The CIA analysis of the Z film

[David Josephs]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David, do  they say in their notes that they thought it came from the front and not behind?

This was amazing... yet not very description of the shots themselvesWashington Navy Yard NPIC and Dinos interview.doc

and Not in those notes (CIA450)...  only from Homer McMahon's AARB interview...    

while you were discussing the, the hits, the shots that hit the
people in the limousine---ah, the Governor and the President. Did
Mr. Smith tell you the directions the shots came from, or did you
people try to determine that on your own during your study of the
film?
McMahon (10:38): OK, let, let me not answer that question, and take a little detour.
I’m an Army brat; my Dad was in the First and Second World War....

Horne: Your opinion.
McMahon: About eight (8) shots.
Gunn: And where did they come from?
McMahon: Three different directions, at least.

Edited April 9, 2020 by David Josephs

[Larry Hancock]

I may be missing it but was there an actual written NPIC evaluation/conclusion related to the number of shots, trajectories, firing points or do we just have the numerical notes and tables?   Its also my impression that the actual NPIC study was done a good bit after the preparation of the two sets story boards and the viewings that McMahon describes.

My impression was that the true estimate of the shooting was presented in great secrecy based on the first set of story boards and that was done over the weekend....the second set were prepared at a later date for the archives and supported the lone nut story - not what was briefed at the highest level within 48 hours.

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

I have a question about this. Why would the CIA bother with such a study (and conclude there was more than shooter) if "the CIA did it"? 

Would it be because the CIA did it, but the guys doing this study didn't know who the rogues were who did it, and they're trying to figure out exactly how the rogues did it? (This is what they call compartmentalization.)

 

 

 

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

fyi- there is a very relevant thread on this website called, "  

Dino Brugioni "

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

This was amazing... yet not very description of the shots themselves Washington Navy Yard NPIC and Dinos interview.doc 111.5 kB · 0 downloads

and Not in those notes (CIA450)...  only from Homer McMahon's AARB interview...    

while you were discussing the, the hits, the shots that hit the
people in the limousine---ah, the Governor and the President. Did
Mr. Smith tell you the directions the shots came from, or did you
people try to determine that on your own during your study of the
film?
McMahon (10:38): OK, let, let me not answer that question, and take a little detour.
I’m an Army brat; my Dad was in the First and Second World War....

Horne: Your opinion.
McMahon: About eight (8) shots.
Gunn: And where did they come from?
McMahon: Three different directions, at least.

Eight shots from 3 different directions.  That means that 5 shots are unaccounted for in the official story.  Jean Hill said she heard about 6 shots.  Other witnesses say more than 3.

Where would these extra 5 shots have occurred?  Most people take evidence from the Zapruder Film and do not really agree on what shots occurred where and in what sequence, but generally agree on three for the film.  There are many theories.

So, did the extra shots occur before the Zapruder sequences or after.  And, don't forget the 3 different directions.

What would those 3 directions be if the Sniper's Nest is ruled out?  9 out of 11 witnesses in the TSBD that were the closest to the Sniper's Nest said shooting occurred elsewhere and not from the TSBD.  Jesse Curry said he could never put Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hands.  Different witnesses down on Elm and Houston said different things about gunmen on the 6th floor and other floors.  You can't prove anyone shot from the Sniper's Nest beyond a reasonable doubt. 

So, what 3 directions could that be?  I did this sometime back just speculating on where you could shoot from and not really where a shot could come from based on the wounds of Kennedy and Connally.  This pic shows there are two possibilities for ambush sites which are about equal in nature.  Perhaps, more so for the Elm and Houston intersection.  If I planned this I would certainly have shooters available for two ambush sites.  We are not talking about long distance expert sniper marksmen.  This was for a rifleman up close and easy.  Feet rather than yards as a distance measure.

Is there a possibility Dino was pulling the interviewer's leg or was he being sincere in this answer.

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I may be missing it but was there an actual written NPIC evaluation/conclusion related to the number of shots, trajectories, firing points or do we just have the numerical notes and tables?   Its also my impression that the actual NPIC study was done a good bit after the preparation of the two sets story boards and the viewings that McMahon describes.

My impression was that the true estimate of the shooting was presented in great secrecy based on the first set of story boards and that was done over the weekend....the second set were prepared at a later date for the archives and supported the lone nut story - not what was briefed at the highest level within 48 hours.

 

 

Larry - I think simply because NPIC was so CIA affiliated and staffed they call these docs CIA....

I have not seen anything from NPIC in terms of a study/evaluation or conclusion unless we speak of the 4 briefing boards Homer and gang did,

Yes, I agree Larry... Dino's boards were completely different and MAY be the CIA analysis of which we speak since no one after that weekend ever sees them.(until Hicks).. and it most likely pointed out problems that couldn't be let into the record...

If I remember correctly Arthur Lundahl brought these to McCone on Sunday with briefing notes.  1 of the 2 board sets was returned to Dino then given to Hicks who freaked and withheld it from Rockefeller Comm. 

(Horne V4 p1236) 

 

[Larry Hancock]

That's a good point David, as I understand it the NPIC operation was so deeply classified that the CIA was actually a sort of working cover for them, and indeed they operated under its umbrella while providing services to the military,  DIA and the NSC staff - given their work on photo intel for the CIA its likely that affiliation explains why the briefing boards went to McCone.  Its also important to recall that within a couple of weeks McCone very privately expressed that he felt their had been multiple shooters. I expect the first set of briefing boards were a fundamental shock to the system, which is why they were redone as part of the obfuscation that ensued over the weekend and why later when someone discovered the originals stashed in a store room at NPIC it drove a moment of panic until they were destroyed - as you say, Hicks totally freaked.

It says something that the WC itself avoided the Z film as studiously as possible and that it did not demand a stand alone photo intel study and report from NPIC - of course given how the ballistics evaluation backfired on them I suspect that would have been the last thing Warren wanted,  after all he even refused to deal with the WC conflicts with the FBI shooting study.

I think Dino knew very well what he saw in those first viewing.  What a thing to have on your conscience.

 -- definitely TMI...

 

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

This was a part of the CIA as an institution.  Brugioni was a good analyst who did work for JFK during the Missile Crisis.  As did Lundahl, who was really their top photo analyst guy.

From Jim Garrison to Prouty to many other people who think the CIA was involved in the JFK case--including Senator Schweiker-that role was not as an entity.  I mean McCone obviously did not know what he heck was going on.

John:

The value of the CIA analysis is not that it is definitive.   I don't think it is, its simply their view of the film.

The true value of this I think is twofold:

The WR did all they could to conceal the backwards recoil.

Both the FBI and CIA disagreed with the Single Bullet Fantasy.  In fact, one can argue that the WC did not include the FBI report in the volumes for that reason.  But the CIA was even more radical with their disagreement. 

BTW,  I cannot find any evidence that McCone ever told Rankin about this analysis. Would have loved to have heard that conversation.

Edited April 9, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

34 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ron:

This was a part of the CIA as an institution.  Brugioni was a good analyst who did work for JFK during the Missile Crisis.  As did Lundahl, who was really their top photo analyst guy.

From Jim Garrison to Prouty to many other people who think the CIA was involved in the JFK case--including Senator Schweiker-that role was not as an entity.  I mean McCone obviously did not know what he heck was going on.

John:

The value of the CIA analysis is not that it is definitive.   I don't think it is, its simply their view of the film.

The true value of this I think is twofold:

The WR did all they could to conceal the backwards recoil.

Both the FBI and CIA disagreed with the Single Bullet Fantasy.  In fact, one can argue that the WC did not include the FBI report in the volumes for that reason.  But the CIA was even more radical with their disagreement. 

BTW,  I cannot find any evidence that McCone ever told Rankin about this analysis. Would have loved to have heard that conversation.

I suspect Specter was shown the NPIC analysis. I explain why in chapter 3b:

 

April 22, 1964

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

FROM:  Melvin A. Eisenberg 

SUBJECT:  Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of the first and second bullets. 

On April 14, 1964, a conference was held to determine which frames in the Zapruder film portray the instants at which the first and second bullets struck. Present were: Commander James J. Humes, Director of Laboratories of the Naval Medical School, Bethesda, Maryland; Commander J. Thorton Boswell, Chief Pathologist, Naval Medical School, Bethesda; Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; Dr. F.W. Light, Jr. Deputy Chief of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, and Chief of the Wound Assessment Branch of the Biophysics Division; Dr. Olivier, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal; Messrs. Malley, Gauthier, Shaneyfelt, and two other unidentified agents of the FBI; Messrs. Kelley and Howlett of the Secret Service; and Messrs. Redlich, Specter and Eisenberg of the Commission staff. 

A screening was held of the Zapruder film and of slides prepared by LIFE from the film.  Each slide corresponded with a separate frame of film, beginning with frame 171.  The consensus of the meeting was as follows:

 (a) The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat.

(b) The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position).

(c) If the reaction did not begin at 199 or 204-206, it probably began during the range of frames during which the President is hidden from Zapruder’s camera by a sign, namely, frames 215-24.

cc:Mr. Rankin                             Mr Belin 

     Mr. Willens                            Mr. Specter   

     Mr. Redlich                            Mr. Eisenberg 

     Mr. Ball

(d) The President may have been struck by the first bullet as much as two seconds before any visible reaction began.  In all likelihood, however, the maximum delay between impact and reaction would be under one second, and it is possible that the reaction was instantaneous.  Putting this in terms of frames, the President may have been struck as much as 36 frames before any visible reaction is seen. If the visible reaction begins at 199, the President may have been struck as early as 163, if the visible reaction begins at 204-206, he may have been strtuck as early as 168-170, if the visible reaction begins while the President is behind the sign, he may have been struck as early as 179-188. 

(e) The velocity of the first bullet would have been little diminished by its passage through the President.  Therefore, if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him and (probably) caused the wounds he sustained in his chest cavity. Strong indications that this occurred are provided by the facts that (1) the bullet recovered from Governor Connally's stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist and (2) if the first bullet did not hit Governor Connally, it should have ripped up the car, but apparently did not.  Since the bullet recovered from the Governor's stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist, if he was hit by this (the first) bullet, he was probably also hit by the second bullet.

(f) If Governor Connally was hit by the first and second bullets, it is impossible to say definitively at what point, or by what point, he had been hit by the second bullet.

(g) Governor Connally seems to straighten up at frames 224-226, and may be reacting to a wound at this point. (If so, it would be a wound from the first bullet).

(h) Governor Connally seems to begin showing an expression of anguish around 242.  If he was hit with two bullets, this expression may have resulted from his second wound.

(i) After Governor Connally straightened up at frames 224-26, he starts to turn to the right.  As a result of this turn, at no time after frame 236 was Governor Connally in a position such that a bullet fired from the probable site of the assassin would have caused the wound in his chest cavity which Governor Connally sustained--that is, after frame 236, the Governor presented a side view to the assassin rather than a back view.*

(j) It is not possible to say whether prior to 236 Governor Connally was ever in a position such that one bullet could have caused the five wounds he sustained.

(k) As in the case of the President, Governor Connally could have conceivably been hit two seconds before he begins to react, but the maximum likely time interval between hit and reaction is one second, and the reaction may have been instantaneous.  The likelihood of an instantaneous reaction is particularly great in regard to the wrist wound, since pain is usually felt more quickly in a limb than in the torso.

 */ Mr. Specter disagrees with this, and feels the Governor was in position to receive the chest wound up to 242.

 

Analysis of the Memos on the April 14 Conference

These memos tell us quite a bit about the mindset of the Warren Commission attorneys and FBI. The stated reason for the conferences—to decide the impact times and locations of the first two shots—reveals a built-in bias. The eyewitness evidence available so far suggests that the head shot was the second shot heard by most witnesses, and yet this inconvenient truth is not even to be considered. The attitude of everyone at the conference seems to be that “We have a piece of film that may show three separate hits. Kennedy shows a reaction between 199 and 224, Connally shows one between 224 and 236, and Kennedy is hit at 313. Therefore, those are our three shots."  Never mind that a number of witnesses heard a shot after the head shot. Never mind that the majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were bunched together. Never mind that our study of the rifle indicates that the first two shots would have to have been at least 51 frames apart…

The memos reveal a few other wet spots on the slow-motion whitewash.  On “d” of the memo by Eisenberg, he writes that everyone agrees that Kennedy could have been hit 2 full seconds, as early as frame 163, before he reacted. This is nonsense. NOT ONE eyewitness reported a two second delay in Kennedy’s response to the first shot. Even worse, Kennedy is actively waving and smiling at the crowd after frame 163. It hardly seems likely he would be waving and smiling at the crowd if he’d even heard a loud shot, let alone been hit by one. It seems likely, therefore, that these 2 seconds are a “gift” to Arlen Specter, to give him some wiggle room should he need more time to have the shots make sense.

That Specter was looking for this wiggle room is demonstrated by his lone dissent in the memo’s “i.” Here he is bucking the crowd in an effort to pick up just 6 more frames. Is it just a coincidence that by Specter taking 163 as the earliest time for a hit on Kennedy, and by his insisting on 242 as the latest time for a hit on Connally, a first shot 163, second shot 242, and final shot 313 shooting scenario is made possible, and that this would place the last two shots closer together than the first two? Is it possible that Specter, who had counted interviewing all the bystanders as one of his earliest objectives was, in fact, acutely aware that the scenario accepted by the others after watching the Zapruder film failed to match the testimony of the eyewitnesses? Was he, in fact, looking for ways to make it all fit?

Also interesting is Specter’s selection of frame 242 as the frame by which Connally must have been hit. Frame 242 was, let’s remember, the frame selected as the moment of impact on Connally in the secret analysis of the film performed at the National Photographic Interpretation Center in November and December. It seems clear from this that someone from the Secret Service told Specter their findings. Specter did, in fact, work closely with the Secret Service throughout his investigation. He was later to admit that Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley showed him an autopsy photo, apparently without the knowledge of their superiors.

[Chris Davidson]

Working backwards from extant z313, see if you can figure out what (extant frame numbers) range shot 2 presided in.

Then ask yourself why it was dropped, in terms of total frame count between shot 2+3.

 

[John Butler]

Chris,

Shot 2?  Frames 56 thru 73?  Shot 3?  (frame 89).  Are they using a different reference for Zapruder frames?  What's with these numbers?  Are they referring to frames past the Stemmons sign?

What are they talking about?  The p. limo was on Houston Street when Zapruder 56-73 were taken.  This has to refer to something else? 

Surely these guys were using something else as a reference for frames.  Were they working with a different Zapruder film?

Since this January 28, 1964 is going to several Asst. Directors of the FBI it must be a serious document.  It mentions various WC legal staff as agreeing.  It is obviously not the official story.  They didn't like the idea of one shot hitting Kennedy and then Connally? 

Frame 225 plus 56 or 73.  Frame 281 to 298?  That makes more sense according to Zapruder.

Could you post the docs without the gif so that the second page can be read at the bottom.  Or, post a reference to find these docs.

Edited April 10, 2020 by John Butler

[Gary Murr]

John, David, et al:

The answer to the question surrounding the “shots” and “frame thru” numbering system were explained, in totality, by myself in Chapter 18, Volume 1 of my three volume work on the wounding of John Connally, “Controlling The Past.” I provided this volume and others free of charge via a link on the Ed Forum several years ago. Nonetheless, I am affixing a link below that will open this same chapter 18, as well as the footnotes that go with this same chapter. As you will see, and I repeatedly have argued in the past, the true “original” Zapruder film frame numbering was not constructed by Lyndal Shaneyfelt, but rather a fellow lab employee of his at the FBI, Frederick Webb. This discussion concerning Webb and his input begins on page number 454 of this chapter – you will find the page numbers centered on both the top and bottom of the pages.

This link will remain open for only seven days, so if you are interested download the chapter and notes.

 

Gary Murr

 

LINK:     https://we.tl/t-cEjxhTAiqi  

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Shot 2?  Frames 56 thru 73?  Shot 3?  (frame 89).  Are they using a different reference for Zapruder frames?  What's with these numbers?  Are they referring to frames past the Stemmons sign?

What are they talking about?  The p. limo was on Houston Street when Zapruder 56-73 were taken.  This has to refer to something else? 

Surely these guys were using something else as a reference for frames.  Were they working with a different Zapruder film?

Since this January 28, 1964 is going to several Asst. Directors of the FBI it must be a serious document.  It mentions various WC legal staff as agreeing.  It is obviously not the official story.  They didn't like the idea of one shot hitting Kennedy and then Connally? 

Frame 225 plus 56 or 73.  Frame 281 to 298?  That makes more sense according to Zapruder.

Could you post the docs without the gif so that the second page can be read at the bottom.  Or, post a reference to find these docs.

Hey John... following Davidson's lead and the WEST surveys the question is whether or not a 3rd shot near 5+00 existed or was added to there were 3 shots... it was later removed and became the TAGUE shot...

56 frames from 171 is 227.  56 from 161 is 217...  Halfway between is 222...  313 minus 89 = 224....

The numbers we know as the Zfilm frames was designed on purpose.  Instead of Z133 being the frame the limo reappears, it was actually close to 33 frames later...
the real mystery is 133 since we all know the camera was not turned off and on again.

It takes the cycle 81 frames to make that wide turn onto Elm so we may infer from TRULY's wide turn story that there were at least 50-80 frames spliced out of that turn from Zapruder.

Creating the relationship between Z100 and Z161/166/168 & 171 is the reason CE884 was hidden and changed.  Traveling .9' in 3 frames at 15mph or even 11mph doesn't work...
those 2 speeds are 2.24mph for the stuff marked on the street... 168-171  and a bit over 3 mph for 161-166.

  

Either way the limo was barely moving as it comes out of that turn onto Elm (that's why Towner's movie is so strange... the background gets bigger while the limo gets smaller; that's not possible as whether zooming or moving toward to objects, they both would get larger within the image... This is also exactly where 133 runs to 171 in Z... )

 

Then there's the entire thing about Shaneyfelt moving the path of the limo south so line of sight for 161 becomes 168...

By shifting the spot to indicate the frame numbers from where JFK sat to front and rear bumpers, the FBI and SS were able to create complete confusion... the data offered does not represent what is seen on the zfilm...  WEST used the location markers "3+00" for example to plot the limo course every 25 feet...  except for 5+00

Shaneyfelt moves the path by inserting dots with frame numbers as the limo's from bumper reaches them... while the SS reconstruction used the rear bumper.

It's 15.5 feet from front to JFK and another 6 feet to the rear bumper.  the image below is true to scale. 

Is it a coincidence that the movement places JFK at 168... and the old 168-171 on what becomes CE884... becomes 161-166...

Nothing about the zframe numbers or the info provided by the FBI works.  Whereas the WEST surveys were consistent throughout.

Finally... the limo was said to pass thru POSITION A - but not filmed - by SHANEYFELT... which is why they put the limo at this position in the reenactments

The Queen Mary was very close to the limo when z133 appears...  yet how can the limo be at POS A and then Z133 with the follow-up car right on it's tail?

 

  

[John Butler]

Thanks David,

That's an information overload for my tired old brain.  I'll look at this some more.  I have already seen several good points you have made.

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

John, David, et al:

The answer to the question surrounding the “shots” and “frame thru” numbering system were explained, in totality, by myself in Chapter 18, Volume 1 of my three volume work on the wounding of John Connally, “Controlling The Past.” I provided this volume and others free of charge via a link on the Ed Forum several years ago. Nonetheless, I am affixing a link below that will open this same chapter 18, as well as the footnotes that go with this same chapter. As you will see, and I repeatedly have argued in the past, the true “original” Zapruder film frame numbering was not constructed by Lyndal Shaneyfelt, but rather a fellow lab employee of his at the FBI, Frederick Webb. This discussion concerning Webb and his input begins on page number 454 of this chapter – you will find the page numbers centered on both the top and bottom of the pages.

This link will remain open for only seven days, so if you are interested download the chapter and notes.

 

Gary Murr

 

LINK:     https://we.tl/t-cEjxhTAiqi  

Thanks the numbers are a puzzler.