The Hollywood 7

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are right on target, Bill! Let us not forget Costella's tutorial at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

If you eleminate all of the posts in which Craig Lamson says that someone else doesn't know anything about photography, or calls them names, then you would eleminate half of his posts.

Now that some real Hollywood special effects experts are studying the Zapruder film in detail, we should have some people who Lamson can talk to on professional terms.

Before we hear from the Hollywood specialists however, there are some other folks who know something about photography at the NPIC, where we know the Zapruder film made at least two visits over the weekend of the assassination, and appeared, to those specialists, to be the original film, yet it is described differently.

There's also some people who know something about photography who worked at the Hawkeye Works at Kodak HQ at Rochester, New York, where the Zapurder film may have also spent some time, and over at ITEK, where they also took a peek at the Z-film.

The film specialists who worked on the original Z-film in Chicago - splicing it twice in the process, who we have yet to identify and interview, to see what they have to say.

And besides the Z-film, there's the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Window, taken within a minute of each other, which photo analysists say is absolute proof of conspiracy, and offers another suspect other than the Lone Patsy, yet nobody wants to talk about that evidence.

I guess everybody would just rather argue over what the anomalies in the content of the Z-film as must be more fun.

BK

Edited January 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

If you eleminate all of the posts in which Craig Lamson says that someone else doesn't know anything about photography, or calls them names, then you would eleminate half of his posts.

Now that some real Hollywood special effects experts are studying the Zapruder film in detail, we should have some people who Lamson can talk to on professional terms.

Before we hear from the Hollywood specialists however, there are some other folks who know something about photography at the NPIC, where we know the Zapruder film made at least two visits over the weekend of the assassination, and appeared, to those specialists, to be the original film, yet it is described differently.

There's also some people who know something about photography who worked at the Hawkeye Works at Kodak HQ at Rochester, New York, where the Zapurder film may have also spent some time, and over at ITEK, where they also took a peek at the Z-film.

The film specialists who worked on the original Z-film in Chicago - splicing it twice in the process, who we have yet to identify and interview, to see what they have to say.

And besides the Z-film, there's the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Window, taken within a minute of each other, which photo analysists say is absolute proof of conspiracy, and offers another suspect other than the Lone Patsy, yet nobody wants to talk about that evidence.

I guess everybody would just rather argue over what the anomalies in the content of the Z-film as must be more fun.

BK

Bill...here is the crux of what the H7 group will show. I did this using the best copy available from the

best generation available. You will note that the BLACK PATCH which they discovered and the black

velvet of Jackie's collar are the blackest elements when nearly all of the rest of the colors are subtracted

by the computer.

Yes, Lameson will challenge this...but will be lacking in basis, as usual.

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, Lameson will challenge this...but will be lacking in basis, as usual.

No, I already have and as usual you just ignore the objections and flaws in your work, and continue to bumble along. If someone refutes it AGAIN, it will be hidden for a few days or weeks and then you will drag it out again...and then process will start all over. Count me out this time.

Quite frankly Jack, your ignorance on this subject is simply stunning, (don't miss that one Bill Kelly, if you are keeping count). And given you can't admit your errors, or be bothered to actually learn the subject matter, you are a meaningless waste of time. Blather away Jack, you are just a marginal player ( an amusing sideshow at best) of no real importance these days. The argumnets have moved well past your limited understanding of the subject matter.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

If you eleminate all of the posts in which Craig Lamson says that someone else doesn't know anything about photography, or calls them names, then you would eleminate half of his posts.

Now that some real Hollywood special effects experts are studying the Zapruder film in detail, we should have some people who Lamson can talk to on professional terms.

Before we hear from the Hollywood specialists however, there are some other folks who know something about photography at the NPIC, where we know the Zapruder film made at least two visits over the weekend of the assassination, and appeared, to those specialists, to be the original film, yet it is described differently.

There's also some people who know something about photography who worked at the Hawkeye Works at Kodak HQ at Rochester, New York, where the Zapurder film may have also spent some time, and over at ITEK, where they also took a peek at the Z-film.

The film specialists who worked on the original Z-film in Chicago - splicing it twice in the process, who we have yet to identify and interview, to see what they have to say.

And besides the Z-film, there's the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Window, taken within a minute of each other, which photo analysists say is absolute proof of conspiracy, and offers another suspect other than the Lone Patsy, yet nobody wants to talk about that evidence.

I guess everybody would just rather argue over what the anomalies in the content of the Z-film as must be more fun.

BK

I would really welcome some people with some actual knowelge of the subject matter, instead of the dreck that needs to be corrected on this forum

Why not do your best to bring them here Bill...the perfect thing to do in your "search for the truth"...

[William Kelly]

Okay, Craig, here's Photo Expert #1 (Interview Part 1) - Does he know what he's talking about?

Do you qualify him?

ARRB Interview with NPIC Employee Homer McMahon

Hearing Date July 14, 1997

Interviewed by Douglas P. Horne Chief of Military Records of ARRB

Total Time 1:41:19

Douglas Horne:

D.H.: Okay, it is Monday, July 14th, 1997, my name is Doug Horne. I am with the AARB. I am here with Mr. Homer McMahon, former NPIC employee – National Photo Interpretation Center. And I am also here with Michelle Combs (sp?) of the AARB. And we before we begin I would like to confirm with you on the record, is it okay, do we have your permission to tape this interview?

Homer McMahon: Yes, I am Homer McMahon, I wasn't NPIC, I was with the CIA. That was my cover at the time, and you have my permission. At the time NPIC was a classified topic.

DH. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. We may be joined later; this is for the record, by Mr. Jeremy Gunn of the Review Board staff and also by a new employee (Marie B.?) who is in the building today also. Could you summarize for us sir, your professional experience and training in photography prior to and up to 1963.

HM: I started in photography in 1938.

D.H.: Okay.

HM: I worked one summer at the FBI lab. I'm not sure of that summer. [Possible Redaction edit] My boss was Dunlap, who later became, left and went into business for himself and I worked for him part time, at different times.

I was in photography when I was in high school when I worked as the photographer on the yearbook committee. I used to work at…for Pop Baker, and that was at the Kodak photo finishing at Georgetown, also a summer school. I was in photography on the GI bill, I went to the National School of Photography and I went to the Washington School of Photography, and I took several extension courses at the US GS Graduate School at the Law Enforcement Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed.

I took several courses up at Rochester in Binghamton, under…..and Binghamton Kodak, at Rochester. Other than that, I never had a degree in photography. In those days it was strictly vocational. There was no, you could get a masters degree up there…MBA, but I never….. or worked on that level,….to make national presentations. I was a member of the Professional Photographers of America.

I went to college on the GI Bill at the end of the Second World War. And then I went to work for the CIA. My mentor Mel Fromm (sp. phonetic) was an old OSS operative during the Second World War. His dad ran the National School of Photography; I spent two years there, and he got me a job interview with the CIA. I went out .....?...Street. That was printing services division,....That was Austin Young (?). I worked there for two or three years. Then I went into business for myself for five years, and then went back for I think ten years….

DH: Went back to the Agency?

HM: Yea, but I didn't go back to the printing service division, I went to the Science Division. When Stewart's Garage closed down, ah,…Kennedy's brother Bob got that built. It was a special building, it was behind the barrier, the barrier walls, it couldn't be penetrated. It was in the Navy Yard and I worked there for I guess close to ten years. And that's when I was chief of the color lab, GS 11 – step 7, was my grade when I worked there.

DH: What. Do you recall what year it was that you returned to the CIA and worked for about ten years, what year it was, more or less?

HM: No, I don't have an accurate recollection.

DH: Okay. It would be, certainly before 1963, it would be in the 50s perhaps?

HM: Oh, yea. Yes.

DH: Okay. When you went back to the CIA for the second time, were you working at the Stewarts Motors building with…?

HM: No. I didn't work in the Stewart Garage; I'm not going to name names of people that I worked with…

DH: Okay.

HM: I could give you Mike…..he's retired, he worked at the Stewarts but he retired, and I talked to him, and he said he could get me an interview, and I was working for Austin Young, ….right there at Kingston, or….King Street, I forget which, - he came over and interviewed me and I transferred. I was LV16, I was under the GPA scale, I was in the Printing Services Division.

DH: Okay. Let me go off the record and introduce you to some people who just arrived.

DH: Okay back on the record. Mr. Jeremy Gunn, Marie (B.?) and Steve Tilley have joined us.

Mr. McMahon do you remember when you became head of the Color Lab?

HM: When I went over I was hired for that position and I transferred from a LV19 to a GS 11 step 7.

DH: Approximately what year was that?

HM: Late 50s.

DH: Okay, late 50s. Were you working at the National Photo Interpretation Center in November, 1963?

HM: Yes.

DH: Okay. We spoke previously on the telephone on June 9, Mr. Dave Montahue and I called you. You mentioned to us during that telephone call that you were involved in analysis and other events with a home movie of the assassination. Can you tell us how you first head about this and who told you to come into work?

HM: Okay. I wasn't an analyst. That was a technical term for someone who did photo interpretation in my branch. I was a photo-technologist. What I did I timed…to my best recollection, I was I worked in the vaulted area behind the barrier with pretty sensitive material. My classification allowed me to work on anything and everything that I had need to know, and I won't tell you what those were…..but….

DH: And I won't ask.

HM: We had…it was…..a world beyond. We had unlimited budget….we had anything we wanted to buy. Unlimited money. It was a palace, it was Lyndhal's Palace. I think they said 90% of intelligence came from our operation. And that was, that was what the analysists and photo interpreters did. They knew along with,…I was in the science area, but they also had access and used other information.

But the best I can remember how I came to work on this project. Of course, we all heard of you known that motorcade where Kennedy got killed, and I think we shut up shop and went home early after that. And it was within the next two days a chap was introduced to me, and I was sworn to his secrecy; it had nothing to do with the agency's secrecy. And he was, to the best of my knowledge, he was introduced as Bill Smith,…

DH: Bill Smith, of …what….?

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

DH: When you say they told him, who do you mean?

HM: Well. (Ha, ha,)…Well, Eastman Kodak had contracts with the US government, and if you want to know, you can go to the CIA and they will tell you who told him, but he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he and three other people timed the film, for through observation you can tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and slumps. We didn't know anything about any audio, it was just visual, and we timed it, and determined the time - physically timed it with a stop watch, where the gunshots hits hit. And we went from I think maybe two frames before the first hit and then we hit every single frame thru….He only counted three hits, possibly four. I couldn't tell I think, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when he got hit the first time, and then the second time he got hit, going off into an angle up, and…..

DH: Could I break in and ask you a question? When you say he and three others timed the film, does this mean that you people viewed it as a motion picture?

HM: Yes, we were in a briefing room, with a camera and a large screen - you said I could use Ben Hunter's name? I worked with Ben Hunter, Ben Hunter I think he was a GS 7 and he was working with me as a trainee at the time in the color lab, and Bill Smith, ah,….excuse me, there were three of us, including myself (ha, ha), that's it. To the best of my knowledge.

DH: So the total number of people are - yourself, Ben Hunter and Bill Smith?

HM: Yes. That's all that were involved to my knowledge.

DH: How were you first notified to go in? Did this happen during the work day or after hours? Or how did they first notify you?

HM: I haven't the faintest idea, because I've been called in so many times…ah…

DH: For other jobs, right? Do you recall whether you did the job during the day?

Jeremy Gunn: I just want to make sure for the record. When you say you were called in many times, you mean for other jobs?

HM: When the goose laid the egg, we went on 12 to12, 12 hour shifts until we worked out the mission. I don't think that's important. The other work I did had nothing to do with this.

DH: That's what the question was….when you said that statement, were you referring to this particular film or other jobs?

HM: Okay,…I had other clearances, but none of these clearances that were given to me under the CIA or other clearances that I held for other government agencies, this was under strictly a, I was told that none of this was to be divulged to anyone. We had it, we did it, but I didn't know who was going to be briefed…..My guess, we normally briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Reconnaissance Committee, and the President of the United States, with the work that I did. I didn't do any of the analysis. I just did the color part that was used in the briefing boards, and the Teleprompters and that kind of work, and it was also distributed under Top Secret classifications to the community.

JG: We were only trying to clarify if you were called in several times, you were only called once for the film of the assassination.

HM: I worked on that one, and I worked on it until it was completed and I think it was probably more than a work day.

HM: When we spoke on June 9^th, you indicated that you were called in and you worked basically all night long. Does that refresh your recollection?

HM: Yes, …I don't think it was during my normal….I didn't know what I was being called in for. I didn't have the faintest idea.

HM: Would you allow me to test your recollection on something else? You said it was within two days of the assassination. Is there any particular reason why you associated it with other events within a few days?

HM: I think I was told that to get the film from the individual, to get it processed, and get it back, it was a couple of days. I'm not sure.

DH: Do you recall whether this work that you did was before the funeral or after the funeral of the president?

HM: I'm pretty sure it was before.

DH: Before we get into some details of what you did, how would you best summarize the tasking that your agency received from Mr. Smith? Could you revisit that topic again?

HM: Okay. I don't know how it came through channels to us. I wasn't told that. What I'm reflecting is what I think happened. I know it wasn't under any of the clearances I held, and I know it was being done for analysis and briefing, but I'm not sure who that was for.

DH: Okay. And what is it that he wanted you to do again, one more time?

HM: Okay, what he wanted us to do, after we came to a decision, after we had timed it, was to take a frame by frame presentation of that sequence, and make a…best recollection five by seven interlays and I printed up eight by ten…Ben Hunter and myself, exposed them and processed them. Then we had a period of time we had to wait for the drying of the material, and then we went back and viewed all of the negatives, and we had them marked and identified as to the sequence, and we made three each color contact prints, and again then we went back and processed those and had to wait for the drying. Ah…

DH: So the color prints were the same size then as the inter negative?

HM: I'm pretty sure we contacted the 8 x 10 negatives that were exposed…. And then they were cut apart and identified on the back, and I did not do that, the identification, I don't think I did that, I might have.

JG: It wasn't clear to me about the negatives and the internegatives. You refer to there being five by seven and eight by ten…. I don't know whether they were separate things or were you were referring….

HM: It's called a working…..You take an 8 by 10 negative and print a five by seven on a five by eight, you print a ……then turn it…set up the liquid gate, and make the other one, and then put it in the box. So you finish say the first two and move the frame to the third frame. This was precision equipment to make a one stage enlargement, and my best guess is 40 x, is what we made the little image to.

DH: By that you mean 40 times the original size?

HM: 40 times the half frame super double eight…or whatever it was, we had three different, we had a ten twenty forty….

DH: Is that the enlarging machine?

HM: Yes, that's the enlarging machine. You set it up with – this is a coherent light source enlarger…We set it up with a specific optical lens, and a specific condenser, and a color pack CC filters, so we could expose all three layers of the Kodacrome on these negatives.

DH: You mentioned wet gate a moment ago?

HM: Yea, it's a liquid gate, a liquid gate, it was two parts of a…..okay, we made our own liquid. And what the purpose of the liquid was, - it has a refraction index to eliminate the surfaces of the film which degrade the image, the front and back surface. It was called 10-20-40 fluid, and to my knowledge it was two parts of……(pause)……I don't have….I can't remember the…..

DH: It's alright. Was this applied by hand or full immersion wet gate?

HM: You had ….injection….you had front lens come down…it was precision equipment, with the excessive fluid went out, so it was full gate, almost like a microscope. And if you have air bubbles in it, you have to go back and start again and reinject it and bring it back down.

DH: Alright. May I ask another question before we move along? You mentioned Double 8 film a few times. Do you recall the condition of this movie when you saw it, had it been slit or unslit?

HM: I think it was unslit and I might have said that, and we might have slit it before we used it, but I thought they were told that they didn't want to slit the film, and I don't, I don't think we slit it, I think we used it unslit in a 16 mm projector…

DH: That was going to be my next question, how did you project it?

HM: I think it was unslit. This was the original film. I think they ran dupes of it, but we actually ran the acquisition material of the original film.

DH: Is this something you observed yourself or something that you were told by Mr. Smith? How do you come to the conclusion today that you had the original film?

HM: I think it was a combination of everything you said, along with, ah, the quality of the film. Normally when you dupe it, you loose a lot of resolution and when we made them you could actually….Kodacrome is an additive process. It's black and white film with filers that give you color separation negatives, you use ….dies….flash them and redevelop them selectively onto the original film, and it has a yellow coupler, a magenta coupler, and cyan coupler that give you the three subtractive primary colors that give you the illusion of image and color and there was very little die that changes,…. it was excellent imagery, and I don't know if that still exists or not, but I'm pretty sure that's what I used.......

Edited January 31, 2010 by William Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

Okay, Craig, here's Photo Expert #1 (Interview Part 1) - Does he know what he's talking about?

Do you qualify him?

Oh he has a clue, but his "recollections" are quite a mess.

This is the stuff you want to make a case around? Oh my!

This guy gets cut to pieces in a courtroom...

[William Kelly]

Okay, Craig, here's Photo Expert #1 (Interview Part 1) - Does he know what he's talking about?

Do you qualify him?

Oh he has a clue, but his "recollections" are quite a mess.

This is the stuff you want to make a case around? Oh my!

This guy gets cut to pieces in a courtroom...

I want to make a case out of the Powell-Dillard photos but nobody wants to talk about the positive proof of conspiracy because the pictures are considered genuine by everybody.

I didn't make up Homer McMahon. I'm not building a case around him or any one person, and when I do make my case, it will be to a DA who can take it to a grand jury who will either indict or not indict anyone suspected of committing a crime - and since a grand jury is not adverserial (sp?) - a place where lawyers can make defense motions or question or attack the credibilty of witnessese, then it can't be cut to pieces. That comes at a trail, if there ever is one.

Now you learn something about the Judicial system and maybe you can teach us something usefull about photography.

There seems to be two types of forum members - those who advocate a position and enjoy debating it - like Fetzer, Healey, Tink Thompson, Barb J., Lameson, et al.....and those who take what we know and research angles and try to take it FURTHER - extending what we know about for sure by asking questions and answering them.

Rather than the adverse argument approach, I prefer the questioning approach, and try to ask questions that can be reasonably answered.

As for Homer McMahon, regardless of his credibilty, you can't take away from him the facts that he is a CIA-NPIC photo expert - color film specialist - who was called in to work on the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination - and he made color print enlargements of select individual frames for analysis and for briefing boards that were to be used to brief someone very important - not the head of the CIA.

Now Craig, you say that you know something about photography, and I'm asking you, not for a psychological profile of McMahon or your opinion of his credibility at a trial, I'm asking you if what he says about the film is correct?

Does McMahon know his photography?

Would he recognize an original film and a easily differenciate it from a copy?

Have you or anyone ever heard of the National School of Photography?

Have you or anyone else ever heard of "Mel Fromm" (phonetic sp) who was in OSS and whose father ran the NSP?

Have you or anyone else heard of Dunlap the FBI guy he worked for?

Have you or anyone else ever heard of Austin Young, who apparently was a CIA officer who ran a division of the CIA photo optics? And is he the same or related to Austin F. Young, Jr., a CIA opperative busted in Cuba with cameras, photos and a Thompson submachine gun?

You want to argue, I want the so-called photo experts to answer questions.

Which way is it going to go?

BK

Edited January 31, 2010 by William Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

Okay, Craig, here's Photo Expert #1 (Interview Part 1) - Does he know what he's talking about?

Do you qualify him?

Oh he has a clue, but his "recollections" are quite a mess.

This is the stuff you want to make a case around? Oh my!

This guy gets cut to pieces in a courtroom...

I want to make a case out of the Powell-Dillard photos but nobody wants to talk about the positive proof of conspiracy because the pictures are considered genuine by everybody.

I didn't make up Homer McMahon. I'm not building a case around him or any one person, and when I do make my case, it will be to a DA who can take it to a grand jury who will either indict or not indict anyone suspected of committing a crime - and since a grand jury is not adverserial (sp?) - a place where lawyers can make defense motions or question or attack the credibilty of witnessese, then it can't be cut to pieces. That comes at a trail, if there ever is one.

They use Homer at a Grand Jury, he goes to the trial if ther eis onew...and he gets destroyed by any competent lawyer.

Look, Homer is most likely a good and decent man. The problem is he is guessing at what happened. He does not know as his interview makes perfectly clear.

Now you learn something about the Judicial system and maybe you can teach us something usefull about photography.

There seems to be two types of forum members - those who advocate a position and enjoy debating it - like Fetzer, Healey, Tink Thompson, Barb J., Lameson, et al.....and those who take what we know and research angles and try to take it FURTHER - extending what we know about for sure by asking questions and answering them.

Rather than the adverse argument approach, I prefer the questioning approach, and try to ask questions that can be reasonably answered.

Good for you, enjoy yourself.

As for Homer McMahon, regardless of his credibilty, you can't take away from him the facts that he is a CIA-NPIC photo expert - color film specialist - who was called in to work on the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination - and he made color print enlargements of select individual frames for analysis and for briefing boards that were to be used to brief someone very important - not the head of the CIA.

To be correct he is not a CIA-NPIC photo expert. He is a LAB TECH. As a lab tech he made internegatives and then printed those negatives.

Now Craig, you say that you know something about photography, and I'm asking you, not for a psychological profile of McMahon or your opinion of his credibility at a trial, I'm asking you if what he says about the film is correct?

What film? The Zpruder film? If thats the case, its quite unclear from his interview if he really KNOWS anything or if he is simply guessing.

Does McMahon know his photography?

Based on his interview, he has a decent knowlegebase .

Would he recognize an original film and a easily differenciate it from a copy?

Based on the interview, its hard to say.

Have you or anyone ever heard of the National School of Photography?

I have not.

Have you or anyone else ever heard of "Mel Fromm" (phonetic sp) who was in OSS and whose father ran the NSP?

Nope

Have you or anyone else heard of Dunlap the FBI guy he worked for?

Nope

Have you or anyone else ever heard of Austin Young, who apparently was a CIA officer who ran a division of the CIA photo optics? And is he the same or related to Austin F. Young, Jr., a CIA opperative busted in Cuba with cameras, photos and a Thompson submachine gun?

Nope

You want to argue, I want the so-called photo experts to answer questions.

Which way is it going to go?

Ask me all the photo related questions you like. If I find them of interest I'll reply.

BK

Edited January 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won’t get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

Bill, thank you so much for taking the time to post this!

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won’t get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

Looking for the big finish, the "aha" moment ... does it go on to anything he says that leads them to the conclusion that this roll of film, shot by someone with their Brownie Double 8, who then called the Secret Service and directly handed the roll of film over to them, which was then taken to this place within a couple of days of the assassination to have blowups made of every frame .... was the Zapruder film?

The description so far does not fit the Z film. Later on, this man says he thinks the film was unslit. Thinks so? Making enlargements ... may have taken all night .... how on earth does it get from this to the Z film having been faked at this secret lab? With the help of a trainee?

Kudos again to you for taking the time to post this. This witness's memories are more than a tad vague. Leaves one wondering where's the beef ... must come later in the interview?

Thanks,

Barb :-)

[William Kelly]

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

Bill, thank you so much for taking the time to post this!

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

Looking for the big finish, the "aha" moment ... does it go on to anything he says that leads them to the conclusion that this roll of film, shot by someone with their Brownie Double 8, who then called the Secret Service and directly handed the roll of film over to them, which was then taken to this place within a couple of days of the assassination to have blowups made of every frame .... was the Zapruder film?

The description so far does not fit the Z film. Later on, this man says he thinks the film was unslit. Thinks so? Making enlargements ... may have taken all night .... how on earth does it get from this to the Z film having been faked at this secret lab? With the help of a trainee?

Kudos again to you for taking the time to post this. This witness's memories are more than a tad vague. Leaves one wondering where's the beef ... must come later in the interview?

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Hi Barb,

Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect on this.

Indeed Homer McMahon says a lot and some of it is good and true and some of it is a bit hazy and some could be total bull crap, as I think he realizes that he spilled some beans, but doesn't know exactly what it is or why its important, and so he intentionally tries to discredit himself.

I will post the entire transcript separately, including all the Beef, but right here I want to focus on his photographic expertise, and to see if there are any real photo experts out there who know the history of photography, the history of the CIA photo analysis branch, the NPIC, and what the Zapruder film was doing there.

Yes, there were questions as to whether McMahon was actually dealing with the Z-film or another film, and it is the Z-film and not another one.

And so far you are the only one who has mentioned anything about anything being faked at a secret lab. You'll have to wait before you can start to discredit the secret lab.

So far we are only working on the Z-film at NPIC, making color print enlargments for briefing boards.

You're not interested in helping to try to answer any of my questions?

Bill Smith - yes, Secret Service. So who was the Secret Service agent who took the copie(s) of the Z-film from Zapruder?

If there is an unblemished chain of custody then we should be able to follow the film from Dallas to the NPIC, from the agent who took it from Zapruder to "Smith," and identify Smith. All of the agents who handled the film should have written official reports, and if they didn't, what were they up to?

Instead of arguing with those who erroniously claim the anamolies in the Z-film are proof of anything, why not establish the chain of custody from Zapruder to the NPIC and show that there were no shennigans with the film?

Of course its more fun to argue.

BK

[David G. Healy]

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

Bill, thank you so much for taking the time to post this!

HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions.

Looking for the big finish, the "aha" moment ... does it go on to anything he says that leads them to the conclusion that this roll of film, shot by someone with their Brownie Double 8, who then called the Secret Service and directly handed the roll of film over to them, which was then taken to this place within a couple of days of the assassination to have blowups made of every frame .... was the Zapruder film?

The description so far does not fit the Z film. Later on, this man says he thinks the film was unslit. Thinks so? Making enlargements ... may have taken all night .... how on earth does it get from this to the Z film having been faked at this secret lab? With the help of a trainee?

Kudos again to you for taking the time to post this. This witness's memories are more than a tad vague. Leaves one wondering where's the beef ... must come later in the interview?

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Hi Barb,

Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect on this.

Indeed Homer McMahon says a lot and some of it is good and true and some of it is a bit hazy and some could be total bull crap, as I think he realizes that he spilled some beans, but doesn't know exactly what it is or why its important, and so he intentionally tries to discredit himself.

I will post the entire transcript separately, including all the Beef, but right here I want to focus on his photographic expertise, and to see if there are any real photo experts out there who know the history of photography, the history of the CIA photo analysis branch, the NPIC, and what the Zapruder film was doing there.

Yes, there were questions as to whether McMahon was actually dealing with the Z-film or another film, and it is the Z-film and not another one.

And so far you are the only one who has mentioned anything about anything being faked at a secret lab. You'll have to wait before you can start to discredit the secret lab.

So far we are only working on the Z-film at NPIC, making color print enlargments for briefing boards.

You're not interested in helping to try to answer any of my questions?

Bill Smith - yes, Secret Service. So who was the Secret Service agent who took the copie(s) of the Z-film from Zapruder?

If there is an unblemished chain of custody then we should be able to follow the film from Dallas to the NPIC, from the agent who took it from Zapruder to "Smith," and identify Smith. All of the agents who handled the film should have written official reports, and if they didn't, what were they up to?

Instead of arguing with those who erroniously claim the anamolies in the Z-film are proof of anything, why not establish the chain of custody from Zapruder to the NPIC and show that there were no shennigans with the film?

Of course its more fun to argue.

BK

very good point(s), Bill.

There's also that Dallas KODAK lab *pesky* issue. That being, the phantom film process control #0184 date 11-22-1963... Let's see, the in-camera alleged Zapruder film process (developing) number was #0183, the 3 dupes made from same were numbered #0185, #0186, #0187..... so what happened to #0184?

Possibly another un-split 8mm Zapruder film 1st generation copy floating around? Would that (#0184) scenario would fit somewhere in the Zapruder film, NPIC, chain of custody fiasco?

[William Kelly]

As for Homer McMahon, regardless of his credibilty, you can't take away from him the facts that he is a CIA-NPIC photo expert - color film specialist - who was called in to work on the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination - and he made color print enlargements of select individual frames for analysis and for briefing boards that were to be used to brief someone very important - not the head of the CIA.

CL: To be correct he is not a CIA-NPIC photo expert. He is a LAB TECH. As a lab tech he made internegatives and then printed those negatives.......

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

14) Many of your key witnesses are technicians, like photographers, the Navy grunts like Paul O'Conner and funeral hall employees like Robinson. Do you trust these people a little more than those above them?

D.H.: In general, yes, I have trusted them much more than highly ranked officials above them. They had no motive to lie about what they had seen, and most of them were not attempting to spin any theories when they provided their recollections. They also had no "turf" to protect, and therefore no axe to grind. Most of them were unaware of how important certain aspects of their testimony was, because they didn't have the big picture. The more unaware these people were about the serious conflicts in the evidence, the more I tended to trust them.

[Craig Lamson]

As for Homer McMahon, regardless of his credibilty, you can't take away from him the facts that he is a CIA-NPIC photo expert - color film specialist - who was called in to work on the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination - and he made color print enlargements of select individual frames for analysis and for briefing boards that were to be used to brief someone very important - not the head of the CIA.

Spin it however it make you feel good Bill, but the guy was a lab tech. Now there is nothing wrong with lab techs and good ones are...well were..worth thier weight in gold, color printers who could actually see and understand color double the price.

Homer does not really remember what he saw or want happened. Heck he could not even remember the YEAR he was hired...

I don't see that as a problem. But remembering small technical details from 30 years prior, is a bit of a longshot as his interview shows.

And you have to wonder what the phone conversation between Horne and Homer prior to the interview sounded like. Horne after all was not an impartial observer in this process. He had an agenda.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[William Kelly]

As for Homer McMahon, regardless of his credibilty, you can't take away from him the facts that he is a CIA-NPIC photo expert - color film specialist - who was called in to work on the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination - and he made color print enlargements of select individual frames for analysis and for briefing boards that were to be used to brief someone very important - not the head of the CIA.

Spin it however it make you feel good Bill, but the guy was a lab tech. Now there is nothing wrong with lab techs and good ones are...well were..worth thier weight in gold, color printers who could actually see and understand color double the price.

Homer does not really remember what he saw or want happened. Heck he could not even remember the YEAR he was hired...

I don't see that as a problem. But remembering small technical details from 30 years prior, is a bit if a longshot as his interview shows.

And you have to wonder what the phone conversation between Horne and Homer prior to the interview sounded like. Horne after all was not an impartial observer in this process. He had an agenda.

Yea, see, that's all you're misunderstanding of the event and your spin.

It wasn't Horne who took the first call from Ben Hunter's wife, or Horne alone who made the first phone contact with McMahon, it was another member of the ARRB staff.

So, how do you spin that?

BK

[Craig Lamson]

Yea, see, that's all you're misunderstanding of the event and your spin.

It wasn't Horne who took the first call from Ben Hunter's wife, or Horne alone who made the first phone contact with McMahon, it was another member of the ARRB staff.

So, how do you spin that?

BK

Who CARES who called first Bill,, but lets just look at HORNES words and you SPIN it however it fits your needs...

but hey YOU have an agenda too....

DH: Okay. We spoke previously on the telephone on June 9, Mr. Dave Montahue and I called you. You mentioned to us during that telephone call that you were involved in analysis and other events with a home movie of the assassination. Can you tell us how you first head about this and who told you to come into work?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson