
>
> I want a *citation* on this. Anything in the Archives should have a
> RIF and an associated Record Number.
>
> Vague assurances that "it's in the Archives" carry no weight.
>
You can't dismiss on a broad swipe whim. You have to look at the
overall picture. There's too much damaging evidence that the FBI
wanted covered up and couldn't.
CJ
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
to have 3 meetings by the FBI. Alzheimer patients still could
remember that.
> > What is so hard to
> > remember when the FBI asks you to change what you found a few days
> > after the assassination?
>
> Naturally, they asked where the camera was. They asked, because one
> wasn`t sent. A light meter was.
>
Of course, you were there, and if you weren't you believe exactly all
the diversions they set up so you could swallow them hook, line, and
sinker.
> > Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> > to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
> > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> > macabre.
>
> Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
> and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
> you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
>
Any Paine scenario doesn't work. They have the pictures Oz took in
the NA. They have his camera there too. That's what the FBI did with
it. They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
ruse alive. Then he 'lost' it. So, the camera which could be
identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
only have been Oswald's. Nice lot you put your faith in.
> Like the Mauser rifle, the police made a mistake. Like the Mauser
> incident, the evidence the kooks don`t have becomes more real to them
> than the evidence in evidence.> CJ
>
Everybody is a bumbler on necessity. I wonder by such an important
event they 'ALL' had the propensity to just look at something
cavalierly to 'misidentify' a rifle. Any idiot can look at the
writing that stands out on a rifle.
Bud
Why couldn`t the FBI get the DPD to tow the line on this, aren`t
they supposed to be in cahoots?
> > > What is so hard to
> > > remember when the FBI asks you to change what you found a few days
> > > after the assassination?
>
> > Naturally, they asked where the camera was. They asked, because one
> > wasn`t sent. A light meter was.
>
> Of course, you were there, and if you weren't you believe exactly all
> the diversions they set up so you could swallow them hook, line, and
> sinker.
Well, since you`re the mayor of stupid town, why don`t you give me
the tour? Oswald is a spy. They persuade Oswald that the books in the
TSBD need spying on, and give him a spy camera. So, what does Oswald
do with this sensitive piece of equipment is keep it close to him,
hidden away, so it isn`t stumbled across and blow his cover. No, wait,
he doesn`t do that, he keeps it at someone else`s house, out of his
control. Then the conspirators break into the Paine`s to take his
rifle, and neglect to rummage through his stuff looking to sanitize
his effects of anything that could lead to them. Then, after the
assassination, the DPD (who is in on it or not depending on the needs
of the conspiracy kook`s current story) finds the spy camera amongst
Oswald`s possessions. But, the conspiracy doesn`t control this vital
piece of evidence, it allows it to be logged, and passed on to the
FBI. The FBI decides it must disappear, and somehow they just *know*
that the DPD neglected to photograph it amongst the rest of Oswald`s
stuff, but for some unknown reason, are unable to persuade the DPD to
play ball about the camera. This, or something equally as stupid, is
what you are trying to sell.
> > > Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> > > to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
> > > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> > > macabre.
>
> > Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
> > and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
> > you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
>
> Any Paine scenario doesn't work. They have the pictures Oz took in
> the NA. They have his camera there too. That's what the FBI did with
> it. They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
> ruse alive. Then he 'lost' it. So, the camera which could be
> identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
> sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
> only have been Oswald's. Nice lot you put your faith in.
Produce a photo taken with the Minox that you can establish Oswald
took.
> > Like the Mauser rifle, the police made a mistake. Like the Mauser
> > incident, the evidence the kooks don`t have becomes more real to them
> > than the evidence in evidence.> CJ
>
> Everybody is a bumbler on necessity. I wonder by such an important
> event they 'ALL' had the propensity to just look at something
> cavalierly to 'misidentify' a rifle. Any idiot can look at the
> writing that stands out on a rifle.
A mistake like this is impossible, so it must have been a massive
conspiracy involving hundreds of people, right? Much more likely. The
DPD found a Mauser, but somehow they had Oswald`s Carcano, and made a
switch. They knew who would be there, and they told those people
beforehand that they were going to kill the President, and they would
be needed o make a rifle switch. Even with the press inside filming.
This is why you will never see all this hanky-panky spelled out by
kooks, if they ever wrote it up, it would be so blatantly ridiculous
that it would dismissed even by them as retarded. So they
compartmentalize issues, but never even attempt to bind them together
into a cohesive explanation of the day for consideration. What
difference does in make if you can attack the official explanations if
you have nothing to replace it with?
curtjester1
got lost and even blamed it on their photographer. Read all the
Hoover-Shanklin-Curry stuff. They couldn't obviously get each
indiviual cop to outright lie, but it never became a major obstacle
for them, so they just went on.
His rifle? You need to do a better sales pitch. Others claimed he
had a Minox, but they could have planted it...but that's not any issue
of import. It had pictures a film and it was an expensive camera and
it couldn't be tied to Michael Paine. Anything found would have to be
scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
trial.
> > > > Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> > > > to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
> > > > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> > > > macabre.
>
> > > Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
> > > and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
> > > you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
>
> > Any Paine scenario doesn't work. They have the pictures Oz took in
> > the NA. They have his camera there too. That's what the FBI did with
> > it. They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
> > ruse alive. Then he 'lost' it. So, the camera which could be
> > identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
> > sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
> > only have been Oswald's. Nice lot you put your faith in.
>
> Produce a photo taken with the Minox that you can establish Oswald
> took.
>
All I had is one cite for it that the WC put into it, and McAdams
pulled it up. The author claimed the camera and pics are in the NA,
which can't leave the premises.
> > > Like the Mauser rifle, the police made a mistake. Like the Mauser
> > > incident, the evidence the kooks don`t have becomes more real to them
> > > than the evidence in evidence.> CJ
>
> > Everybody is a bumbler on necessity. I wonder by such an important
> > event they 'ALL' had the propensity to just look at something
> > cavalierly to 'misidentify' a rifle. Any idiot can look at the
> > writing that stands out on a rifle.
>
> A mistake like this is impossible, so it must have been a massive
> conspiracy involving hundreds of people, right? Much more likely. The
> DPD found a Mauser, but somehow they had Oswald`s Carcano, and made a
> switch. They knew who would be there, and they told those people
> beforehand that they were going to kill the President, and they would
> be needed o make a rifle switch. Even with the press inside filming.
> This is why you will never see all this hanky-panky spelled out by
> kooks, if they ever wrote it up, it would be so blatantly ridiculous
> that it would dismissed even by them as retarded. So they
> compartmentalize issues, but never even attempt to bind them together
> into a cohesive explanation of the day for consideration. What
> difference does in make if you can attack the official explanations if
> you have nothing to replace it with?
I am sure the city of Dallas felt the heat of power right from the get-
go and everybody knew it was a this-way-only situation no matter what
they thought, and anything other was unacceptable and that would
include evidence. For conspiracy you need the key players in the
power structure of the country. If they didn't want the conspiracy to
succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
As long as they could make issues controversial is all they cared.
They knew that experts couldn't fire all the bullets to moving
targets, but as long as the country didn't ultimately care, they would
just snub their noses and obfuscate like they did almost everything
else, including the Minox.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Dec 21, 6:55=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 5:11 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>m, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 20, 5:39 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 20, 5:26 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 20, 1:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 9:19 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...=
>@netscape.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 10:52 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail=
>.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 18, 8:43 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marq=
>uette.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Dec 2008 08:56:27 -0500, curtjester1 <curtj=
>est...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Dec 17, 9:17 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@m=
>arquette.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 17 Dec 2008 21:13:14 -0500, curtjester1 <cu=
>rtjest...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >On the subject in the past a few months ago, =
>I posted on the subject
>=A0(Aberrations In Oswald's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >Possessions)
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy=
>.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >Start of Part II and the Finish:
>>
>ose refusing to change
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >the inventory under the FBI's insistence...it=
> proceeds:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >(Both Drain and DeBrueys should have asked th=
>em who instructed them to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >create a new inventory at FBI Headquarters.)
>>
>ng that Oswald owned a
>t he had intelligence
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >connections, the Bureau sought and received h=
>elp from Ruth and Michael
>ell Odum ALLEGEDLY obtained
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >a Minox II camera, serial number 27529, from =
>Michael Paine. =A0The
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >Bureau then announced that the Minox camera i=
>n their custody belong to
>ther was said about the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >Minox camera to Dallas Police).)
>>
>LLEGEDLY returned the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >Minox camera to Ruth Paine in Irving, Texas. =
>=A0 Michael Paine, on the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >nationally televised broadcast television pro=
>gram Frontline (1994),
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >confirmed the Minox camera had been returned =
>to him by the FBI and
>UT THERE WAS STILL A
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >PROBLEM**)
>>
>III* camera, found by the
> camera is inoperable, is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >unable to be opened, and therefore the serial=
> number remains unknown.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >The Minox Corporation (and their website) adv=
>ises that the Minox III
> 31275 thru 58499.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >Therefore, the Minox which the FBI obtained f=
>rom Michael Paine on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >January 31, 1964 (serial number 27259) was no=
>t the camera found by
>chives. =A0The serial
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >number of Michael Paine's camera, listed on a=
>n FBI Airtel of 2/2/64,
>ras were manufactured
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >with serial numbers up to 31500. =A0The FBI's=
> attempt TO HIDE the fact
>e best known and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >documented examples of their attempts to alte=
>r and fabricate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >evidence.)
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This is nonsense.
>>
>ps collected, and it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> shows a Minox light meter, and a *empty* Minox=
> case.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> .John
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.=
>htm-Hidequotedtext-
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >The Minox Camera from Jerry McLeer's site:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.geocities.com/jfkresearch/minox.htm
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at the link I supplied, will ya?
>>
>t Tom posted.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > >http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm(LookforGuyRose'stest=
>imony)
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Stovall and Rose both initialled as in etched, thei=
>r initials in the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > base of the camera. =A0Also Alexander tells about t=
>he camera.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > The DPD photo shows an empty Minox case, and a Mi=
>nox light meter.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > It also shows the roll of film next to the camera. =
>=A0This had to be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > different than any film discovered in conjunction t=
>o Michael Paine, who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > they said they retrieved two rolls of film from the=
>ir place on 11/26/63.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>like several claimed
>> > > > > > > > > > > CTers on here who accept NOTHING but governmental stu=
>ff as he always says
>s the end all, be all
>the same thing since
>> > > > > > > > > > > he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise (and only=
> a quarter of one
>> > > > > > > > > > > with it!).
>>
>o, does that remind
>> > > > > > > > > > > you of anyone else?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>ir over there.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 <snicker> No, idiot, it`s the exact opposite. "Preach=
>ing to the
>> > > > > > > > > choir" is trying to persuade people that already think as=
> you do.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Well, isn't that just how you take it? =A0Of course MCacade=
>miaNut is the
>> > > > > > > > preacher over there, and the choir folk just nod. =A0Well, =
>kind of like
>> > > > > > > > yourself.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Just like to stir the pot over there, and see how the g=
>uvmint likes to
>> > > > > > > > > > slither. =A0I don't really have a clue on your *primary=
> suspect* there,
>> > > > > > > > > > but I like how he thinks one picture is *only primary* =
>and all the
>> > > > > > > > > > other evidence is *non* or *secondary*.
>>
>identified as a
>> > > > > > > > > camera. Thats why there is a light meter shown, and no ca=
>mera in the
>> > > > > > > > > evidence photo. This article presents the available infor=
>mation...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m=
>inox.htm
>>
>> > > > > > > > Yeah, funny thing about the site, it avoids the other sites=
>. =A0Stovall
>> > > > > > > > the guy who took the pic didn't take all of the 400-500 ite=
>ms, and
>> > > > > > > > there was one small item that the article forgot, that bein=
>g that the
>> > > > > > > > guy who took the picture put his initials on the bottom of =
>the minox
>> > > > > > > > camera (not light meter). =A0Oh, if you read what I posted,=
> you might
>> > > > > > > > have something more intelligent to say, than parroting some=
>body that's
>> > > > > > > > not prone to discuss the case too much...<ho ho ho>
>>
>d on the
>> > > > > > > property list? A camera listed, but not shown. A light meter =
>shown (in
>> > > > > > > a camera case no less), but not listed. Put on your thinking =
>cap,
>> > > > > > > Sherlock.
>>
>> > > > > > You can't take anything out of a light meter, much less open it=
> up.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 That doesn`t address what I said. Why doesn`t the light meter=
> appear
>> > > > > on the property lists?
>>
>>
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > hope we don't get you to read all the real evidence concerning =
>this.
>> > > > > > It's a fair warning. =A0There were handwritten lists, typewritt=
>en, and
>> > > > > > combined, one's with 5 pages, one's with 21 pages......
>>
>tion
>> > > > > you did 15 years later accurately? Did you eat dinner with anyone=
> 15
>> > > > > years ago? What did they have?
>>
>> > > > Bud, I still remember many things in my childhood.
>>
>> > > accurate?
>>
>> > They didn't have to remember an obscure event. =A0It was controversial
>> > to have 3 meetings by the FBI. =A0Alzheimer patients still could
>> > remember that.
>>
>> =A0 Why couldn`t the FBI get the DPD to tow the line on this, aren`t
>> they supposed to be in cahoots?
>>
>They did, they ran right over them, and made them buy into their film
>got lost and even blamed it on their photographer. Read all the
>Hoover-Shanklin-Curry stuff. They couldn't obviously get each
>indiviual cop to outright lie, but it never became a major obstacle
>for them, so they just went on.
>
>> > > > remember when the FBI asks you to change what you found a few days
>> > > > after the assassination?
>>
>ne
>> > > wasn`t sent. A light meter was.
>>
>> > Of course, you were there, and if you weren't you believe exactly all
>> > the diversions they set up so you could swallow them hook, line, and
>> > sinker.
>>
>> the tour? Oswald is a spy. They persuade Oswald that the books in the
>> TSBD need spying on, and give him a spy camera. So, what does Oswald
>> do with this sensitive piece of equipment is keep it close to him,
>> hidden away, so it isn`t stumbled across and blow his cover. No, wait,
>> he doesn`t do that, he keeps it at someone else`s house, out of his
>> control. Then the conspirators break into the Paine`s to take his
>> his effects of anything that could lead to them. Then, after the
>> assassination, the DPD (who is in on it or not depending on the needs
>> of the conspiracy kook`s current story) finds the spy camera amongst
>> Oswald`s possessions. But, the conspiracy doesn`t control this vital
>> piece of evidence, it allows it to be logged, and passed on to the
>> FBI. The FBI decides it must disappear, and somehow they just *know*
>> that the DPD neglected to photograph it amongst the rest of Oswald`s
>> stuff, but for some unknown reason, are unable to persuade the DPD to
>> play ball about the camera. This, or something equally as stupid, is
>> what you are trying to sell.
>>
>His rifle? You need to do a better sales pitch. Others claimed he
>had a Minox, but they could have planted it...but that's not any issue
>of import. It had pictures a film and it was an expensive camera and
>it couldn't be tied to Michael Paine. Anything found would have to be
>scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
>trial.
>
>> > > > to change that fact that he found the camera? =A0You seem to latch =
>to
>> > > > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
>> > > > macabre.
>>
>nt,
>> > > and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
>> > > you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
>>
>> > the NA. =A0They have his camera there too. =A0That's what the FBI did w=
>ith
>> > it. =A0They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
>> > ruse alive. =A0Then he 'lost' it. =A0So, the camera which could be
>> > identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
>> > sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
>>
>> Produce a photo taken with the Minox that you can establish Oswald
>> took.
In 1978, researcher A. J. Weberman obtained copies of the Minox photos under an
FOIA request. According to Weberman:
"The two rolls of Minox film that were taken with Michael Paine's Minox camera
contained photos of a trip to Europe. The roll that was not taken with Michael
Paine's camera seem to have been photographed in either Qemoy or Matsu. The
photographs depicted several Marines horsing around on a large military vessel;
a shot a tanker and LST-845P, shots of an island from offshore; shots entering
a harbor; Asian children walking past a heavily fortified military base; a
Chinese funeral passing the perimeter of the base, and a photo of OSWALD with
an M-16."
>All I had is one cite for it that the WC put into it, and McAdams
>pulled it up. The author claimed the camera and pics are in the NA,
>which can't leave the premises.
>
>> > > =A0 Like the Mauser rifle, the police made a mistake. Like the Mauser
>> > > incident, the evidence the kooks don`t have becomes more real to them
>> > > than the evidence in evidence.> CJ
>>
>> > Everybody is a bumbler on necessity. =A0 I wonder by such an important
>> > event they 'ALL' had the propensity to just look at something
>> > cavalierly to 'misidentify' a rifle. =A0Any idiot can look at the
>> > writing that stands out on a rifle.
>>
>> =A0 A mistake like this is impossible, so it must have been a massive
Bud
> In article <57afde70-b3bf-443a-b158-ef90324d3...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Have you ever seen them, Ben?
> "The two rolls of Minox film that were taken with Michael Paine's Minox camera
> contained photos of a trip to Europe.
Who in Europe? The Paines?
>The roll that was not taken with Michael
> Paine's camera seem to have been photographed in either Qemoy or Matsu.
Was this roll 35mm?
>The
> photographs depicted several Marines horsing around on a large military vessel;
> a shot a tanker and LST-845P, shots of an island from offshore; shots entering
> a harbor; Asian children walking past a heavily fortified military base; a
> Chinese funeral passing the perimeter of the base, and a photo of OSWALD with
> an M-16."
An M-16? That wasn`t ordered by the Army until November, 1963.
Oswald was busy being dead then.
And a roll of film showing Oz in the military is hardy spy material.
Bud
Stay focussed, we`re talking about the camera here.
> Read all the
> Hoover-Shanklin-Curry stuff.
There is no point for me to invest a lot of time on this, you`ve
shown you prefer nonsense, and I can`t do your thinking for you. You
showed me with the "Carr" issue that even when something is
indisputably shown to you, you will still cling to nonsense.
> They couldn't obviously get each
> indiviual cop to outright lie,
Why not? You kooks seem to think they can get anyone to say anything
they require. You said there was three meeting about the camera. To
hear kooks tell it, Fritz was the conspiracy`s man in the DPD. What
happened was what you would expect if there was a discrepancy between
what the DPD said they sent and what the FBI received. They had
meetings to try to resolve it. If things were as the kooks allege, the
conspiracy calls Fritz, and has him tell his man to say he found a
light meter. The photographs would back him up, as no photo of the
camera exists. Instead, Fritz tell Rose to stick to what he believes,
the opposite of what you would expect if things were as the kooks say.
> but it never became a major obstacle
> for them, so they just went on.
You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
do?
Other than it being in his house and him saying it was his.
> Anything found would have to be
> scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> trial.
Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
scrutinized.
> > > > > Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> > > > > to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
> > > > > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> > > > > macabre.
>
> > > > Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
> > > > and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
> > > > you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
>
> > > Any Paine scenario doesn't work. They have the pictures Oz took in
> > > the NA. They have his camera there too. That's what the FBI did with
> > > it. They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
> > > ruse alive. Then he 'lost' it. So, the camera which could be
> > > identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
> > > sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
> > > only have been Oswald's. Nice lot you put your faith in.
>
> > Produce a photo taken with the Minox that you can establish Oswald
> > took.
>
> All I had is one cite for it that the WC put into it, and McAdams
> pulled it up. The author claimed the camera and pics are in the NA,
> which can't leave the premises.
The dog ate my evidence. Ignore what you have, make claims that what
you don`t have would support you if you had it.
To show conspiracy, what you kooks need is someone coming forward
and saying "We found a Mauser, and I was told to switch it with the
Carcano I was given", or "There was a camera, and my superior ordered
me to make it disappear". People need to perform all tasks of
conspiracy, and people talk. You don`t have anyone coming forward
telling their role in any of the thousands of acts of conspiracy you
kooks allege. You will never be able to produce such people who did
the mechanics and logistics of the operation you imagine because it
the conspiracy only exists in your imagination.
> If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
> happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
> didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
That is what you desperately want to believe.
> As long as they could make issues controversial is all they cared.
> They knew that experts couldn't fire all the bullets to moving
> targets, but as long as the country didn't ultimately care, they would
> just snub their noses and obfuscate like they did almost everything
> else, including the Minox.
You guys love the confusion and discrepancies. What else would you
have to chew on if people were flawless? When Jerrol Custer helped
remove Kennedy from the coffin to the table at the autopsy, he said
Kennedy was wearing a suit. Everyone else at Parkland Bethesda says he
had no clothes on. If you rule out he was mistaken as an explanation,
what kind of fantastic tale do we need to contrive to explain the
discrepancy? Two Kennedys, one clothed, one naked? You see, as soon a
you rule out the most likely answer, you are left with only
unreasonable fantastic ones (which you want anyway). Same with Jean
Hill saying there was a dog in the limo. If we rule out she was
mistaken, we need some kind amazing tale to explain why it doesn`t
appear on film. You idiots are just eager to jump over the most common
cause of these mistakes, human error, to get to the promised land of
conspiracy.
curtjester1
> > Read all the
> > Hoover-Shanklin-Curry stuff.
>
> There is no point for me to invest a lot of time on this, you`ve
> shown you prefer nonsense, and I can`t do your thinking for you. You
> showed me with the "Carr" issue that even when something is
> indisputably shown to you, you will still cling to nonsense.
>
It was all in the original post. LNT'ers never spend a lot of time.
Nothing new.
> > They couldn't obviously get each
> > indiviual cop to outright lie,
>
> Why not? You kooks seem to think they can get anyone to say anything
> they require. You said there was three meeting about the camera. To
> hear kooks tell it, Fritz was the conspiracy`s man in the DPD. What
> happened was what you would expect if there was a discrepancy between
> what the DPD said they sent and what the FBI received. They had
> meetings to try to resolve it. If things were as the kooks allege, the
> conspiracy calls Fritz, and has him tell his man to say he found a
> light meter. The photographs would back him up, as no photo of the
> camera exists. Instead, Fritz tell Rose to stick to what he believes,
> the opposite of what you would expect if things were as the kooks say.
>
Call it what you want, but is was just glossed over. Fritz seems to
be on the side of conspiracy by not telling them what to think. Get a
grip.
> > but it never became a major obstacle
> > for them, so they just went on.
>
> You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
> do?
>
Decades? It was right after the assassination all with a few days.
How many Marina lies? a hundred? a thousand? Wow, you are sure
going for the throat...:<grin wink>
> > Anything found would have to be
> > scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> > trial.
>
> Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
> scrutinized.
>
Just the fact it was paid attention to should be a red flag. Who
would care about spending time on a stupid camera?
> > > > > > Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> > > > > > to change that fact that he found the camera? You seem to latch to
> > > > > > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> > > > > > macabre.
>
> > > > > Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
> > > > > and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
> > > > > you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
>
> > > > Any Paine scenario doesn't work. They have the pictures Oz took in
> > > > the NA. They have his camera there too. That's what the FBI did with
> > > > it. They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
> > > > ruse alive. Then he 'lost' it. So, the camera which could be
> > > > identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
> > > > sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
> > > > only have been Oswald's. Nice lot you put your faith in.
>
> > > Produce a photo taken with the Minox that you can establish Oswald
> > > took.
>
> > All I had is one cite for it that the WC put into it, and McAdams
> > pulled it up. The author claimed the camera and pics are in the NA,
> > which can't leave the premises.
>
> The dog ate my evidence. Ignore what you have, make claims that what
> you don`t have would support you if you had it.
>
Typical LNT'er. Avoid truth and proof, and demand more.
They did. They did need that one quashed. If you don't get your
way, you send the guy to the nuthouse. And that's where Weitzman
ended up.
> > If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> > succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
> > happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
> > didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
>
> That is what you desperately want to believe.
>
If the shoe fits you wear it. All aspects of the assassination's
evidence and covering up point to just that.
> > As long as they could make issues controversial is all they cared.
> > They knew that experts couldn't fire all the bullets to moving
> > targets, but as long as the country didn't ultimately care, they would
> > just snub their noses and obfuscate like they did almost everything
> > else, including the Minox.
>
> You guys love the confusion and discrepancies. What else would you
> have to chew on if people were flawless? When Jerrol Custer helped
> remove Kennedy from the coffin to the table at the autopsy, he said
> Kennedy was wearing a suit. Everyone else at Parkland Bethesda says he
> had no clothes on. If you rule out he was mistaken as an explanation,
> what kind of fantastic tale do we need to contrive to explain the
> discrepancy? Two Kennedys, one clothed, one naked? You see, as soon a
> you rule out the most likely answer, you are left with only
> unreasonable fantastic ones (which you want anyway). Same with Jean
> Hill saying there was a dog in the limo. If we rule out she was
> mistaken, we need some kind amazing tale to explain why it doesn`t
> appear on film. You idiots are just eager to jump over the most common
> cause of these mistakes, human error, to get to the promised land of
> conspiracy.
You love when five people corroborate such as what Custer said and
pick on something stupid like being naked and stuff. He was wrapped
in a sheet, naked.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Dec 22, 7:36 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You guys love the confusion and discrepancies. What else would you
> > have to chew on if people were flawless? When Jerrol Custer helped
> > remove Kennedy from the coffin to the table at the autopsy, he said
> > Kennedy was wearing a suit. Everyone else at Parkland Bethesda says he
> > had no clothes on. If you rule out he was mistaken as an explanation,
> > what kind of fantastic tale do we need to contrive to explain the
> > discrepancy? Two Kennedys, one clothed, one naked? You see, as soon a
> > you rule out the most likely answer, you are left with only
> > unreasonable fantastic ones (which you want anyway). Same with Jean
> > Hill saying there was a dog in the limo. If we rule out she was
> > mistaken, we need some kind amazing tale to explain why it doesn`t
> > appear on film. You idiots are just eager to jump over the most common
> > cause of these mistakes, human error, to get to the promised land of
> > conspiracy.
>
>
> KooK KluBBers believe in the alway pliable, ever morphing, all
> encompassing JFK conspiracy which holds that they do not need to
> produce evidence...in fact, lack of evidence is terrific proof that
> the conspiracy was widespread and pernicious.
>
> To KooK KluBBers, the WCR and HSCA report is a treasure trove of
> interviews and bits of evidence that can be isolated individually from
> the whole to produce whatever outcome they want. When it suits their
> purposes, they feel free to quote from the record to back their silly
> contentions. When the interviews and evidence is inconvenient, it's
> dismissed as the product of evil men bent on covering up the truth.
> The FBI, DPD and CIA are alternately circus clowns unable to
> coordinate the simplest of tasks, or brilliant tacticians led by
> Lyndon "Brains" Johnson, melding together multi-agency evil into a
> potent fist bent on smashing the poor, heroic Lee Oswald. This evil
> force is powerful and continues to cast its gloomy shadow into 21st
> century life. Fortunately, we have brave souls like CJ, ready to
> Google his way to a solution for the Crime of the 20th Century--
> personal safety be damned.
Onward and forward with the band playing 'A Few Good Men'.
CJ
curtjester1
Certainly pertinent. I had read that either in the McLeer link or in
the Armstrong stuff I posted. Too bad though I couldn't pull up more
Stovall pics or other's past the 26th (if they exist) showing a watch
on the DPD basement floor...:). Don't want to be a liar, so maybe I
missed it.
CJ
curtjester1
over $200 on a little camera, and when it comes to killing a
President, he decides to go the cheap route. Stupid guy for being a
spy anyway, since a mail order rifle could be traced....
CJ
Bud
What meetings. When did they occur? Who was present? Do you have
anything besides Rose`s fifteen year recollection that these meetings
occurred?
> > > �Read all the
> > > Hoover-Shanklin-Curry stuff.
> >
> > � There is no point for me to invest a lot of time on this, you`ve
> > shown you prefer nonsense, and I can`t do your thinking for you. You
> > showed me with the "Carr" issue that even when something is
> > indisputably shown to you, you will still cling to nonsense.
> >
> It was all in the original post. LNT'ers never spend a lot of time.
> Nothing new.
>
> > > �They couldn't obviously get each
> > > indiviual cop to outright lie,
> >
> > � Why not? You kooks seem to think they can get anyone to say anything
> > they require. You said there was three meeting about the camera. To
> > hear kooks tell it, Fritz was the conspiracy`s man in the DPD. What
> > happened was what you would expect if there was a discrepancy between
> > what the DPD said they sent and what the FBI received. They had
> > meetings to try to resolve it. If things were as the kooks allege, the
> > conspiracy calls Fritz, and has him tell his man to say he found a
> > light meter. The photographs would back him up, as no photo of the
> > camera exists. Instead, Fritz tell Rose to stick to what he believes,
> > the opposite of what you would expect if things were as the kooks say.
> >
> Call it what you want, but is was just glossed over. Fritz seems to
> be on the side of conspiracy by not telling them what to think. Get a
> grip.
I`m trying to. If you kooks would ever get around to piecing all
these things together into a cohesive package I wouldn`t need to keep
pointing out these things that make no sense, as what you produced
would do that for me.
> > > but it never became a major obstacle
> > > for them, so they just went on.
> >
> > � You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
> > do?
> >
> Decades? It was right after the assassination all with a few days.
Other than the property lists and evidence photo, what are you
producing evidence-wise from within a few days of the assassination?
As I said, the photo shows a light meter in a camera case and no
camera, and the property lists indicate a camera with and light meter.
This suggests a mistake. Everything you are producing about
initialing, pulling film from the camera and meetings all is the
product of a 15 year old recollection as far as I can tell.
> > > > > > > �What is so hard to
Do you understand what you said that I replied to?
> > > �Anything found would have to be
> > > scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> > > trial.
> >
> > � Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
> > scrutinized.
> >
> Just the fact it was paid attention to should be a red flag.
And if the discrepancy was ignored, that also would be a red flag to
kooks.
> Who
> would care about spending time on a stupid camera?
>
> > > > > > > �Why would he refuse in 3 different sessions
> > > > > > > to change that fact that he found the camera? �You seem to latch to
> > > > > > > these strange scenarios, and then it just escalates into the
> > > > > > > macabre.
> >
> > > > > > � Mr Paine said it was his camera, and film and photography equipment,
> > > > > > and that he owned the Minox, and the police had not taken it. What do
> > > > > > you have that negates this? That you kooks are suspicious of him?
> >
> > > > > Any Paine scenario doesn't work. �They have the pictures Oz took in
> > > > > the NA. �They have his camera there too. �That's what the FBI did with
> > > > > it. �They 'returned' Michael Paines camera to him to try to keep the
> > > > > ruse alive. �Then he 'lost' it. �So, the camera which could be
> > > > > identified by the model of Minox is still in the NA even though they
> > > > > sabotaged it so it can't be opened up is still and could be and could
> > > > > only have been Oswald's. �Nice lot you put your faith in.
> >
> > > > � Produce a photo taken with the Minox that you can establish Oswald
> > > > took.
> >
> > > All I had is one cite for it that the WC put into it, and McAdams
> > > pulled it up. �The author claimed the camera and pics are in the NA,
> > > which can't leave the premises.
> >
> > � The dog ate my evidence. Ignore what you have, make claims that what
> > you don`t have would support you if you had it.
> >
> Typical LNT'er. Avoid truth and proof, and demand more.
The photos are the proof. You can`t produce them, right?
> > > > > > � Like the Mauser rifle, the police made a mistake. Like the Mauser
You will too if you keep reading those kook books.
> > > �If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> > > succeed, they would have raised heck. �Instead they made sure it
> > > happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. �They
> > > didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
> >
> > � That is what you desperately want to believe.
> >
> If the shoe fits you wear it. All aspects of the assassination's
> evidence and covering up point to just that.
Actually what exists in evidence could not exist unless Oswald was
the person who killed Kennedy.
> > > As long as they could make issues controversial is all they cared.
> > > They knew that experts couldn't fire all the bullets to moving
> > > targets, but as long as the country didn't ultimately care, they would
> > > just snub their noses and obfuscate like they did almost everything
> > > else, including the Minox.
> >
> > � You guys love the confusion and discrepancies. What else would you
> > have to chew on if people were flawless? When Jerrol Custer helped
> > remove Kennedy from the coffin to the table at the autopsy, he said
> > Kennedy was wearing a suit. Everyone else at Parkland Bethesda says he
> > had no clothes on. If you rule out he was mistaken as an explanation,
> > what kind of fantastic tale do we need to contrive to explain the
> > discrepancy? Two Kennedys, one clothed, one naked? You see, as soon a
> > you rule out the most likely answer, you are left with only
> > unreasonable fantastic ones (which you want anyway). Same with Jean
> > Hill saying there was a dog in the limo. If we rule out she was
> > mistaken, we need some kind amazing tale to explain why it doesn`t
> > appear on film. You idiots are just eager to jump over the most common
> > cause of these mistakes, human error, to get to the promised land of
> > conspiracy.
>
> You love when five people corroborate such as what Custer said and
> pick on something stupid like being naked and stuff. He was wrapped
> in a sheet, naked.
Ah, Custer thought he was going to a toga party. But, I need you to
explain why he said Kennedy was wearing a *suit*. Remember, your are
not allowed to suggest it was the result of a mistaken recollection.
Bud
If there is a coherent thought in that somewhere, I can`t find it.
But a least now Ben might see my response and explain how Oswald can
be seen holding a rifle that wasn`t available until 1963 in a photo
probably taken around 1959ish.
curtjester1
story. Rose was in on meetings before the FBI and Fritz were
interrogating Oswald. He was a main player in the gathering of
evidence. Your even worse than a WC Shill as you assume that those
conversations and testimonies are sacred and further committees are
somehow 'shaky'. You ask stuff like how do we know that a water
cooler existed for people to have conversations around. It's just
good enough for most that said he did. If you don't believe him
that's your scenario. If you want to live and depend on those, then
your just going to be your own island. Don't expect any visitors.
That's all the article did, as well as Jerry McLeer's research. It
pieced together all the apparent pieces that were uncomfortable for
the FBI and DPD when they already had LHO 'pronounced' guilty. You
have the chain of custody broken via secret taking of some of the
evidence on the first night. More evidence followed then it got
returned and what was given the Public was the appearance of a
rightful investigation NOW ensuing. They were hiding stuff, and it
wasn't just the Minox Camera. You simply want to accept their
protocol's and then attempt to defend it by making all these apolgetic
excuses for them. That's what WC Shills do, and we're used to that.
> > > > but it never became a major obstacle
> > > > for them, so they just went on.
>
> > > You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
> > > do?
>
> > Decades? It was right after the assassination all with a few days.
>
> Other than the property lists and evidence photo, what are you
> producing evidence-wise from within a few days of the assassination?
> As I said, the photo shows a light meter in a camera case and no
> camera, and the property lists indicate a camera with and light meter.
> This suggests a mistake. Everything you are producing about
> initialing, pulling film from the camera and meetings all is the
> product of a 15 year old recollection as far as I can tell.
>
Everybody and everyone who could be involved from their chief FBI
evidence man James Cadigan, to the guy that absounded with the
evidence, Vince Drain, the emerging of new lists, the losing of
valuable photography and all the conversations and new protocols after
that. It's just everything that's pertinent to the gathering of
evidence. And their were more than just one person with comments
about the camera. And there were two initiallers. And there were
other teams that went out to the Paines at different times. You just
have to involve yourself with the processess of evidence. You sit
back like an armchair quarterback and scenarioize. Your too lazy to
buy a book, so that's all you get for as far as looking into the
matter and responses. I have nothing to prove to you the evidence is
there, and that's how cases are decided in court, by the preponderance
evidence, not the guesswork of armchair quarterbacks. Tis rather
stupid to even have a HSCA committee if human brains were not capable
of recollecting events in their life, don't you think?
When you talk about conspirators going into a house and taking a
rifle, what else can one possibly expect?
> > > > Anything found would have to be
> > > > scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> > > > trial.
>
> > > Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
> > > scrutinized.
>
> > Just the fact it was paid attention to should be a red flag.
>
> And if the discrepancy was ignored, that also would be a red flag to
> kooks.
>
The only thing of import to a curious investigator is that there were
people taking a small tiny camera. Anyone would want to know where
and why it went, and how it could have related to the assassination or
anyone related to it.
How can they be ultimate proof when chain of custody has been broken
and photos and negatives have been lost, nor all the evidence that was
detailed was in that one photo? Typical LNT'er can't follow the flow
of evidence and protocols, and will sit with one photo. Then there
will be stuff that comes out of a camera that depicts someone looking
exactly like Oswald, and they will attribute it to Michael Paine's
stuff. Of course no LNT would ever take a trip to the NA, and whoever
did would not have seen correctly. When they don't offer any
substantial proof for their assertion, they merely put minute holes in
the other.
Of course you know how the Roger Craig's and Seymour Weitzman's
apply. Your Bud, the super scenario sleuth.
> > > > If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> > > > succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
> > > > happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
> > > > didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
>
> > > That is what you desperately want to believe.
>
> > If the shoe fits you wear it. All aspects of the assassination's
> > evidence and covering up point to just that.
>
> Actually what exists in evidence could not exist unless Oswald was
> the person who killed Kennedy.
>
Yeah, like BY Photos, and Klein's Coupons, Minox Cameras, and long
packages. Go, Bud, Go.
Five people seeing a bullet drop to the floor means nothing when you
have a dog in a limo to chase for Bud.
CJ
Bud
I didn`t ask you to repeat the claim, I asked you what you have from
the time saying the meetings occurred?
> Rose was in on meetings before the FBI and Fritz were
> interrogating Oswald. He was a main player in the gathering of
> evidence. Your even worse than a WC Shill as you assume that those
> conversations and testimonies are sacred and further committees are
> somehow 'shaky'. You ask stuff like how do we know that a water
> cooler existed for people to have conversations around. It's just
> good enough for most that said he did.
Fifteen years after the fact. You have to look at the information in
context.
> If you don't believe him
> that's your scenario. If you want to live and depend on those, then
> your just going to be your own island. Don't expect any visitors.
I dug a moat around my island to keep you idiots out.
There was a discrepancy, and the FBI tried to resolve it. The fact
is that the evidence photo backs up their contention that they were
sent a light meter and not a camera.
> when they already had LHO 'pronounced' guilty.
Oswald committing the crime is what leads people to conclude he
committed the crime.
> You
> have the chain of custody broken via secret taking of some of the
> evidence on the first night. More evidence followed then it got
> returned and what was given the Public was the appearance of a
> rightful investigation NOW ensuing. They were hiding stuff, and it
> wasn't just the Minox Camera. You simply want to accept their
> protocol's and then attempt to defend it by making all these apolgetic
> excuses for them. That's what WC Shills do, and we're used to that.
And you are doing what kooks do, chew on discrepancies for decades.
Like I said, you can`t go anywhere with these things until you have
someone performing these tasks coming clean. You can`t do it using the
approach from the outside in, saying "explain this to my satisfaction,
or I will believe stupid shit". You need someone on the inside, saying
"I was ordered to make this evidence disappear". And you will never
produce one of the people doing the tasks, because the tasks exist
only between kook ears.
> > > > > but it never became a major obstacle
> > > > > for them, so they just went on.
> >
> > > > You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
> > > > do?
> >
> > > Decades? �It was right after the assassination all with a few days.
> >
> > � Other than the property lists and evidence photo, what are you
> > producing evidence-wise from within a few days of the assassination?
> > As I said, the photo shows a light meter in a camera case and no
> > camera, and the property lists indicate a camera with and light meter.
> > This suggests a mistake. Everything you are producing about
> > initialing, pulling film from the camera and meetings all is the
> > product of a 15 year old recollection as far as I can tell.
> >
> Everybody and everyone who could be involved from their chief FBI
> evidence man James Cadigan, to the guy that absounded with the
> evidence, Vince Drain, the emerging of new lists, the losing of
> valuable photography and all the conversations and new protocols after
> that. It's just everything that's pertinent to the gathering of
> evidence. And their were more than just one person with comments
> about the camera. And there were two initiallers.
What do you have from 1963 from someone saying they initialed the
camera? Did Stowell ever say he initialed the camera? Does the light
meter have the initials of these men?
> And there were
> other teams that went out to the Paines at different times. You just
> have to involve yourself with the processess of evidence. You sit
> back like an armchair quarterback and scenarioize. Your too lazy to
> buy a book, so that's all you get for as far as looking into the
> matter and responses. I have nothing to prove to you the evidence is
> there, and that's how cases are decided in court, by the preponderance
> evidence, not the guesswork of armchair quarterbacks.
Exactly how Oswald would have been found guilty.
> Tis rather
> stupid to even have a HSCA committee if human brains were not capable
> of recollecting events in their life, don't you think?
Yah, it is. The investigation was a waste of time and money. What
did it accomplish? The people who could figure out what occurred
didn`t need a new investigation, and the kooks are still stumped.
(BTW, when you start a sentence with "Tis" you sound like that
pretentious asshole gasbag Holmes.)
What do you suppose happened to the rifle Oswald is holding in
those photos if Marina is lying about it being in the Paine`s garage?
Most of the lies Marina told were on her husbands behalf. When she
figured out that it was in her best interests to tell the truth, the
truth incriminated her husband because her husband was guilty.
> > > > > Anything found would have to be
> > > > > scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> > > > > trial.
> >
> > > > Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
> > > > scrutinized.
> >
> > > Just the fact it was paid attention to should be a red flag.
> >
> > � And if the discrepancy was ignored, that also would be a red flag to
> > kooks.
> >
> The only thing of import to a curious investigator is that there were
> people taking a small tiny camera.
Show it in the evidence photo. Why wouldn`t it be with the camera
stuff seized?
> Anyone would want to know where
> and why it went, and how it could have related to the assassination or
> anyone related to it.
First, you haven`t established that Oswald owned a Minox camera.
Second, you haven`t shown any connection between this "Minox issue"
and the assassination.
> > > �Who
You can`t make you case using only complaints and criticisms.
> Typical LNT'er can't follow the flow
> of evidence and protocols, and will sit with one photo.
A photo that would blown away the FBI`s contention that they didn`t
receive one if a Minox camera was shown in it. But it tends to
corroborate them when it shows a light meter (in a camera case) that
doesn`t appear on the property lists, and the property lists show a
camera, but no light meter.
> Then there
> will be stuff that comes out of a camera that depicts someone looking
> exactly like Oswald, and they will attribute it to Michael Paine's
> stuff. Of course no LNT would ever take a trip to the NA, and whoever
> did would not have seen correctly. When they don't offer any
> substantial proof for their assertion, they merely put minute holes in
> the other.
You should feel cheated if the authors of those kook books you read
didn`t do such research. But they only want to provide enough
information to justify their suspicions to their audience, which is
comprised of idiots who wouldn`t question why the author didn`t do
this.
I don`t have any problems about this issue, it is a non-issue (It`s
sometimes impossible to figure out that a person made a mistake
without being able to determine how they made it) to me. Kennedy
wasn`t photographed to death.
Why do many of the kook`s favorite witnesses end up dead by their
own hand? Not a stable bunch.
> > > > > If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> > > > > succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
> > > > > happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
> > > > > didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
> >
> > > > That is what you desperately want to believe.
> >
> > > If the shoe fits you wear it. �All aspects of the assassination's
> > > evidence and covering up point to just that.
> >
> > � Actually what exists in evidence could not exist unless Oswald was
> > the person who killed Kennedy.
> >
> Yeah, like BY Photos, and Klein's Coupons, Minox Cameras, and long
> packages. Go, Bud, Go.
Exactly right. All the evidence could not exist if Oswald was not
the person who killed Kennedy. Conspiracy elves sprinkling
incriminating evidence against Oswald everywhere is a silly idea
unworthy of consideration. The idea that a conspiracy would set Oswald
up, and then hope that anything like a Minox camera (that could be
anywhere, Paine`s garage, his roominghouse, a locker at work) would
fall into their hands is silly.
The dog in the limo is a same day account. Are any of your accounts
of bullets from the same day? You should read Loftus about memory.
curtjester1
> > If you don't believe him
> > that's your scenario. If you want to live and depend on those, then
> > your just going to be your own island. Don't expect any visitors.
>
> I dug a moat around my island to keep you idiots out.
>
But you can't refuse to swim to the other side. Why is that?
Don't discuss facts, just make a sweeping opinion. Anybody knows
that's a possible scenario. It just didn't fit.
> > when they already had LHO 'pronounced' guilty.
>
> Oswald committing the crime is what leads people to conclude he
> committed the crime.
>
I think you even think you sound clairvoyant.
> > You
> > have the chain of custody broken via secret taking of some of the
> > evidence on the first night. More evidence followed then it got
> > returned and what was given the Public was the appearance of a
> > rightful investigation NOW ensuing. They were hiding stuff, and it
> > wasn't just the Minox Camera. You simply want to accept their
> > protocol's and then attempt to defend it by making all these apolgetic
> > excuses for them. That's what WC Shills do, and we're used to that.
>
> And you are doing what kooks do, chew on discrepancies for decades.
> Like I said, you can`t go anywhere with these things until you have
> someone performing these tasks coming clean. You can`t do it using the
> approach from the outside in, saying "explain this to my satisfaction,
> or I will believe stupid shit". You need someone on the inside, saying
> "I was ordered to make this evidence disappear". And you will never
> produce one of the people doing the tasks, because the tasks exist
> only between kook ears.
>
Kooks don't accept a verdict after one day. That shows that it might
be too quick. And guess what? Too many people said stuff too quick,
implementing them. E.g when Rose showed up at the Paines, he was
already expecting him...before the arrest was announced...tons of
those. Yet, super sleuths accept anything that doesn't call of
conspiracy or investigative trails as a normal venue as in any crime.
> > > > > > but it never became a major obstacle
> > > > > > for them, so they just went on.
>
> > > > > You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
> > > > > do?
>
> > > > Decades? It was right after the assassination all with a few days.
>
> > > Other than the property lists and evidence photo, what are you
> > > producing evidence-wise from within a few days of the assassination?
> > > As I said, the photo shows a light meter in a camera case and no
> > > camera, and the property lists indicate a camera with and light meter.
> > > This suggests a mistake. Everything you are producing about
> > > initialing, pulling film from the camera and meetings all is the
> > > product of a 15 year old recollection as far as I can tell.
>
> > Everybody and everyone who could be involved from their chief FBI
> > evidence man James Cadigan, to the guy that absounded with the
> > evidence, Vince Drain, the emerging of new lists, the losing of
> > valuable photography and all the conversations and new protocols after
> > that. It's just everything that's pertinent to the gathering of
> > evidence. And their were more than just one person with comments
> > about the camera. And there were two initiallers.
>
> What do you have from 1963 from someone saying they initialed the
> camera? Did Stowell ever say he initialed the camera? Does the light
> meter have the initials of these men?
>
Why don't you read up on it and just find the people who said
something concerning the camera? I already posted it.
> > And there were
> > other teams that went out to the Paines at different times. You just
> > have to involve yourself with the processess of evidence. You sit
> > back like an armchair quarterback and scenarioize. Your too lazy to
> > buy a book, so that's all you get for as far as looking into the
> > matter and responses. I have nothing to prove to you the evidence is
> > there, and that's how cases are decided in court, by the preponderance
> > evidence, not the guesswork of armchair quarterbacks.
>
> Exactly how Oswald would have been found guilty.
>
Even if he was guilty, he would have walked just on the broken
custodial chain of evidence. Get over it.
> > Tis rather
> > stupid to even have a HSCA committee if human brains were not capable
> > of recollecting events in their life, don't you think?
>
> Yah, it is. The investigation was a waste of time and money. What
> did it accomplish? The people who could figure out what occurred
> didn`t need a new investigation, and the kooks are still stumped.
>
Hoover was right to make it official after one hour. You must have a
picture of him hanging from your living room wall.
> (BTW, when you start a sentence with "Tis" you sound like that
> pretentious asshole gasbag Holmes.)
>
Tis the season to be jolly. Why don't you kill all the Xmas
advertising on TV?
They were fabricated. Any adept photo person would know. You don't
even have to be a photo person to see that they were faked. Marina's
lies are the only ones that convicted Oswald in the publics eyes. She
faced deportation and they took her away for 3 weeks to groom her.
Silly little guys. She didn't even know anything about the camera
that they told her she would have to know about to convince the
public. They bumbled time and time again.
> > > > > > Anything found would have to be
> > > > > > scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> > > > > > trial.
>
> > > > > Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
> > > > > scrutinized.
>
> > > > Just the fact it was paid attention to should be a red flag.
>
> > > And if the discrepancy was ignored, that also would be a red flag to
> > > kooks.
>
> > The only thing of import to a curious investigator is that there were
> > people taking a small tiny camera.
>
> Show it in the evidence photo. Why wouldn`t it be with the camera
> stuff seized?
>
It was on sets of notes of lists. It was said to be opened. It was
said to possess film. A light meter couldn't be opened. There were
more items than just the one small portion of things in the pic. Of
course why would a camera case be empty?
> > Anyone would want to know where
> > and why it went, and how it could have related to the assassination or
> > anyone related to it.
>
> First, you haven`t established that Oswald owned a Minox camera.
> Second, you haven`t shown any connection between this "Minox issue"
> and the assassination.
>
You haven't established that Michael Paine owned a Minox camera. You
don't need a receipt to establish things. It's difficult when there
is no camera yet photos are produced depicting just that particular
camera. That's got to be uneasy.
You don't have to make up a bunch of new lists if you have nothing to
hide.
> > Typical LNT'er can't follow the flow
> > of evidence and protocols, and will sit with one photo.
>
> A photo that would blown away the FBI`s contention that they didn`t
> receive one if a Minox camera was shown in it. But it tends to
> corroborate them when it shows a light meter (in a camera case) that
> doesn`t appear on the property lists, and the property lists show a
> camera, but no light meter.
>
Yet there is a Minox camera in the NA. And there was a camera given
back to Michael Paine. He didn't donate it to the NA. That's very
problematic.
> > Then there
> > will be stuff that comes out of a camera that depicts someone looking
> > exactly like Oswald, and they will attribute it to Michael Paine's
> > stuff. Of course no LNT would ever take a trip to the NA, and whoever
> > did would not have seen correctly. When they don't offer any
> > substantial proof for their assertion, they merely put minute holes in
> > the other.
>
> You should feel cheated if the authors of those kook books you read
> didn`t do such research. But they only want to provide enough
> information to justify their suspicions to their audience, which is
> comprised of idiots who wouldn`t question why the author didn`t do
> this.
>
Anyone should feel cheated when the case wasn't even investigated like
any normal criminal case. Being satisfied, means you care not about
justice or you have ulterior motives.
> I don`t have any problems about this issue, it is a non-issue (It`s
> sometimes impossible to figure out that a person made a mistake
> without being able to determine how they made it) to me. Kennedy
> wasn`t photographed to death.
>
I know, you don't have a problem with sets of photos that look unreal,
or no paper trail that can be confirmed that Oswald ever ordered a
rifle, much less ever had one. Everything is so easy..huh?
You don't know what persecution is and what it can drive people to
do. How many lives were ruined because of people just giving their
own points of view?
> > > > > > If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> > > > > > succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
> > > > > > happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
> > > > > > didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
>
> > > > > That is what you desperately want to believe.
>
> > > > If the shoe fits you wear it. All aspects of the assassination's
> > > > evidence and covering up point to just that.
>
> > > Actually what exists in evidence could not exist unless Oswald was
> > > the person who killed Kennedy.
>
> > Yeah, like BY Photos, and Klein's Coupons, Minox Cameras, and long
> > packages. Go, Bud, Go.
>
> Exactly right. All the evidence could not exist if Oswald was not
> the person who killed Kennedy. Conspiracy elves sprinkling
> incriminating evidence against Oswald everywhere is a silly idea
> unworthy of consideration. The idea that a conspiracy would set Oswald
> up, and then hope that anything like a Minox camera (that could be
> anywhere, Paine`s garage, his roominghouse, a locker at work) would
> fall into their hands is silly.
>
It's just like any crime, where the victim says, "I was framed". It's
part of criminal culture to be set up for a crime.
Were they asked? Of course if they weren't asked on the first
day...it goes into 'it doesn't count' bin...lmao
CJ
Bud
Context.
> > > If you don't believe him
> > > that's your scenario. If you want to live and depend on those, then
> > > your just going to be your own island. Don't expect any visitors.
>
> > I dug a moat around my island to keep you idiots out.
>
> But you can't refuse to swim to the other side. Why is that?
Contrast. If there were no idiots, there could be no reasonable
people. There would just be "people".
I presented a fact. "The fact is that the evidence photo backs up
the contention that they were sent a light meter and not a camera."
> Anybody knows
> that's a possible scenario. It just didn't fit.
It being a camera doesn`t satisfy all the evidence either.
> > > when they already had LHO 'pronounced' guilty.
>
> > Oswald committing the crime is what leads people to conclude he
> > committed the crime.
>
> I think you even think you sound clairvoyant.
Just explaining things to you.
> > > You
> > > have the chain of custody broken via secret taking of some of the
> > > evidence on the first night. More evidence followed then it got
> > > returned and what was given the Public was the appearance of a
> > > rightful investigation NOW ensuing. They were hiding stuff, and it
> > > wasn't just the Minox Camera. You simply want to accept their
> > > protocol's and then attempt to defend it by making all these apolgetic
> > > excuses for them. That's what WC Shills do, and we're used to that.
>
> > And you are doing what kooks do, chew on discrepancies for decades.
> > Like I said, you can`t go anywhere with these things until you have
> > someone performing these tasks coming clean. You can`t do it using the
> > approach from the outside in, saying "explain this to my satisfaction,
> > or I will believe stupid shit". You need someone on the inside, saying
> > "I was ordered to make this evidence disappear". And you will never
> > produce one of the people doing the tasks, because the tasks exist
> > only between kook ears.
>
> Kooks don't accept a verdict after one day. That shows that it might
> be too quick. And guess what? Too many people said stuff too quick,
> implementing them. E.g when Rose showed up at the Paines, he was
> already expecting him...before the arrest was announced...tons of
> those.
Why not start with why Mrs Paine said she was expecting him? And
then establish when Rose arrived. And then look at why Rose thought he
was going to that address. And maybe give a thought to what advantage
there would be for your conspiracy to send police to the Paines
prematurely. As I pointed out, if you have no critical think skills,
it best you not try to tackle these things at all.
> Yet, super sleuths accept anything that doesn't call of
> conspiracy or investigative trails as a normal venue as in any crime.
As usual, the kooks use what Rose said as indicating conspiracy, but
also implicate him as a conspirator.
> > > > > > > but it never became a major obstacle
> > > > > > > for them, so they just went on.
>
> > > > > > You mean instead of staring at it slack jawed for decades like kooks
> > > > > > do?
>
> > > > > Decades? It was right after the assassination all with a few days.
>
> > > > Other than the property lists and evidence photo, what are you
> > > > producing evidence-wise from within a few days of the assassination?
> > > > As I said, the photo shows a light meter in a camera case and no
> > > > camera, and the property lists indicate a camera with and light meter.
> > > > This suggests a mistake. Everything you are producing about
> > > > initialing, pulling film from the camera and meetings all is the
> > > > product of a 15 year old recollection as far as I can tell.
>
> > > Everybody and everyone who could be involved from their chief FBI
> > > evidence man James Cadigan, to the guy that absounded with the
> > > evidence, Vince Drain, the emerging of new lists, the losing of
> > > valuable photography and all the conversations and new protocols after
> > > that. It's just everything that's pertinent to the gathering of
> > > evidence. And their were more than just one person with comments
> > > about the camera. And there were two initiallers.
>
> > What do you have from 1963 from someone saying they initialed the
> > camera? Did Stowell ever say he initialed the camera? Does the light
> > meter have the initials of these men?
>
> Why don't you read up on it and just find the people who said
> something concerning the camera? I already posted it.
When was the information related, Curt? It does have a bearing.
> > > And there were
> > > other teams that went out to the Paines at different times. You just
> > > have to involve yourself with the processess of evidence. You sit
> > > back like an armchair quarterback and scenarioize. Your too lazy to
> > > buy a book, so that's all you get for as far as looking into the
> > > matter and responses. I have nothing to prove to you the evidence is
> > > there, and that's how cases are decided in court, by the preponderance
> > > evidence, not the guesswork of armchair quarterbacks.
>
> > Exactly how Oswald would have been found guilty.
>
> Even if he was guilty, he would have walked just on the broken
> custodial chain of evidence. Get over it.
I don`t think it would be random retards ruling on the chain of
custody.
> > > Tis rather
> > > stupid to even have a HSCA committee if human brains were not capable
> > > of recollecting events in their life, don't you think?
>
> > Yah, it is. The investigation was a waste of time and money. What
> > did it accomplish? The people who could figure out what occurred
> > didn`t need a new investigation, and the kooks are still stumped.
>
> Hoover was right to make it official after one hour. You must have a
> picture of him hanging from your living room wall.
In a ball gown.
Like I said, the only way what is in evidence could be in evidence
is if Oswald was guilty. That is why kooks must disregard what can be
examined, and fixate on imaginary cameras and rifles.
> You don't
> even have to be a photo person to see that they were faked. Marina's
> lies are the only ones that convicted Oswald in the publics eyes. She
> faced deportation and they took her away for 3 weeks to groom her.
Yah, thats the kook party line concerning Marina. If you want to
figure out an anti-social introverted loner, always disregard what the
people who knew him best said about him. Also ignore what he himself
said or wrote. Ignore his actions. This is the kook approach, which is
why they are still stumped over simple matters.
> Silly little guys. She didn't even know anything about the camera
> that they told her she would have to know about to convince the
> public. They bumbled time and time again.
Yet still more than a match for the idiot detectives intent on
exposing this conspiracy.
> > > > > > > Anything found would have to be
> > > > > > > scrutinized for ownership, and that would have been brought out in a
> > > > > > > trial.
>
> > > > > > Why do you think there was so much investigation into this? It was
> > > > > > scrutinized.
>
> > > > > Just the fact it was paid attention to should be a red flag.
>
> > > > And if the discrepancy was ignored, that also would be a red flag to
> > > > kooks.
>
> > > The only thing of import to a curious investigator is that there were
> > > people taking a small tiny camera.
>
> > Show it in the evidence photo. Why wouldn`t it be with the camera
> > stuff seized?
>
> It was on sets of notes of lists.
The camera was on lists. It just doesn`t appear in the photo of the
evidence siezed. A light meter does, in a camera case, and that light
meter does not appear on any property lists.
> It was said to be opened.
Fifteen years after the fact.
> It was
> said to possess film.
Fifteen years after the fact.
> A light meter couldn't be opened. There were
> more items than just the one small portion of things in the pic. Of
> course why would a camera case be empty?
It wasn`t. It had a light meter in it. A possible solution is this.
Going over the items, Rose saw the light meter in a camera case, and
logged it as a camera. The more he thought about it, the more certain
he became it was a camera. Over the years, more details are added, and
by the time the HSCA rolled around, he had a vivid memory of something
that did not occur. Read some of Loftus`s work available online,
fascinating stuff. People leaving Disneyland swearing they posed for
photographs with Bugs Bunny, a Warner Brothers character not in
Disneyland. As time passes, mistaken impressions get stronger. When
people think a lot about an event, the mind will sneak details in.
> > > Anyone would want to know where
> > > and why it went, and how it could have related to the assassination or
> > > anyone related to it.
>
> > First, you haven`t established that Oswald owned a Minox camera.
> > Second, you haven`t shown any connection between this "Minox issue"
> > and the assassination.
>
> You haven't established that Michael Paine owned a Minox camera. You
> don't need a receipt to establish things. It's difficult when there
> is no camera yet photos are produced depicting just that particular
> camera. That's got to be uneasy.
For kooks, maybe. For me, Micheal Paine said he had a Minox camera,
and I see no reason to doubt that to be true.
How were they hidden if an idiot like you can find them?
> > > Typical LNT'er can't follow the flow
> > > of evidence and protocols, and will sit with one photo.
>
> > A photo that would blown away the FBI`s contention that they didn`t
> > receive one if a Minox camera was shown in it. But it tends to
> > corroborate them when it shows a light meter (in a camera case) that
> > doesn`t appear on the property lists, and the property lists show a
> > camera, but no light meter.
>
> Yet there is a Minox camera in the NA. And there was a camera given
> back to Michael Paine. He didn't donate it to the NA. That's very
> problematic.
Not for me, I`m not using the camera to establish anything. They
never had any impact on why i concluded oswald was guilty, nor can you
show they impact in any way why I should consider him innocent.
> > > Then there
> > > will be stuff that comes out of a camera that depicts someone looking
> > > exactly like Oswald, and they will attribute it to Michael Paine's
> > > stuff. Of course no LNT would ever take a trip to the NA, and whoever
> > > did would not have seen correctly. When they don't offer any
> > > substantial proof for their assertion, they merely put minute holes in
> > > the other.
>
> > You should feel cheated if the authors of those kook books you read
> > didn`t do such research. But they only want to provide enough
> > information to justify their suspicions to their audience, which is
> > comprised of idiots who wouldn`t question why the author didn`t do
> > this.
>
> Anyone should feel cheated when the case wasn't even investigated like
> any normal criminal case.
You re right there. This case has been over-investigated.
> Being satisfied, means you care not about
> justice or you have ulterior motives.
You`ll be unsatisfied until something that didn`t happen is shown to
have happened. Which means you will remain unsatisfied.Your
dissatisfaction and frustration will be shown in the sales of
conspiracy books, nowhere else.
> > I don`t have any problems about this issue, it is a non-issue (It`s
> > sometimes impossible to figure out that a person made a mistake
> > without being able to determine how they made it) to me. Kennedy
> > wasn`t photographed to death.
>
> I know, you don't have a problem with sets of photos that look unreal,
> or no paper trail that can be confirmed that Oswald ever ordered a
> rifle, much less ever had one. Everything is so easy..huh?
Your desire is to bog things down with complication, you aren`t
really trying to determine what occurred, you are trying to justify
what you want to believe occurred.
How many innocent people do you kooks implicate in Kennedy`s
murder?
> > > > > > > If they didn't want the conspiracy to
> > > > > > > succeed, they would have raised heck. Instead they made sure it
> > > > > > > happened and covered- up and that was and still is protocol. They
> > > > > > > didn't care about weapons or rifles, they just wanted the guy dead.
>
> > > > > > That is what you desperately want to believe.
>
> > > > > If the shoe fits you wear it. All aspects of the assassination's
> > > > > evidence and covering up point to just that.
>
> > > > Actually what exists in evidence could not exist unless Oswald was
> > > > the person who killed Kennedy.
>
> > > Yeah, like BY Photos, and Klein's Coupons, Minox Cameras, and long
> > > packages. Go, Bud, Go.
>
> > Exactly right. All the evidence could not exist if Oswald was not
> > the person who killed Kennedy. Conspiracy elves sprinkling
> > incriminating evidence against Oswald everywhere is a silly idea
> > unworthy of consideration. The idea that a conspiracy would set Oswald
> > up, and then hope that anything like a Minox camera (that could be
> > anywhere, Paine`s garage, his roominghouse, a locker at work) would
> > fall into their hands is silly.
>
> It's just like any crime, where the victim says, "I was framed". It's
> part of criminal culture to be set up for a crime.
You just aren`t up to this thinking stuff, are you? How could what
you just said possibly apply to what the kooks allege went on in this
event?
It goes into the "view in the proper context" bin. Doubtful you can
pick any event 15 years ago and relate anything about that event
accurately.