Vintage mystery camera

So, why are we suddenly interested in the type of camera the Babushka Lady shot?
 
So, why are we suddenly interested in the type of camera the Babushka Lady shot?
To determine whether it was a movie or still camera - there was a woman who came forward and claimed to be her, and to have had her film confiscated, but her story is full of holes. If it can be shown that it is a still camera, that would basically end it once and for all.
 
So, why are we suddenly interested in the type of camera the Babushka Lady shot?
To determine whether it was a movie or still camera - there was a woman who came forward and claimed to be her, and to have had her film confiscated, but her story is full of holes. If it can be shown that it is a still camera, that would basically end it once and for all.

I understand that, but it doesn't explain the interest in proving or disproving what she said. That woman came out in 1970 and it seems generally accepted that her story had too many holes. (One of the holes, of course, was about the camera. She claimed to be shooting a camera that didn't even exist yet.) So why is it suddenly a topic again after 44 years?

Is it just an ongoing curiosity for you? Was interest stirred up by the recent 60th anniversary or something? That's what I was asking. I was curious.

Well, regardless of why, I don't think there is anything definitive that can be said about the camera from that shot.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'm pretty sure that isn't a camera at all. It's a box, cleverly designed to LOOK like a box camera and inside was a tiny, but very powerful weapon. the "shutter" was actually the trigger. Based on this evidence, I believe the Babushka lady to be the second shooter. :biglaugh:
 
Many early cameras could be fitted with Sports finders - basically a couple of wire frames -that allowed framing of the shot over the top of the camera. I don't think they're common on box cameras, but it adds another possibility.
 
Gee I never knew all this... What occurred to me is that there's probably a simple and rather unexciting explanation to why no other photos surfaced that appeared to have been taken from her vantage point - maybe none of the pictures turned out. I've done sports and events and you have to get good at being able to capture what's going on as things happen fast and unexpectedly - all of her photos may have had shutter blur, movement blur, were badly exposed, etc. Or the drugstore lost the film! or who knows what.

You could try looking up movie cameras, but it seems like those were usually more rectangular than boxy, and some older ones had turret lenses that would probably be pretty obvious in a photo. I thought maybe an old Bolex? but anything I think of and look up doesn't quite look like a possibility. No movie film ever showed up either did it from that time period that could have been shot from there?

Maybe someday some relative or other will find some negatives in a shoebox, otherwise I don't know that you can get anything conclusive from the existing photos of the scene.
 
submitted for Ridiculous thread of the month award ..
 
There could be a lot of contenders for that award. I enjoy a good mystery but this seems to be somewhat reinventing the wheel.

If nothing else I enjoyed getting out one of the books I have, '500 Cameras' from the George Eastman House, and enjoyed looking at all the pretty cameras (and forgetting about why I got it out in the first place).
 
Gee I never knew all this... What occurred to me is that there's probably a simple and rather unexciting explanation to why no other photos surfaced that appeared to have been taken from her vantage point - maybe none of the pictures turned out. I've done sports and events and you have to get good at being able to capture what's going on as things happen fast and unexpectedly - all of her photos may have had shutter blur, movement blur, were badly exposed, etc. Or the drugstore lost the film! or who knows what.

That is part of the reason I asked initially - there is an alternate story from a Kodak technician about a woman bringing in at least one photo from the assassination scene that was far out of focus. Nailing the type of camera down would kill one sorry and send the search (however futile) in a different direction.

From the responses in this thread I've begun looking at it from a different perspective - I think she is holding it on its side, lens facing her. Hoping to get a copy from the negative so I can confirm a model and change the direction the story has been going for 40 years.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top