REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

"The only thing we do know is PM looks like Oswald and he holding what could be a camera." - Lee Farley

Bingo.

On another forum, someone was commenting that PM must be standing behind BWF because part of Frazier is in the Sun and none of PM is. This is, I think, another dwarf ploy.

PM is in shadow, not from the overhang whose shadow we see on Frazier but from the shadow caused by the west wall of the vestibule. Since the Sun was post meridian, the west wall casts a full shadow over everyone leaning against it. IOW, PM.

Ed Ledoux at April 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM

Watch through this to 7 minutes!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh-leVbMe00

Fascinating, Ed.  The ANSCO Reflex had a sports viewfinder as well and a top-down viewer.  He doesn't show it with the flash attachment but it does slot into the side like the Imperial Reflex.

You thinking this was Oswald's camera and it was swapped out for the Imperial Reflex?

I am not unhappy with the analysis so far. easy for PM to slip inside without being noticed by Frazier.

So Ozzie had a flash for the Ansco but no camera...

And the Ansco would be a small black box, darker in the shadows of the vestibule than the Imperial, and not require a flash attachment.

And - of course! - that camera is AWOL. Probably with all the shots at the President still within. Question is, what would Oswald have done with the camera afterward? It couldn't have been in his pocket as it would have rumpled the pristine bus transfer.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1155.pdf

(Side note, why does Lee's wallet, ring and money stay at the Paines, when Marina calls Sunday from Chief Curry's house to have her bring them, then a SS agent does bring them to Marina?)


The Marine Corp pics were not traced back to the grey model 666, 120 film Imperial Reflex.
Only some baby pictures and the BYP's were. (from my memory of this)

*In regard to the allegation that this camera had been used only to take the incriminating backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, the panel examined all of the photographic material in the National Archives that was listed as having been taken from the effects of Lee and Marina Oswald during the execution of postassassination searches by the Dallas Police Department. Most of these were family-type snapshots, including scenes of an older child and baby in a crib, Marina Oswald playing with a child, and Lee Oswald holding an infant. The frame edge markings appearing on the negatives to these photographs and the camera scratch marks appearing directly on the pictures were studied and found to be entirely consistent with both the original test materials and the Oswald backyard pictures which were exposed in the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera. For example, figure IV-30 (JFK exhibit F-189) is a photograph which has been identified by Marina Oswald Porter as depicting one of the two children that she had by Lee Harvey Oswald. (170) The negative of figure IV-30 was found to contain the same camera identifiers and scratches as the other first generation prints and original negative made in the Oswald camera. It is, therefore, apparent that this photograph was also taken by Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera.  http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscbkyd.htm

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant, have you investigated the allegation that the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera was used only to take the backyard pictures of Oswald with the rifle?

Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When did you do that?

Sergeant KIRK. August 1 of this year.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Exactly how did you go about examining this issue, Sergeant?

Sergeant KIRK. I went to the National Archives and requested to see all of the photographs and all of the photographic negatives that were turned over to the Warren Commission and listed as that material that was taken during the execution of search warrants from the personal effects of Lee and Marina Oswald.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What did these photographs portray, Sergeant? Sergeant KIRK. Most were family-type snapshots, scenes, an older

child and a baby in a crib. They depicted Mrs. Oswald and a child playing with a hose pipe, spraying water on each other. It depicted Mr. Oswald holding an infant in his arms, family type photographs.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK F-189. Sergeant, would you identify that exhibit?

Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir. It is a first generation print made from a negative obtained from the Archives. It is from one of approximately two dozen negatives that were on file at the Archives. It is a photograph of a young child. The child has been identified by Marina Oswald Porter as being one of the children of she and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this exhibit.

Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection it may be entered into the record at this point.

[The information follows:]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was this exhibit compared with any other materials or photographs exposed in Oswald's camera?

Sergeant KIRK. Yes, sir, it was.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the result of that comparison?

Sergeant KIRK. The comparison was made with the test negative, the 133-B backyard photograph, the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photograph, and they were found to contain the identical identifiers and scratch marks.

It is our opinion that the same camera produced the baby picture.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What were the panel's overall conclusions regarding the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks that it evaluated?

Sergeant KIRK. That it is a reliable source of identification and it is our opinion that the camera did indeed produce these photographs.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you say these photographs, you are referring to the backyard pictures?

Sergeant KIRK. The backyard pictures and the baby picture.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you.

Could all of these pictures have been taken by Robert with the Imperial Reflex, and would that not lend credence to the fact Robert owned it and not Lee.
Could Lee have borrrowed the IR from Robert, absolutely possible.
Again there was a claim that Lee took Marine Corp photos with the IR, but only post MC photos that may have been taken by Robert, were matched to the IR.
So if Lee gets the camera in 1959 why no photos with it till his second child is born in '63?

Terry Martin at April 2, 2015 at 12:48 PM

So Ozzie had a flash for the Ansco but no camera...

 

And the Ansco would be a small black box, darker in the shadows of the vestibule than the Imperial, and not require a flash attachment.

 

And - of course! - that camera is AWOL. Probably with all the shots at the President still within. Question is, what would Oswald have done with the camera afterward? It couldn't have been in his pocket as it would have rumpled the pristine bus transfer.

Could be he had another camera, if the IR was damaged, and if it was HIS Imperial Reflex.

He may have placed it in the blue jacket to take home but in the excitement in the TSBD he left it there.
Could be why it was damaged(shutter lever bent) by someone tossing the jacket onto the window ledge/sill of the domino room.

Could be that camera was taken by another employee whom checked the pockets of the jacket for change... in that case it was stolen and we would never know.

The following testimony is from Marina Oswald:

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 137 is a camera in a leather case.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever seen that camera before?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. DULLES. Is that a Russian camera?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 137 for identification.)

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 138 is a flash attachment for some type of camera. It is an Ansco flash attachment.

Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen it.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit' No. 138 for identification.)

The camera is the testimony is never named but we are led to believe it was designated CE137.  According to the testimony the ANSCO flash attachment was designated CE138.

BULLSHIT!

There is a camera designated CE136 and it is the Cuera-2:

There is no CE137 or CE138.  THEY DO NOT EXIST.  So no record of the ANSCO flash attachment.  Legal testimony taken, legal exhibit numbers given but NO SUCH EXHIBITS EXIST for these items.

The record concerning this case is a fucking fraud.

Terry Martin at April 2, 2015 at 12:48 PM

So Ozzie had a flash for the Ansco but no camera...

 

And the Ansco would be a small black box, darker in the shadows of the vestibule than the Imperial, and not require a flash attachment.

 

And - of course! - that camera is AWOL. Probably with all the shots at the President still within. Question is, what would Oswald have done with the camera afterward? It couldn't have been in his pocket as it would have rumpled the pristine bus transfer.

This is very interesting. If one has an accessory for a specific camera, you'd think one would have the camera as well? Especially for such a unique camera?

Speculatin' here. If PM was using an Ansco, according to the Ansco Automatic Reflex YouTube, he would have a couple of options for shooting pictures – looking down or holding it more conventionally up to the eye. The camera body is dark, but the center assembly with the lenses is silvery metallic looking.

Could this slivery rectangle, which includes two lenses, reflect outside light? And Ed said earlier "PM does look as if he is standing there winding the film to the end of the roll." Yes he does. And the YouTube shows how this would be done. I'd tilt the camera some to operate the film advance crank.

More speculatin'. You don't suppose that PM had an Ansco, took pictures from his position, and then later because of who he was and what he filmed, the camera and its film disappear?

Ruth Paine rides to the rescue...

...YET AGAIN.  

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1007201

Wonderful!!

So the exhibits don't exist because they went back into the black hole that is the Paine's garage.

And how does the Ansco flash attachment fit onto a Minoltaflex... with a ball peen hammer?

Thanks Lee!
Oswald lost a camera in the USSR per Marina and thus he bought the Cuera 2.
Now the Cuera 2 had a synch for the flash but a cold shoe.
This means the flash was not activated by the shoe mount but flash was attached to the shutter, small hole near shutter, and when it was released the flash would go off.
I would need to study the Ansco flash and the ability of it to be used with the Cuera 2 to determine its compatability.

Terry Martin at April 2, 2015 at 2:36 PM

Wonderful!!

 

So the exhibits don't exist because they went back into the black hole that is the Paine's garage.

 

And how does the Ansco flash attachment fit onto a Minoltaflex... with a ball peen hammer?

If asked that question directly, Ruth would look at you with those big pious Quaker eyes and say that a little duct tape made it work just fine, Terry, and then say how saddened she is over all of this speculation after the fact which only undermines faith in our government.

Or some bullshit like that.

Above is the Japanese Minoltaflex, it would be called Minolta after 1962. (thanks to John Glenn taking one into orbit)



Cuera 2 in its case, open for us to see. The Ansco flash may very well be compatible with a Minoltaflex.
I noted the other cases A-D for easier discussion

Well, given the big fuck-off white sign in the middle of the stash it would appear Mrs. Ruth Paine was quite happy handing the damn flash attachment over to police even though it was hers.  

B? = The Stereo Realist camera case.  This was the camera that took 3d pics.  You can see the viewfinder underneath it that you would use to view the photos.  But where is the camera?

Lee, I looked at that sign and thought the same... I was thinking didn't the cops have a warrant? Yep. Why would they need permission or Ruth to Voluntarily give them anything??

(I also noted the FPCC double flyer, not cut in two pages but one sheet. Hmm)

FWIW
The Tessina.


And why spys smoked
The Suzuki Echo 8, lighter actually lit up! You could light a cig and take a pic.

BINGO!

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth346583/?q=camera

Lee Farley at April 2, 2015 at 4:47 PM

WTF?
Why mix and match cameras and cases at the FBI lab?
Lee, Is that the Realist behind the overlay of its case? Looks like the two lenses, silver, poking out on either side...?