Doug Horne

[David G. Healy]

he didn't see a forged version of the Z-film altered to make it appear JFK was shot 3 times from behind.

He saw the "other film" Len

By "other film" do you mean the forged Z-film? We know the original was developed in Dallas

ROTFLMFAO.... nah, Redd isn't impressed -- try again!

[Len Colby]

LOL you really think that proves something? Lifton could A) have beeen under the false impression he MIGHT have been " in technical violation of any security law" by saying Hawkeye making a joke or C) intentionally creating a false sense of drama.

The whole theory quite frankly is stupid,the CIA would not object to people disclosing they had a secret lab with Kodak just as long as you don't divulge the name even though it is a name closely associated with the company

So tell me this Bill,what would be the point of giving a super secret lab a codename if any one hearing it would be able to figure out where it was?

Len,

It seems that you are the only one who is laughing or confused.

I don't know why they give code names to secret labs

If I'm the one who's confused why do you keep making factual errors?

What Lifton, Horne and you are proposing is that either the super secret “code name” of the lab which had to be edited off the tape is:

a) The same as its well known real name OR

The same as the well known real name of another facility at the same company HQ

Both of these are of course completely absurd, risible in fact.

or why they had two separate sessions at NPIC to enlarge frames, unless it was two different films, as they were described by those expert techs who worked on them.

Please provide a citation for your claims that 1) there were two separate sessions with separate technicians 2) “they were described by those expert techs who worked on them” as “two different films”.

There could be various reasons why more than one session was ordered, the most obvious was that they were ordered by different agencies, another is that the same agency decided it wanted further analysis.

And if the director of the CIA was the person for whom the first set of briefing boards were for, who did they make the second set of briefing boards for?

Is there any evidence other than Dino Burgioni, then 87 -8 years old saying in early 2009, over 45 years after the fact “that the four panels in flat # 90A in the JFK Records Collection are not the briefing boards he produced while on duty at NPIC"? Unfortunately most of the pages of Horne’s book dealing with Burgioni are not available on the Amazon reader.

I'm the one asking the serious questions,

And you are ignoring the ones I ask you because they point to serious flaws in your conjecture

...you're the one who is laughing.

Nope Healy’s “rolling on the floor” cackling like a spotted hyena on nitrous-oxide to the extent his backside might fall off

[Len Colby]

Let's not forget the contradictions between what Horne proposes and what his star witness said.

Horne believes McMahon saw the version of the Z-film that was altered to cover up the involvement of more than one shooter.

- McMahon said he saw signs of 6 - 8 shots and 3 - 4 shooters

Horne believe "Hawkeye Works" had such sophisticated optical printers that they could forge a new Z-film over night with no obvious sighs of composting which are detectable even in high budget Hollywood productions.

- McMahon said they didn't even have decent enlargers.

[William Kelly]

Let's not forget the contradictions between what Horne proposes and what his star witness said.

Horne believes McMahon saw the version of the Z-film that was altered to cover up the involvement of more than one shooter.

- McMahon said he saw signs of 6 - 8 shots and 3 - 4 shooters

Horne believe "Hawkeye Works" had such sophisticated optical printers that they could forge a new Z-film over night with no obvious sighs of composting which are detectable even in high budget Hollywood productions.

- McMahon said they didn't even have decent enlargers.

The contradictions are in the official story, not in Horne's analysis of it, and what he independently learned.

Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.

These aren't the usual alteration suspects - Conspiracy Theorists - Jack White, Jim Fetzer, David Healey, Harry Livingstone, all of whom would have been ignored if they claimed the Z-film was altered because of Mooreman in the Street isssue, or any other anamoly in the content of the film.

Instead we are discussing the reports of the CIA officers who saw two different films - types of films - at two different times, making two different sets of briefing boards.

Of course, Dino is now being attacked because of his age, and McMahon because of his opinion of what he saw in the content of the film - more than three shots, but that is to be expected of Colby. (The Chinese fortune cookie I just opened reads: "Keep your goals away from the trolls.", ha ha)

These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President during the Cuban Missile crisis.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

In response to another question regarding Oswald's association with the U2 program I posted an article about his work at JCS, in addition to his working as a radar operator at a U2 base in Japan.

In this blog post I ask the question of whether Oswald himself placed the arrows and captions on the photo while working at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval, which had a contract with the US Army Map Service to do such things.

And it is a question that, according to the transcript of the tape of the meeting, the President himself asked - who put these arrows and captions on here?

Now my questions are - why did they have two separate NPIC sessions to enlarge specific frames of the Z-film? Why didn't the first session acomplish their task?

Who were the breifing boards for? Who did they brief? According to Lundahl, one set was for CIA director McCone. Who was the other set for, and why didn't they use the first set in the second briefing, rather than make another set?

And what became of both sets of briefing boards? The Cuban Missile Crisis briefing boards still exist. Dino found one briefing board in a closet at NPIC and he was chastised for even having it.

What became of the rest of the briefing boards?

As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.

Other questions are also still being answered, so we will know more soon.

Now that others have had a chance to read Chapter 14 of Volume IV, I thought others could report what they get out of that chapter, which is really a work in progress, because we have yet to hear from the Hollywood Special Effects artists, the story of the Stemmons Sign Anamoly and the response to the two FOIA requests on the Zapruder film being at the secret "Hawkeye Works" lab at Kodak HQ at Rochester.

Thanks,

BK

[Craig Lamson]

Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.

Two different VERSIONS? Quite a leap there Kelly. Or was it to different COPIES of the same original????

Instead we are discussing the reports of the CIA officers who saw two different films - types of films - at two different times, making two different sets of briefing boards.

Which is it, different films or different TYPES of film from the same original?

These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President during the Cuban Missile crisis.

Really? Your "professional" Brugioni had to GUESS if there was images between the sprocket holes. And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't theymake 5x7 internegatives and CONTACT prints? A CONTACT print would be NO LARGER than thge neagative it was printed from, in this case 5"x7", slighty larger than your standard drugstoe photo print. Kinda makes Horne's opinion that they need the "best possible quality" and thus the need for a full wet gate , for the briefing boards look a bit silly.

Now my questions are - why did they have two separate NPIC sessions to enlarge specific frames of the Z-film? Why didn't the first session acomplish their task?

Why not? Was copy two of the original film a different exposure that contained more shadow or highlight detail than the first copy? Was one a generation closer to the original? Lots of reasons.

Who were the breifing boards for? Who did they brief? According to Lundahl, one set was for CIA director McCone. Who was the other set for, and why didn't they use the first set in the second briefing, rather than make another set?

Maybe they focused on different frames? Ever considered that?

And what became of both sets of briefing boards? The Cuban Missile Crisis briefing boards still exist. Dino found one briefing board in a closet at NPIC and he was chastised for even having it.

Why save them?

What became of the rest of the briefing boards?

Why save them?

As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.

How will you ever know? I thought you said the place was "top secret"...still.

BK

Edited December 21, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[William Kelly]

Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.

Two different VERSIONS? Quite a leap there Kelly. Or was it to different COPIES of the same original????

Instead we are discussing the reports of the CIA officers who saw two different films - types of films - at two different times, making two different sets of briefing boards.

Which is it, different films or different TYPES of film from the same original?

These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President during the Cuban Missile crisis.

Really? Your "professional" Brugioni had to GUESS if there was images between the sprocket holes. And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't theymake 5x7 internegatives and CONTACT prints? A CONTACT print would be NO LARGER than thge neagative it was printed from, in this case 5"x7", slighty larger than your standard drugstoe photo print. Kinda makes Horne's opinion that they need the "best possible quality" and thus the need for a full wet gate , for the briefing boards look a bit silly.

Doug Horne wrote:

"…Since they knew that the Jamieson lab's contact printers could only accommodate 16 mm film, Kodak initially did not slit Zapruder's 16 mm wide, 'double 8' film down the center to create an 8 mm wide home movie, as they normally would have. His camera original film, as developed, was 16 mm wide, and had image strips on both sides (his home movie and the assassination sequence from Dealey Plaza), running in opposite directions."

"Following their return to the Kodak lab at about 8 PM, the three Kodachrome IIA contact prints were developed by the Kodak staff and the 'first day copies' were then slit lengthwise, down the middle of the entire length of each film, per normal practice, and reassembled as 8 mm 'single perf' movies (presumably with the home movie shot on side A first, followed by the assassination film shot on side that could only be viewed in normal circumstances thereafter on an 8 mm home movie projector. The assassination film—either the slit original, or one of the 'first day copies'—was then viewed at the Kodak plant in its 8 mm configuration…"

"Homer McMahon consistently claimed that he had enlarged individual frames from the original film, and that he recalled it was a 16 mm wide unslit double 8 home movie. During the first McMahon interview, he stated he was "sure we had the

original film," because "we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation." McMahon confirmed this recollection of an unslit double 8 home movie with opposing image strips during his in-person interview which was tape recorded on July 14, 1997…." P 1224

"Analysis: First of all, we can now state with certainty that NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon's rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie—and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester—implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera-original film developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as 'the original.'…"

";;;If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated 'original' created with an optical printer at the CIA's secret film lab in Rochester."

";;;Dino Brugioni was the Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, and worked directly for the Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, from 1954 until Lundahl retired in 1973. Arthur Lundahl,…the event he participated in actually commenced on Saturday evening, November 23 (rather than Sunday, November 24, as he had incorrectly estimated for David Wrone in 2003); that it involved the original 8 mm film — not a copy — and that it did not involve either Homer McMahon, or Ben Hunter, or Captain Sands, but an entirely different cast of characters. Furthermore, Dino examined photographs Peter Janney had made at Archives II of the 4 surviving briefing board panels made from the photos developed by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and Brugioni stated categorically that the four panels in flat # 90A in the JFK Records Collection are not the briefing boards he produced while on duty at NPIC…" P. 1231

• First, the camera original Zapruder film really was slit in Dallas at the Kodak processing plant after the three 'first day copies' were developed the evening of the assassination, just as the Kodak employees told Rollie Zavada when he interviewed them for his authenticity study. On Saturday morning, November 23, after the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. viewed the first day copy (that had been placed on a commercial airplane in Dallas and sent to Washington, D.C. by Max Phillips late onFriday evening), they no doubt realized an immediate need for the original film, so that briefing boards could be made from the clearest possible image frames. [No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.]

The delivery of an unslit, 16 mm wide double 8 film to Homer McMahon, well after dark on Sunday night, is proof that he received an alteration, and not the same film processed the night before (which was a slit 8 mm film). Furthermore, if the film

worked on by McMahon and Hunter had been the same film worked on the night before, there would have been no need for a compartmentalized operation, and the same duty crew that worked on Saturday night could have been called in again. The fact that the same work crew was not used on Sunday night reveals that a covert operation was afoot.

Now my questions are - why did they have two separate NPIC sessions to enlarge specific frames of the Z-film? Why didn't the first session acomplish their task?

Why not? Was copy two of the original film a different exposure that contained more shadow or highlight detail than the first copy? Was one a generation closer to the original? Lots of reasons.

Yea, but what was THE reason?

Who were the breifing boards for? Who did they brief? According to Lundahl, one set was for CIA director McCone. Who was the other set for, and why didn't they use the first set in the second briefing, rather than make another set?

Maybe they focused on different frames? Ever considered that?

And what became of both sets of briefing boards? The Cuban Missile Crisis briefing boards still exist. Dino found one briefing board in a closet at NPIC and he was chastised for even having it.

Why save them?

What became of the rest of the briefing boards?

Why save them?

- Because they're government - that is public property? Because they're historic? Because it's a crime to destroy public property and one reason to commit such a crime is to cover-up a more serious crime?

As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.

How will you ever know? I thought you said the place was "top secret"...still.

CORONA was secret until Bill Clinton declassified the photos and released them. And guess what? They weren't all of Soviet Union, but some were of USA, one of Washington DC within days of the March on the Pentagon. Were they using the spy satellites to spy on war protesters? Why keep it secret ineed.

And I didn't say it was still secret, the CIA did.

BK

Edited December 22, 2009 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

BK: These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...uba-oct-62.html

which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President duringthe Cuban Missile crisis.

Ah yes, Sidney Graybeal, the CIA's top missile guy, who plotted out Gary Power's U2 flight path, and briefed the President during the first hour of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Here's a very interesting though REDACTED interview, in which he recalls the briefing, how the head of the CIA McCone was out and General Carter was acting director, and how Caroline interupted, as she did at another ExCom meeting during the crisis, to recite a poem - I Have A Rondezevous With Death. How chilling.

In this interview with Graybeal, the INTERPUTIONS aren't by Caroline but by the CIA censor who blotted out much of the inerview, but leaves in some interesting details.

Graybeal even mentions the replacement for the U2 Corona, and how they picked up the photos by airplane over the Pacific - and doesn't mention where they took them - but does say that the airplane pickup over the Pacific ended when they electroncially sent the photos via satellite "there," where ever there is. "Hawkeye Works" maybe?

And he answers the question of why it is still classified today.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-21/graybeal1.html

INTERVIEW WITH SIDNEY GRAYBEAL - 29.1.98

SG: So the U-2 was being targeted in the '57/'59 period looking for ICBM deployment and we were focusing primarily on rail lines and rail spurs, because the road system was so poor in the Soviet Union and these ICBMs were so large, they would have to be transported by rail. And in fact the U-2, when it was shot down with Gary Powers, was in fact running the rail lines looking for ICBM deployments.

SG: There is no question in my mind that finding offensive missiles in Cuba was an extremely important, startling development here within the US government, because it put a whole new perspective on the threat to the continent of the United States when the ICBM program in the Soviet Union was small, but here you're putting in ballistic missiles with range sufficient to hit a good part of the United States, so you have essentially doubled your capabilities of the Soviet Union to threaten the US.

So as soon as we saw these were ballistic missiles, I knew we had something that was critically important process, but you don't panic in these type of situations, because you have to deal with facts and as an intelligence officer you recognize sometimes you will be wrong. But now you've got hard facts, so now you have to deal with these. These were provided to the DDI, which at the time Deputy Director for Intelligence was Ray Cline and he knew it was extremely important. The word was being passed that night to various senior officials.

The next day when I went to the White House with Art Lundahl to brief McGeorge Bundy, McGeorge Bundy knew exactly that this was extremely serious. There was no laugh, there was no joking about anything to do with this situation. McGeorge Bundy wanted to know the facts, are you sure these are missiles? Yes, we're absolutely sure these are missiles. Are you sure of the type of missile? Yes, we know the type of missile this is, what we don't know is the operational status of these missiles right now. Dillon came in, Dillon took it extremely seriously, no joking, left. Bobby Kennedy clearly knew that this was a major because Bobby Kennedy had been the person dealing with Dobrynin and others who were assuring the President there will be no offensive missiles in Cuba. So Bobby Kennedy's view immediately was they'd been lying to us. I mean, so immediately he understood the significance and he took off to go upstairs to speak to the President about the situation.

The Ex-Comm committee meeting we had that morning was all business after the little... well there was all business in the sense that the President was extremely serious, he wanted to get the facts His first question clearly was how long before they can fire those missiles, 'cos he knew I've got an extremely serious situation here. These are offensive missiles threatening the United States. How much time do I have to act. And of course, as developed later, during those Ex-Comm meetings, do we go in and take them out? How do we get them out of there and there's a whole litany of debates within Ex-Comm which very, very well reported in various other publications. So the meeting was serious, the people were serious, the President wanted to know how much time he had, McNamara wanted to know where were the nuclear warheads. Rusk was worried about the political implications, what exactly had taken place here, what had they said to us, what did you say in your last speech Mr. President. So there was a whole variety of very good exchanges that took place. Now Lundahl and I were excused from that first meeting after we had presented the facts, after we had answered all the questions that they asked about the operational characteristics of the missiles. So I was not present during the time where they started debating what do we do and if you want to get a good record of that get the book The Kennedy Tapes which has got an excellent description of what transpired in all of those meetings.

SG: Well, after we had identified the missiles in Cuba and reported these to the senior officials, we met with the Deputy Director of Intelligence at about seven o'clock in the morning, the next morning, and we prepared a three paragraph introduction to the subject which General Carter, who was acting Director of CIA because McCone was on the West Coast, for him to give at the Ex-Comm committee that meeting that morning. Art Lundahl, the Director of the Photographic Interpretation Center, and Sidney Graybeal, myself, were sent to the White House with our briefing boards of the missiles in Cuba to brief McGeorge Bundy, the head of the National Security staff, so we went to the White House, we laid out the pictures, the briefing from McGeorge Bundy. Dillon came in and we gave the same briefing to Dillon. Bobby Kennedy came in, we gave the same briefing to Bobby Kennedy and he took off to go upstairs to the personal quarters of President Kennedy to tell him.

We stayed in the White House all morning until the first Ex-Comm committee meeting took place at around eleven o'clock and then we all went into the Cabinet Room and we waited for the President. The President came in, good morning gentlemen, sat down and a side light, which is kind of interesting to me personally, is the door that the President had come through all of a sudden burst open and Caroline Kennedy came in and essentially said, Daddy, Daddy, they won't let my friend in. The President got up, went over, put his arm around her, took her out of the room, came back within a minute and says, gentlemen, I think we should proceed. The meeting started. What transpired at the meeting is General Carter read the three paragraphs, essentially what was the status, suggested the President should look at the evidence.

Art Lundahl, head of the NPA, had these very large briefing boards which he laid on the table in front of President Kennedy, McNamara on the right, Rusk on the other side, so the three of 'em could see them and Lundahl said this is Cuba, this is San Forego , so forth. Then he mentioned, these are offensive ballistic missiles and he specifically pointed to them on the chart. The first question the President asked was, how long before they can fire those missiles? And Art Lundahl said, well, Mr. Graybeal is the missile expert. So he turned to me, I stood up behind the President, McNamara and Rusk and for the next probably five to ten minutes fired one question after the other.

In answer to the President's question, how long can they fire these missiles, I relied primarily on the combination of intelligence sources, but mainly Penkovsky's information, which told us how these missiles operated in the field. But, there were major uncertainties involved, namely these missiles had been shipped by boat from the Soviet Union to Cuba, how were they put? Was there Cosmoline on 'em, how were they stored? How long would it take them to clean these missiles up? So it was slightly different than the way they would operate in the Soviet Union. So there was uncertainty in this problem and which I explained to the President. We did not know exactly the condition of these missiles, but I told we do know how these missiles operate in the Soviet Union and using Penkovsky's information, went through what would be required in terms of them putting the missile on the erector, erecting the missile, bringing in and fuelling the missile, put the fuel in. You have to spin up the giros to get them going and then you're able to launch. So you're talking hours in order to be able to get that missile ready to go, provided it's all been cleaned up and ready.

SG: Well, at the beginning of the satellite program up to several years after that, there was major improvements in our satellite capabilities. The original satellite would take pictures on film, 'cos the films would be dropped from the satellite and they would be recovered by an airplane over the Pacific Ocean. Then we developed techniques where the satellite could take pictures and communicate those picture electronically there. So instead of waiting for the film to be taken, to recovered and processed which would be days if not weeks later, you now had satellite photography in real time. The pictures were taken, communicated electronically, transmitted so you had pictures, so now your satellites became a current intelligence resource, as well as a historical intelligence resource.

And then satellites not only were used for photography. Satellites were improved so they could collect a lot more communications intelligence and we could focus on certain communications channels which you could not receive from outside the Soviet Union, which you could receive from satellite. So it enhanced our communications intelligence capabilities. Then we developed, improved the signals intelligence which would detect telemetry data would be transmitted down our sight, our back up to the satellite, back up to the Soviet missiles, so our satellites were improved in real time photography, improved in their ability to collect communications intelligence, improving their ability to collect electronics intelligence which essentially were telemetry signals. So significant improvements took place the sixties, seventies, eighties and they're still taking place today.

Edited December 22, 2009 by William Kelly

[Jack White]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Let's not forget the contradictions between what Horne proposes and what his star witness said.

Horne believes McMahon saw the version of the Z-film that was altered to cover up the involvement of more than one shooter.

- McMahon said he saw signs of 6 - 8 shots and 3 - 4 shooters

Horne believe "Hawkeye Works" had such sophisticated optical printers that they could forge a new Z-film over night with no obvious sighs of composting which are detectable even in high budget Hollywood productions.

- McMahon said they didn't even have decent enlargers.

The contradictions are in the official story, not in Horne's analysis of it, and what he independently learned.

You can pretend there aren't contradictions but that won't make them go away, the film he describes is quite different from the existent Z-film. This has even previously been used as an argument in favor of alteration.But you and Horne are pushing the notion this is the already altered film. There's a simpler explanation his recollection after several decades is less than perfect. His recollections conflict with Hunter's on several points.

And while it might not seem like a contradiction to someone with no knowledge of photography it doesn't make any sense that the same lab that could forge the z-film so perfectly that even today there are no obvious signs of composting couldn't make decent inter-negatives is absurd it would be like saying the chef a Michelin Guide 3 star restaurant was incapable of frying an egg.

Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.

Correct me if I'm wrong but someone said they worked on Type A COPY film which as it's name implies would not be an original. So its possible one teem used the original and another a copy and made briefing boards for different clients. It's not at all odd that agencies like the FBI, CIA, DoJ and Secret Service would want different boards. It is also possible that after several decades someone misremembered the type of film they worked on.

These aren't the usual alteration suspects - Conspiracy Theorists - Jack White, Jim Fetzer, David Healey, Harry Livingstone, all of whom would have been ignored if they claimed the Z-film was altered because of Mooreman in the Street issue, or any other anomaly in the content of the film.

Which if any of them said they though the Z-film was altered?

Of course, Dino is now being attacked because of his age, and McMahon because of his opinion of what he saw in the content of the film - more than three shots, but that is to be expected of Colby. (The Chinese fortune cookie I just opened reads: "Keep your goals away from the trolls.", ha ha)

As Fetzer points out personal attacks are a sign of desperation. Nothing unreasonable about speculating if the memories of someone in their 80's concerning an event that took place almost 50 years ago is less than perfect, I'm not sure what I had for lunch last Friday, a moderator of this forum,much younger than Brugioni started two threads about the same Webster Tarpley article few weeks apart

In response to another question regarding Oswald's association with the U2 program I posted an article about his work at JCS, in addition to his working as a radar operator at a U2 base in Japan.

In this blog post I ask the question of whether Oswald himself placed the arrows and captions on the photo while working at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval, which had a contract with the US Army Map Service to do such things.

Noyou said he had done so as if it were established fact. All that the article you cited said is he MIGHT have had access to the room where others did the typesetting for army maps based on the U2 photos and that latter he was shown some of the lists of names of locations to be typeset.the articleitself cited no sources.

As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.

What makes you so confident of that since the existence of the super uper duper secret lab whose super uper duper secret codename was the same as another facility at the same location has yet to be confirmed as pointed out above McMahon's recollection they couldn't make decent internegatives is in sharp contradiction to Horne's speculation they could had the capability to do what several experts have said was not possible at the time.

Now that others have had a chance to read Chapter 14 of Volume IV, I thought others could report what they get out of that chapter, which is really a work in progress, because we have yet to hear from the Hollywood Special Effects artists, the story of the Stemmons Sign Anamoly and the response to the two FOIA requests on the Zapruder film being at the secret "Hawkeye Works" lab at Kodak HQ at Rochester.

Wrong Healy's favorite special effects expert said fakery was impossible as have others knowledgeable about the subject. The supposed sign anomaly was yet another error by a high school science teacher with a PhD in particle physics but no known expertise in photography or optics,a guy who could figure out a high - medium velocity bullet would accelerate blood splatter

[David G. Healy]

Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.

Two different VERSIONS? Quite a leap there Kelly. Or was it to different COPIES of the same original????

Instead we are discussing the reports of the CIA officers who saw two different films - types of films - at two different times, making two different sets of briefing boards.

Which is it, different films or different TYPES of film from the same original?

These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President during the Cuban Missile crisis.

Really? Your "professional" Brugioni had to GUESS if there was images between the sprocket holes. And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't theymake 5x7 internegatives and CONTACT prints? A CONTACT print would be NO LARGER than thge neagative it was printed from, in this case 5"x7", slighty larger than your standard drugstoe photo print. Kinda makes Horne's opinion that they need the "best possible quality" and thus the need for a full wet gate , for the briefing boards look a bit silly.

Now my questions are - why did they have two separate NPIC sessions to enlarge specific frames of the Z-film? Why didn't the first session acomplish their task?

Why not? Was copy two of the original film a different exposure that contained more shadow or highlight detail than the first copy? Was one a generation closer to the original? Lots of reasons.

Who were the breifing boards for? Who did they brief? According to Lundahl, one set was for CIA director McCone. Who was the other set for, and why didn't they use the first set in the second briefing, rather than make another set?

Maybe they focused on different frames? Ever considered that?

And what became of both sets of briefing boards? The Cuban Missile Crisis briefing boards still exist. Dino found one briefing board in a closet at NPIC and he was chastised for even having it.

Why save them?

What became of the rest of the briefing boards?

Why save them?

As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.

How will you ever know? I thought you said the place was "top secret"...still.

BK

I be watching Lampoon... have you found anyONE that'll give you're Zapruder film nonsense a bit of credibility, Y-E-T

...and I'm not talking about the Lenster, whose already said he doesn't know SQUAT about film and/or film composing...

btw, have YOU ever seen or touched the alleged in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA?

[Craig Lamson]

Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.

Two different VERSIONS? Quite a leap there Kelly. Or was it to different COPIES of the same original????

Instead we are discussing the reports of the CIA officers who saw two different films - types of films - at two different times, making two different sets of briefing boards.

Which is it, different films or different TYPES of film from the same original?

These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President during the Cuban Missile crisis.

Really? Your "professional" Brugioni had to GUESS if there was images between the sprocket holes. And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't theymake 5x7 internegatives and CONTACT prints? A CONTACT print would be NO LARGER than thge neagative it was printed from, in this case 5"x7", slighty larger than your standard drugstoe photo print. Kinda makes Horne's opinion that they need the "best possible quality" and thus the need for a full wet gate , for the briefing boards look a bit silly.

Now my questions are - why did they have two separate NPIC sessions to enlarge specific frames of the Z-film? Why didn't the first session acomplish their task?

Why not? Was copy two of the original film a different exposure that contained more shadow or highlight detail than the first copy? Was one a generation closer to the original? Lots of reasons.

Who were the breifing boards for? Who did they brief? According to Lundahl, one set was for CIA director McCone. Who was the other set for, and why didn't they use the first set in the second briefing, rather than make another set?

Maybe they focused on different frames? Ever considered that?

And what became of both sets of briefing boards? The Cuban Missile Crisis briefing boards still exist. Dino found one briefing board in a closet at NPIC and he was chastised for even having it.

Why save them?

What became of the rest of the briefing boards?

Why save them?

As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.

How will you ever know? I thought you said the place was "top secret"...still.

BK

I be watching Lampoon... have you found anyONE that'll give you're Zapruder film nonsense a bit of credibility, Y-E-T

...and I'm not talking about the Lenster, whose already said he doesn't know SQUAT about film and/or film composing...

btw, have YOU ever seen or touched the alleged in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA?

Well considering I blew your best and brightest ( thats not say much now is it?) away with three simple photos he is afraid to touch, I think my credibility is doing just fine, thank you.

BTW, you found anyone yet the can salvage JP Costella's thrashed creds yet?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Instandard bs posts, why don't YOU give it a shot?

[Craig Lamson]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne’s interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area.

What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name “Bill Smith” does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly.

Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I’ve ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne’s interview reports. They’ve been around for about ten years:

Meeting Report

Document’s Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 06/18/97

Date of Meeting: 06/17/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs

He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned.

His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a “home movie,” but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years...

His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an double-8mm. film. It was his strong impression that they were working with the original, but when asked whether there were images present between the sprocket holes, he said that it was his reasonably strong impression today that there were no such images present between the sprocket holes in the film he examined at NPIC. At one point, he described the film as “not high resolution.”

Meeting Report

Document Author: Doug Horne

Date Created: 8/14/97

Date of Meeting: 8/14/97

Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee

I asked both men if they still recalled that their occurred prior to the President’s funeral, and they both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night).

Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture film would “probably have been made at Rochester,” but did not independently recall that himself.

Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name “Bill Smith” (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon.

Josiah Thompson

[John Bevilaqua]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

[William Kelly]

Bill...ignore Lamson. He clearly has not read Horne's section on the Z film. Therefore

he asks many irrelevant, uninformed and stupid questions.

The Z section is excellent, and is based on TECHNICAL MISTAKES which were made

and when and where the mistakes were made. He exposes the hocus-pocus misdirection

of the film's official provenance.

Tell the Craigster to read the book and get back to you. He won't, because Horne's

technical analysis will leave him speechless.

Jack

Jack, you could not find a "technical mistake", nor understand it if it bit you on the asp.

Witness you gross inability to understand even a simple shadow.

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Get back to us when you have the very first clue about photography.

When I briefly interviewed Marina Oswald at the Harvard JFK Conference in perhaps 1994-1995 she was very helpful

in discussing the circumstances surrounding the Oswald backyard photo shoot with me, explaining the time that elapsed

while she went inside first to change the film which had run out and then later to check on the pot roast in the oven.

When I asked her what she thought about the critical comments made by Jack White, she said: "Jack White, who is

this Jack White anyway? I have never talked to him. I have never got a letter from him. I have never heard of him.

And he is criticizing me and what I said about taking these pictures? Who is he anyway? He was not even there."

My sentiments exactly. And I think I know who Jack White's shadow really is. But only The Shadow Knows!

What a tangled web is weaved....

Marina was honest and open and didn't know who she was talking to.

You are the deceptive one who misrepresents Jack White and his work for your own reasons, and her response is meaningless because she didn't know who she was talking to and we do.

And since this thread is about Doug Horne and his work, why don't you start another thread that nobody will bother responding to instead of hijacking this one?

Nor do I think you intentionally stepped on and squashed TT's anxiously awaited response to Doug Horne's IARRB, since you were just being your typical self.

BK

Edited December 23, 2009 by William Kelly