Shipping Included.MANY THANKS!

DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT The premiere book about the Kennedy assassination suspect


Monday, November 28, 2011

Conquering Cancer and Its Connection to the Kennedy Assassination:Interview with Judyth Vary Baker

This interview, part Two,was conducted during our November remembrances for President Kennedy. Hear Kennedy's speech,below, as it opens this 2nd part of my interview with Carolyn Rose Goyda...Lee Harvey Oswald, an innocent man,spied on the biological weapon development against Castro being conducted while acting as my bodyguard and a courier for The Project. Read ME & LEE for more information.

The interview is badly recorded due to interference--sometimes significant--that made it difficult for us to communicate. Other interviews made during this period of Nov. 22-23-24 were totally blocked. Thanks to Carolyn for managing--somehow--to get this interview recorded!

Sunday, November 20, 2011

OSWALD-DID-IT MYTHS EXPOSED: Kennedy did NOT Order Bubble Top Off Car --and Oswald Didn't Shoot Before Zapruder Film Began!

Oswald Did Not Kill Kennedy!

Vincent Palamara, admittedly the nation's expert on the Secret Service, has a lot to say about the Kennedy detail--those agents assigned to protect the President at all costs. Only, on November 22,1963,
Kennedy's Secret Service agents failed to do just that.

In addition, they want to blame KENNEDY for his own death, falsely claiming he ordered the Bubble-Top off -- and ALSO ordered Secret Service agents OFF his then-unprotected car. Many of us have seen the YouTube film showing how agents who WANTED to climb onto the back of Kennedy's car for his protection were ordered off:

So --did KENNEDY order the agents off his car? Look at this:
and this...
You can see Palamara's full investigation proving Kennedy was betrayed by treasonous secret service agents HERE.
SEE ALSO Vince Palamara: called a Secret Service expert by The History Channel, C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, Vince Bugliosi, The Assassination Records Review Board, and many countless authors and researchers. As former JFK Secret Service agent Joe Paolella proclaimed: "You seem to know a lot about the Secret Service, maybe even more than I do!" Unlike The Kennedy Detail, I don't profit from the death of the man I was sworn to protect. JFK NEVER ORDERED THE AGENTS OFF HIS LIMOUSINE, AS MANY FORMER AGENTS & WHITE HOUSE AIDES ADAMANTLY TOLD ME! Don't believe the 47-year-old lies told by those seeking to profit from the man they failed to protect. For his part, Blaine seems to be afraid of me and worried about my major influence over countless people around the world via my online writings and so forth-he
talks about me falsely in his book but doesn't dare name me (page 360), had his attorney send me a threatening letter, and then had the temerity to state on television that I'm, quote, "not credible." I, myself, believe Blaine to be very credible, but ONLY regarding the statements he made to myself in 2004-2005, NOT the new, revised ones he is now espousing in his book.
Remember: Blaine's colleagues did nothing to prevent JFK from getting killed and, by his own admission, Blaine himself damn near killed yet ANOTHER president, ole LBJ. LBJ himself said it best: "I’ll get Hoover to send me over a couple of twenty-one-year-old accountants and they’ll probably do as good a job!" Amen. God Bless the modern Secret Service: a million times better than The Kennedy Detail. Don't let their crocodile tears fool you: many despised JFK (for his morals) AND LBJ (for his manners) and some are reaping huge financial rewards over his death. My deep respect and admiration for the late, great President John F. Kennedy moves me to defend and protect him in The Kennedy Detail miserably failed to do so regarding his life.

A "postscript": Blaine makes much of President Kennedy allegedly calling him and his colleagues"charlatans." This is quite an embarassing "admission
" on Blaine's part---here is the definition of a charlatan: "A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception." Ouch.


Every November, the usual suspects trot out their enhanced (and corrupted) photos, computer studies and new ideas to try to convince th
e people that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy,when ample evidence exists that Kennedy was killed with the help of of the government.
This year, longtime CIA writer and CIA award-winner and asset Max Holland has announced that enhanced films show Lee in the TSBD window,when actually, only a figure can be seen in the window and Holland presumes to tell readers that it is Oswald.

Further,he and his co-author, Johann Rush, add FIVE SECONDS to the total time Lee Oswald was supposed to have to shoot the President--this latest desperate promotion of their discredited theory perhaps prompted by the fact that even former Navy Seal Jesse Ventura couldn't fire the miserable weapon --an Italian-made Carcano=--in the time shown on the Zapruder film.
The way Holland and Rush get around this problem is to tell everybody that after 48 years nobody thought that maybe Lee Oswald started shooting BEFORE the Zapruder film began in its 'second' section (a portion has been removed from the film--some say Zapruder stopped the film for a few seconds).
Holland and Rush want us to believe that now we know the theory, we can believe that Lee Oswald had plenty of time to shoot. However, they forgot one small detail-- they ignore witnesses who do not agree with them.
And they are important witnesses.

The claim made by Max Holland and Johan Rush that Lee Oswald made a shot --and missed--five seconds before the Zapruder film began -- is being treated as a 'new' discovery as of November, 2011, but even Oswald-did-it aficionados posted objections due to conflicting evidence, as early as 2007:while Dale Myers firmly believes Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, he and co-author Todd Vaughan don't accept Holland and Rush's theory (which Holland and Rush are proclaiming, this November, 2011, is the FINAL NAIL in Oswald's coffin):


Holland Déjà Vu


"... if the first shot occurred...before Zapruder began filming, as Holland and Rush theorize, then the Secret Service Follow-up Car would still have been in the process of rounding the corner from Houston onto Elm. We known this for a fact because five lesser-known amateur films of the Kennedy motorcade capture the period of time immediately before Zapruder began filming. And from these films we can see that the Secret Service Follow-up Car hadn’t begun to travel down Elm Street at the time of Holland and Rush’s theorized first shot. How then can Holland and Rush claim the testimony of the three agents as supportive?"
Part of the article mentions eyewitness testimony:
"According to Holland and Rush, their theory is supported by eye and ear-witnesses to the shooting (including Amos L. Euins, the only one named in the New York Times article) and explains why Oswald missed his first and closest shot."
But Myers and Vaughan disagree:
"Nowhere in their November Times Op-Ed piece (or in their companion article, "11 Seconds in Dallas; Not Six", now posted on Holland’s ‘’ website) do Holland and Rush address or respond to the multitude of factual inaccuracies pointed out about their early-shot thesis back in June...In order to convince readers of their New York Times Op-Ed piece that Euins’ testimony supported their theory, Holland and Rush were very selective in their citation. For instance, Holland and Rush didn’t mention that Euins said he ‘watched the car [go] on down the street’ before the car neared the black and white sign and he heard a shot. Nor do Holland and Rush mention that Euins was standing across the street from the Book Depository front entrance – directly across from the traffic light pole that supposedly intercepted Oswald’s first shot.
Of course, those two crucial pieces of information completely alter what Euins is saying – namely that the presidential car was not in front of him at the time of the first shot, as Holland and Rush imagine, but had proceeded down the street some unknown distance before the first shot was fired. Holland and Rush’s complicity in this obvious deception is no better illustrated than in their use of a 1963 Secret Service re-enactment photograph [Figure 1] which they said shows “...the president’s limousine would have passed a black and white sign before Zapruder restarted his camera...” just as young Amos Euins described. [emphasis added]..."

To be more accurate, Holland and Rush should have said that the limousine would have passed a cluster of small highway signs – not a singular black and white sign, as Euins suggested. This fact might have taken on much more significance had Holland and Rush revealed that there was more than one cluster of small black and white highway signs along Elm Street – or better yet, that there was a singular highway sign further down Elm Street.

In fact, the very next highway sign, which appears to have been black and white, was the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign located 100 feet further west on Elm Street – the same R.L Thornton Freeway sign that T.E. Moore referred to as the approximate location of the president’s car at the time of the first shot. [Figure 2] The R. L. Thornton Freeway sign also had several smaller highway markers attached to it, the same kind of markers referenced in the photograph that Holland and Rush mention....
But, how in the world would anyone know any of this from reading the Holland and Rush article?"

These Oswald-did-it writers have much more to say:

"Holland and Rush urge their readers to discard the assumed “illusion” that the Zapruder film depicted the assassination in full and embrace their theory that Oswald fired a shot much earlier than anyone ever thought before. But, their theory is the illusion – concocted from a half-dozen cherry-picked, eyewitness accounts that don’t hold up under even the most basic examination."

Their article displays how dishonestly Holland and Rush were proceeding in 2007. In 2011,the two continued to trumpet the same theory,still dishonestly contending that their eyewitnesses support their theory.

The truth does not require year after year of half-baked theories presented to prove beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. The American people now realize that lying to cover up evil doings by government-sponsored 'experts' is unfortunately a common fact of life. The same government experts who tell us that waterboarding is not torture and is legal, the same media who refuse to acknowledge new witnesses and new evidence in the case, are not going to deliver the truth to you on a golden platter. Truth will come humbly,but her power persists. The people there is more to the story than that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. And if their IQ is more than double-digit, they'll know that the government was behind it and framed an innocent man.

I, Judyth Vary Baker, am a living witness to that fact. Please read the following books to get the truth, rather than propaganda: JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, ME & LEE, CROSSFIRE, LBJ MASTERMIND, INSIDE THE ARRB, and THE GIRL ON THE STAIRS. Thank you.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald on the Internet: an Introduction

by Judyth Vary Baker

A timeline (“Interactive Timeline of the Life of Lee Harvey Oswald”) written by Tracy Parnell, and sponsored by John McAdams, the Warren Commission apologist, asserts “facts” about Oswald that are unproven or have been disproven. In addition, “facts” are presented as determined by the Warren Commission as if they are true and proven when they are merely speculative. For example, the timeline asserts as “fact” that Oswald shot at General Walker. Though Lee Oswald never told the author anything about the Walker incident itself, as to his participation, he did tell me that he feared for his safety due to the incident, when he was ordered to pass out pro-Castro flyers soon after the incident took place. His undated note to Marina about his possible arrest or being killed is supposed to be ‘evidence’ that he participated in the Walker shooting incident, but Lee told me he had advised Marina on what to do if he should be arrested or killed because he feared what Dallas police might do to him by creating a pro-Castro scene only five days after the Walker incident.the kennedy assassination,JFK,Kennedy,oswald

The undated note for Marina tells her how to get help, etc. if Lee happened to get arrested or killed in Dallas (Lee told this writer that he feared being arrested or shot by riled-up Police after the Walker incident occurred). Lee was ordered to conduct a pro-Castro demonstration on the streets of Dallas five days after the Walker incident. This event is on record:

The note…(undated) used to damn Oswald.

In the chronology given to me by Mary Ferrell, a date has been falsely ascribed to this note because Marina said she got it before Oswald shot at Walker, even though she also said she was horrified to learn of the event after it happened:

In his April 10 note to Marina, Oswald says, "...the money from work will probably be coming. The money will be

sent to our post office box." (WC Vol 16, p. 1)

This is a very important statement. When did Lee Oswald get his very last check from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall? Its date, and the date it was cashed, can tell us a lot about when the note itself was actually written.

And here –shockingly –or maybe not, since this is often the case concerning evidence and Oswald--we find that the check has been tampered with, as explained by author-researcher Harrison E. Livingstone on p. 12 in his book

The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy: Stunning Evidence

in the Assassination of the President (Trafford, 2004):

“Oswald’s last check at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, #5811, issued on April 10,

1963, shows possible tampering…there are two “paid” stamps on the face,

One dated April 12, and one dated March, 1963…”

(photoshot from computer screen)

Oswald’s last check was stamped as cashed on April 12 AND in March. That’s not possible, so we can’t conclude that Oswald’s signature is on the check or that check #5811 was ever issued to Oswald. What if Oswald had been issued a check at a later date?

If Oswald’s check was actually cashed after April 15, when Oswald made the pro-Castro demonstration, it might have noticed that the note actually referred to the dangers Oswald feared due to being ordered to put on the Pro-Castro demonstration so close to the Walker incident. That would wipe out the value of the “Walker note.” As it is, two stamps are on this “Oswald check”-- once for March (!) and once for April:

Note two “cashed” stamps (left & center)

Note “April 12” stamp—meaning the check was cashed April 12, as well as a stamp for March 1? on Oswald’s so-called April 10 paycheck. Somebody boo-boo’d.

The HSCA used Marina’s testimony to conclude Oswald shot at Walker, largely based on the undated note: (p 61)

“This undated note, although it did not mention General Walker, clearly indicated that Oswald was about to attempt an act during the course of which he

might be killed or taken into custody.” But there’s the report of Oswald’s pro-Castro demonstration that he told me he faithfully performed, despite danger to himself, only 5 days after Walker was shot at, which was ignored:

April 15, 1963 (Monday) - Oswald passes out Fair Play for Cuba Committee literature on Main Street in Dallas. Oswald had a 'Viva Castro' sign around his neck. The police report (5/15/64) says this happened in late spring or early summer at Main and Ervay in front of H. L. Green store entrance. (WC Vol 22, p. 796; WC 23, p. 477; WC Vol 25, p. 681; Dallas Times Herald, 12/9/63; Life, 2/21/64, p. 76) “ (Ref: Ferrell Chronology)

These revelations are ignored by the Oswald-did-it folks, even though Lee’s note was not dated and Marina’s information cannot be relied upon for accuracy concerning the Walker incident. For example, Marina claimed Lee hid the rifle under his raincoat as he walked (one version) or rode (another version) a bus to Walker’s house—though Lee never did own a raincoat. She said he buried the rifle (one version) or hid the rifle in bushes (another version) before (in one version) and after using it.

This writer, a witness who knew Oswald in New Orleans, never saw a rifle in Lee’s possession, and there has been no believable explanation of how “Lee’s” rifle made it unseen to Dallas from New Orleans. Nosy neighbors in New Orleans never reported seeing any rifle, though Marina said Lee dry-fired it for hours on their very visible screened porch at 4905 Magazine Street, which at the time had no bushes hiding the porch from full view. Neighbors instead reported seeing Lee reading for hours on the porch, even when they had unkind things to say about the accused assassin.

The Interactive Timeline Revisited

With these considerations in mind, it is time to look at the “Interactive Timeline” which is (unfortunately) quoted so frequently by students, teachers, researchers and others, straight from the internet.

The “Interactive Timeline” comes up immediately when seeking Lee’s biography. Not only does it assert that Lee shot at Walker: it also offers as “fact” that Lee ordered a rifle and a revolver, despite massive evidence we now know exists that decry such statements.

One portion of this carelessly assembled timeline, concerning the ordering of a rifle and a revolver, as if by Oswald, offers dates between January 28, 1962 (sic) and March 25, 1963 for these events. It is an excellent example of how the Timeline is being used to frame Oswald to this very day. Here are the entries:

January 28, 1962 (sic): LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.

February 13, 1963: The Oswalds attend a dinner party at the home of the De


February 22, 1963: The Oswalds attend a dinner party at the home of Everett Glover, where they meet Ruth Paine.

March 2, 1963: The Oswalds move to 214 West Neely Street.

March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right-wing activist.

March 11, 1963: The Militant, a prominent left-wing publication, publishes a letter signed L.H., probably written by LHO.

March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.

March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons

First of all, before even looking at evidence that casts serious doubts on Oswald’s having ordered a revolver and a rifle, let’s use some common sense.

According to the Timeline, Oswald ordered a revolver on January 28, 1962. This is a typo. Parnell means 1963. Right away, we should question Parnell’s (and McAdams’) dedication to accuracy and detail about the Timeline. The typo ‘1962’ has been on this site since at least 2002, when I first copied it. As of Sept. 26, 2011, the typo has remained as ‘1962.’

Setting that aside, we assume Parnell means ‘1963.’ Now we get to the gist of the matter. According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a revolver on January 28, 1963. He ordered a rifle on March 12, 1963. The Warren Commission tells us that both of Oswald’s weapons were shipped on March 20, 1963 and that he picked up both weapons 5 days later, on March 25, 1963.

Let’s use some common sense and logic.

The revolver was supposedly ordered January 28. It was shipped on March 20. That’s 4 days for January, 28 days for February, and 20 days for March = 52 days. It took 52 days to fill the order.

The rifle was supposedly ordered March 12. It was shipped on March 20. It took 8 days to fill the order.

We are supposed to blindly believe that both weapons, though they were ordered 44 days apart from each other, nevertheless were shipped the same day, both arrived on the same day and both were picked up on the same day.

Seems that people mean and low enough to plant evidence against Oswald were also not very bright. For more information on how Oswald was framed, on just THIS issue, please see these essays at SCRIBD:

1) The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald: Oswald’s Handwriting Examined on Rifle/Revolver Order Forms

2) The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald: Oswald’s Handwriting,

The Sloppy Order Form, and Suggestions of Forgery

3) The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald: Envelope of Oswald’s order form for a rifle Suggests Forgery

4) Lee Harvey Oswald and the Italian Rifle

To view only a few more examples of the many errors and evidence of overt prejudice in the Parnell timeline for Lee Harvey Oswald, which are read daily by trusting (we hope not) students, teachers and citizens of the world, presented, as it is, as a reference tool, please read this:

Interactive Timeline of Lee Harvey Oswald: an Analysis

Why It’s Important to Clear Oswald’s Name

Lee Harvey Oswald was accused of killing President John F. Kennedy. The media and Internet have been keeping that old lie alive. Evidence to the contrary is ignored, minimalized, declared unimportant. But it IS important. Clearing Oswald’s name means that these old lies will be seen for what they are, and that those who actually killed Kennedy, protected by the government and the media, will then be recognized. Since these people illegally and violently took over America, uncounted millions have suffered wars and financial disasters worldwide that can be traced to the radical changes in US policies and monetary practices.

It is our obligation to trace the handoffs of power. It is our obligation to stand tall on November, 2013, and fight the “official story” that is still being used to hide the taking of America from the people.

Thursday, August 25, 2011



Roy Schaeffer

Roy Schaeffer served in the Marine Corps during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations (1960-1962). After graduating from Aviation Electronics School in San Diego , he was assigned the same job Lee Harvey Oswald had previously done at El Toro AFB.

He was working for the Dayton Daily News (DDN) the weekend of the Kennedy assassination. On the morning after JFK was assassinated, Schaeffer was asked to retrieve two wire photos for the Sunday Edition of the DDN. Seeing those photos would one day start him on a journey investigating the Kennedy assassination, though before that time he had no reason to question the Warren Commission's findings.

Fourteen years later, Schaeffer saw the wire photos as they were published on that Sunday and knew both photos were altered before the paper went to press. After finding more possible film alterations, studying the Warren Commission's report and recognizing two Marines' names in official reports, Schaeffer knew he had some insights, that by pure chance, no one else had.

In 1986 he wrote Jim Garrison about an extra 8mm Zapruder film made during the Clay Shaw trial. About a year later he received a copy from Fay Turner, a detective who questioned Oswald shortly after his arrest. By studying the Zapruder film in great detail, Schaeffer was able to make a composite blink-rate chart by plotting the emergency blinking lights on the front grill of the Presidential limousine frame by frame. By examining the blinking-light pattern, he concluded that Zapruder's camera ran at a faster speed than 18 frames per second, thus providing film-tampering evidence. Schaeffer testified before the Assassination Records Review Board in Dallas in 1994.

Schaeffer co-authored a chapter entitled, "The Case for Zapruder Film Tampering" in Assassination Science, Experts Speak Out about the Death of JFK with Mike Pincher, Esq. and edited by James H. Fetzer. Schaeffer has been researching the Kennedy assassination for more than 30 years and is now placing his research material at the Poage Library.

SEE MORE ABOUT SCHAEFFER HERE. To read the full story about the real Lee Harvey Oswald, read the book ME & LEE.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011



Dr. Howard Platzman wrote an article about "The Minox Camera" after I told him I had seen Lee Harvey Oswald's Minox--and even seen Lee take a photograph with it. But that article, as have many defending Oswald, has vanished from the Internet.

I first gave detailed information about the Minox to Platzman and to Martin Shackelford. Later, I repeated it to Sixty Minutes investigators in the presence of Dr. Platzman, Mike Wallace, Don Hewitt and Phil Scheffler.

I will be asking Dr. Platzman to send me a copy of his article, so it can be published again. Meanwhile, some information about Lee's Minox can be found on the Internet, such as offered by Ralph Thomas, below. I have added a few comments of my own to this article.


In his fine article,"The History And Evolution Of Spy and Investigative Photography"
by Ralph Thomas (see the article HERE) we quickly learn that a Minox was
Minox Spy Camera 1940's, 1950's,1960's
Known throughout the world as the subminiature camera to have, the Minox spy camera
was in the hands of almost all intelligence agents and spies in the 1940's, 1950's and
1960's. The camera was very good at taking close up document photography.
The camera was so small and so good for it's hay-day that it had restricted sales
to governmental and military intelligence agencies in many parts of the world such
as the United States. In the late 1960's through the 1980's if you were a private-eye
and had one, you had the very latest high tech subminiature camera on the market.
They were also very expensive.

Minox Spy Cameras stayed king of the subminiature camera world and released an endless
selection of options including a high end light meter, various flash attachments, a subminiature
tripod, telephoto lens and a right angle lens."

Ralph Thomas leads the reader to his logical analysis of the infamous
"backyard photos" and why they are faked. You can read about his analysis HERE.

Thomas goes on to say: "What's even more revealing is that Oswald himself owned a Minox Spy Camera. It was found among his possessions after the assassination, inventoried by the Dallas Police and then quickly covered up.

Some claim that the photo does NOT reveal a Minox Spy Camera, only a Minox Spy Camera Case and an Exposed Minox Light Meter. Ok, I will concede that fact! You can not see the camera. However, I have yet to know one person who would have had a Minox spy camera case and a light meter without the camera. Aside from the Minox, the photo (below) reveals a number of other interesting objects including other cameras, film, various small binoculars and other spy type photo and optic equipment. All owned by a man who was a minimum wage inventory clerk who lived in a rooming house. Yea right!"

He shows us the official photo made by the Dallas Police:

Minox camera case,Minox film cassettes, light meter and other camera cases...with cameras inside, of course...these are expensive cameras--so why did Oswald supposedly have his photo taken with a cheap, inferior dime-store camera (Imperial Reflex)?

Could it be that the police didn't realize that Oswald, who was known to be employed at a low hourly rate, would not have been able to afford an expensive camera? How wrong they were! Lee Harvey Oswald was making $400 a month working for the FBI and the CIA, as he indicated to me himself when he gave me his income for an entire month ($400 in $20 bills) so I would have funds to meet him in Mexico, should plans go as expected (they didn't). That's equal to $2,880 in 2011 funds, $34,560 income "on the side" --since Oswald typically held low-paying jobs to have a visible source of income.

But I digress. What the writer, above, failed to mention is that a Minox camera did show up in the Paine garage weeks later, in January, that detective Gus Rose insisted that he had indeed found a Minox with film in it inside Lee's seabag in that garage, and that he knew the difference between a camera with film in it, and a light meter.

Around 1978, an article written by Earl Golz gives us pertinent information about the Minox. Researcher A. J. Weberman had successfully petitioned to get the photos the FBI held that had come from "Oswald's Minox." Here is a portion of that article:



Photographs developed from Minox spy camera film found among Lee Harvey Oswald's personal possessions have been released by the FBI after being suppressed almost 15 years. About 25 images shot in foreign countries on two rolls from the miniature German-made camera were made available by the FBI under a Freedom of Information Act request by Alan Weberman, an independent assassination researcher in New York City.

More than 20 prints developed from one roll show civilian scenes apparently in Europe. Five shots from the other roll were military scenes either in the Far East or Central America. A Minox camera with a cassette film roll inside disappeared from Oswald's possessions after the FBI took custody of the property in 1963 from Dallas police, The News earlier had disclosed.

THE BUREAU LATER TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO PRESSURE POLICE INTO CHANGING THEIR INVENTORY LIST TO READ MINOX LIGHT METER, NOT CAMERA, according to detective Gus Rose who said he found the camera in Oswald's seabag at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Paine in Irving. The FBI had indicated the two rolls it developed were found separately in tin containers with ribbons tied around them. House Assassinations Committee investigators recently interviewed a former FBI agent who had custody of the Oswald property when the camera with film INSIDE DISAPPEARED, The New has learned. The former agent, Warren de Brueys, monitored Oswald's activities in the summer of 1963. He came to Dallas for two months to assist the Warren Commission investigation of the assassination.

"Monitoring is a word I would be reluctant to use," de Brueys told The News. "I never personally met him (Oswald), never knowingly personally talked to him. And I say that advisedly because - who knows - I don't think it happened. He may have called on the phone and made an inquiry one time without identifying himself."

===Note: de Brueys lied. He knew Lee personally.===

Near the end of the article, we read this:

TWO MONTHS LATER, ON JAN. 27, 1964, FBI AGENT THOMAS W. LENIHAN IN WASHINGTON TOLD J. GORDON SHANKLIN, AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE DALLAS FBI OFFICE, THAT DE BRUEYS' INVENTORY OF NOV. 26, 1963, SHOWED A MINOX CAMERA AMONG OSWALD'S POSSESSION, ACCORDING TO A LENIHAN MEMO. "I advised Shanklin that our laboratory claims that they did not have a Minox camera and that this item should be a Minox light meter," Lenihan's memo stated. "I requested that DL (Dallas FBI office) resolve whether or not a Minox camera was among the effects of Oswald. "

On 1-28-64 Shanklin advised Inspector Moore (Dallas police detective H.M. Moore) that Oswald did not have a Minox camera; that this was a Minox light meter." Two days after Lenihan told Shanklin the camera was a light meter, FBI agents visited the Paine home in Irving where Oswald's personal possessions were found and located a Minox camera in a coffee can in the garage. Mrs. Ruth Paine identified the camera as her husband's. The camera, which Michael Paine considered "unworkable" because of shutter damage, was forwarded to the Washington FBI office with "other evidence," according to an FBI teleprinter message dated Jan. 31, 1964. The message said Dallas police were "aware that no Minox camera (was) obtained in search" of the Paine residence and garage on Nov. 22-23, 1963. Detective Rose, however, remains adamant he found a Minox camera with film in it in Oswald's seabag when he made the initial search at the Paine home.

==Among Rose's many statements that he had indeed found a Minox is his mention of Ruth Paine watching him as he searched through Lee Oswald's possessions in the garage:

MORIARTY - This Minox camera. Was that with Ruth Paine's camera equipment?
ROSE - No, it was in the sea bag.
MORIARTY - Oh, in the sea bag.
ROSE - Ruth Paine explained to me, she stood, she stood right there while we searched. And she explained that everything in that sea bag and a couple of boxes that were there was Oswald's and she never had any objection to any search of that. The only time she objected was when we searched her bedroom where a lot of her camera equipment was. She did not object when we searched Marina Oswald's bedroom, the one she used.

===McAdams says that Officer Rose just doesn't know a camera from a light meter, even though Rose described removing a roll of film from the Minox. The Minox light meter is a box with a dial, but no openings. McAdams tries to explain the disappearing Minox like this (I've placed in bold face the most important part of his argument):

"The camera and the case were listed in the original DPD list, but only the case is visible, so the camera but not the case has to disappear for the photograph. Also a light meter that is not on the DPD list at all has to appear from nowhere for the photo. After the photo is taken the FBI and DPD make their joint inventory list. The light meter has to disappear again along with the camera case, but the Minox camera itself would have to reappear for the FBI/DPD inventory list. Now on the way to the FBI in Washington, the camera has to disappear again, while the light meter and camera case have to reappear. If the assumption that the FBI made originally that the Minox light meter was mistaken for a camera is correct, then there would be no need for this convoluted scenario."

==The assumption, of course, forces us to say officer Rose was extremely stupid, for not once, but twice, the camera is listed in police inventory, and Rose simply refused to be bullied by the FBI to say it was a light meter. The easiest solution is not that an experienced detective would make such an error, but that the FBI substituted a Minox light meter for the Minox camera. Then they could do as they pleased with the photos, which might have been, for all they knew, spy photos, until analyzed. Can't have Oswald linked to spying, now, can we?

==now, back to the excerpted article...where Michael Paine steps forth to try to claim the camera is his, but will NOT take responsibility for any of the photos found...====

Michael Paine told The News he recalled taking photos in Korea while he was in the army in the early 1950s and later on a trip to Europe, but not with a Minox camera. He couldn't remember taking a photo of a tanker anchored offshore mountainous terrain, he said.

==Of course Mr. Paine couldn't remember taking such a photo, even though he has to claim the camera as his own. That camera will later disappear, according to Paine, stolen from him along with other cameras. In the National Archives, a Minox camera appears, but it -==just like the "Paine" Minox, is damaged! Damaged in the same place, too--so that the serial number cannot be seen. What a coincidence! How remarkable! The serial number of the Minox Michael Paine claimed belonged to him happened to be quite unique, as explained below:

The Minox III camera, serial number 27259, was turned over to the FBI on January

31, 1964 by Michael Paine (found, he said, in a coffee can in his

garage) ... ...yep, folks, the same garage which police had thoroughly searched --

several times---the same garage where Lee's brother, Robert, also in January,

"found" ... the cheap Imperial Reflex camera -- the one that finally linked

the backyard photos to Lee (thanks to Robert's search of the garage!).

Here's the receipt for the fortuitous, convenient, discovery of the missing Minox:


Warren Commission apologist John McAdams, who says Oswald did it, and calls anyone who comes to a different conclusion a "conspiracy buff," published this comment about the Minox and its serial number:

"The serial number reported by the FBI is controversial for several reasons. This camera is purported to be in the National Archives today, but the camera has been damaged and can not be opened. The serial number can only be viewed when the camera is open. The question then is how did the FBI report a serial number, when the number can not be seen. In addition the Minox III was a newer version of the Minox II. The serial number for the Minox II from 20379 to 31500 while Model III serial numbers started with 31275 and ended with 58499, so the 27259 number can not be the number on a model III. The question then becomes where did the FBI get this 27259 serial number?"

===Perhaps the number itself was reported for Lee's Minox before it was decided a substitute Minox was needed, a Minox III. Was the number then attributed to the Minox III that "belonged" to Michael Paine? Problem: if the camera is opened, the serial number could be seen to be different.

But Paine's camera was ''broken' and could not be opened. Nevertheless, the FBI is comfortable assigning the serial number to it--and even showing the camera that belonged to Michael Paine later to Lee's wife, Marina, to see if she could identify it. Not surprisingly, she could not/would not.

The Minox on display in the National Archives is damaged so we cannot see its serial number.

The other option -- McAdams' -- is that the FBI pretended to make up a serial number for the camera. Or for another camera, now lost. Every way it's examined, the FBI doesn't come up smelling like roses in this matter (as usual, when trying to dig up the truth about the Kennedy assassination)==


In my book, Me & Lee, I speak of the Minox. I encountered Lee's Minox when Kerry Thornley took a Polaroid photo of us, which Lee immediately destroyed. Kerry commented that Lee "still" had the camera, which means Lee had the camera when they were both based at El Toro, California. That's also where Gerry Hemming mentioned seeing Lee, and he, too, said Lee had a Minox, though his story of how Lee got it is very strange, indeed. In 1963, Xerox machines were few and far between. Lee told me he used the Minox to copy documents. He said he developed his own film.

Witness: "Lee's Minox that made 150 photos at once." (No way!)

Lee also said something that I simply must have misremembered. I thought Lee told me that his Minox could take over 150 photos at once. I now know this is clearly impossible, unless somebody out there has heard of a radically modified Minox. Martin Shackelford, a researcher who knows his photos, corrected me when I stated this in 1999: that was impossible, he said. It's an example of memory failure on my part: I've been accused of having too good a memory, but in this case, memory failed me. However, maybe Lee had told me he had taken 150 photos at one time with the Minox, using the required rolls of film to do so. I, knowing nothing about the Minox except what it looked like, just misunderstood.

However, I saw Lee's Minox on several occasions. Both Shackelford and Dr. Howard Platzman received this information by email, in 1999, and Shackelford printed it out.