The Paines and the Minox Camera Charade

[Jim DiEugenio]

This was one of the best and most important articles I think we ever published for Probe.

I remember reading it after the excellent Florida lawyer Carol Hewett submitted it.

I told Lisa Pease, the Paines should be called before the ARRB on this one. Which we all tried to do of course. But it didn't work out that way.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/FromTheArchive.html

[Albert Doyle]

The trick of deniers like Von Pein is to keep your attention focused away from pure proof of conspiracy like the Minox spy camera FBI swapped for a light meter in order to cover-up inconvenient proof of Oswald's spy status.

[Albert Doyle]

Apparently this is the Dallas PD evidence picture that did show a camera (according to Steve Margolis)


Luckily for researchers, in 1969, the Dallas police chief published a book on the assassination. On page 113 is a picture of the items found in Oswald's possession.A tiny Minox camera and a matching flash attachment are clearly visible.

I'm not sure if Curry was showing the actual evidence picture or just posted one of his own using a Minox camera from an unknown source:



https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site...59KIaKM%3A



.

[Deborra Ann Low]

This was one of the best and most important articles I think we ever published for Probe.

I remember reading it after the excellent Florida lawyer Carol Hewett submitted it.

I told Lisa Pease, the Paines should be called before the ARRB on this one. Which we all tried to do of course. But it didn't work out that way.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/FromTheArchive.html

Jim, there appears to be a typo on the date, for footnote #25. It looks like it should read "2/2/64" in the text, for the date to match the footnote referenced at the end of the article, but then now I'm confused by the following sentence in the text as well, "Now, as of January 29th, the FBI finally had the physical evidence to match the original inventory list of the Dallas Police Department complete with the still present film cassette." How did the FBI have it by 1/29/64 if the camera wasn't shipped to them until 2/2/64. Should this date actually be 12/2/63 instead, perhaps? I'm confused (smile), but that certainly wouldn't be a first time occurrence for me. This whole scenario is confusing, but then, I'm guessing that's the point of the FBI's camera shell game...to confuse people. It's certainly working on me.

Thanks,

Deborra

[Peter Lemkin]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what images were on the Minox films - but we'll never know. They were destroyed or more likely put in a 'do not file file' to never be found. I'm agnostic if the camera was Oswald's [most likely] or was Paine's - in either case it is damning simply for existing and the exposed film, clearly inventoried, even more so....especially as it [and the camera] went into the huge Black Hole that swallowed all evidence that would prove a conspiracy and lead to the conspirators. If I remember correctly, there was also something significant with the serial number of this camera. Certainly in 1963 only intelligence operatives had them. They were not for public sale as they were in the 70's. Having that film developed was available in only very special places - or done by oneself.

[Deborra Ann Low]

The pull-out quote, "We know that the Minox camera was in possession of the FBI as of November 25th because on that date the FBI requested a comparison of the Minox film recovered from the possessions of Oswald with the Minox camera," differs from the actual text which states the following, "We know that the Minox film recovered from the Paine household was in possession of the FBI as of November 25th because on that date the FBI requested a comparison of the Minox film as recovered from the possessions of Oswald with Minox film designated as Specimen Q5." I believe the pull-out quote was what was intended, but I don't know for sure.

Also, there is what appears to be a photograph taken by the DPD of several of the items removed from the Paine residence on this website, which shows that the Minox Camera case was there, but the camera was not in the case. I'm a total novice on this subject, so is this a bogus photo, or was the camera already removed before the photo was taken (allegedly on 11/22/63)? http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm

[Michael Cross]

I have Curry's book. I'll look at page 113.

[David Josephs]

The mentioning of the Minox as found at the Paines is spread out over a number of documents the FBI could not get the DPD to change, nor it seems did they even know these other pages existed.

Armstrong says the Minox at the Archives was sealed shut with what he said felt like it was filled with cement.

Notice please the 5-digit serial number of the Minox returned from Dallas field office to FBO HQ in the 2/2/64 Airtel... this is the "not available to the public" group of serial numbers on cameras sold only to the US intelligence services.





In a number of places the DPD wrote and rewrote the inventory which was numbered and photographed prior to the FBI taking all the evidence the 2nd time.

It is H.W. Hill's name on each of the Inventory Sheets.... Thanks to John Armstrong's great work acquiring these docs - I suggest reading the portion of H&L devoted to this issue. The following images come from the accompanying CD to the book.





Yet it is Gus Rose who writes in his reports that it was HE the FBI came and asked to change the inventory sheet 11192-G

[Albert Doyle]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what images were on the Minox films - but we'll never know.

Peter: If it was the Paines' then it might show something like people at a phony pro-Castro rally where Michael was doing provocateur work or documents or persons who showed pro-Castro sympathies etc. If the Warren Commission was doing a real investigation it would have developed that film.

Also, there's no way you could mistake a camera for a light meter. Look at my linked image above. The light meter has a clearly visible meter indicator on its top that distinguishes it as a light meter.

Jim's article makes it clear that 2 cameras ended up in evidence. At that point there's no excuse for not developing the film because one of those had to potentially belong to Oswald.

If the film showed Paine spying evidence that would mean the Paines were exposed as being Intel and therefore their relationship to the Oswald's would take on a whole new meaning.

It's frustrating that as I type there is still the possibility for Ruth Paine to tell the whole story publicly and explain the "We know who was really responsible" part. Ruth Paine is illuminated. Like glow in the dark man, as Dean Andrews might say...

[Deborra Ann Low]

I have Curry's book. I'll look at page 113.

I'd love to see page 113, not being able to afford $40 to purchase the collector's "paperback," and I doubt I can even view a copy via inter-library loan because it is a collector's item. Is it possible to scan the page giving full credit to the author, or does that still violate copyright laws? Did I mention I am a complete novice about this stuff. Please forgive my naïveté if possible.