The CIA analysis of the Z film

[James DiEugenio]

In Jerry McKnight's excellent book, Breach of Trust, he talks about an Agency analysis of the Zapruder film.

In his notes, at page 406, he refers to CIA document 1641 -450 for the NPIC analysis.

 

Has anyone seen this?  Where is it?  

 

[Anthony Thorne]

It's here, but the contents of the document are all Greek to me. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=7154#relPageId=1&tab=page

It was a pain to find it btw - but Bill Kelly had it linked within an article on his blog.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Anthony Thorne

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much Anthony.

I agree with you , its hard to decipher this analysis since its not written textually.

So how did Jerry get from this that the CIA said that the first shot did not come from the sixth floor, and there were at least two gunmen firing.

Do you see anything that indicates that?

Is this stuff in the Wrone book on the Z film, since that is where Jerry said he got it from. Does anyone have that book?

 

[Anthony Thorne]

As soon as the document hits the numbers and tables, I’m unable to get anything from it at all. It’s also unclear to me whether this PDF is just an excerpt from the analysis, or the whole thing.

[Ron Ecker]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks so much Anthony.

I agree with you , its hard to decipher this analysis since its not written textually.

So how did Jerry get from this that the CIA said that the first shot did not come from the sixth floor, and there were at least two gunmen firing.

Do you see anything that indicates that?

Is this stuff in the Wrone book on the Z film, since that is where Jerry said he got it from. Does anyone have that book?

 

Wrone discusses the "briefing boards" referenced in the document, though he doesn't identify the document itself. He says the briefing boards are included in a set of CIA documents that Harold Weisberg received from Paul Hoch and published in the epilogue of the second edition of his book Photographic Whitewash along with "a fine analysis and commentary" (Wrone p. 132). He says it's the same set of documents that Hoch provided to David Lifton.

Wrone states that the NPIC "concluded in two of the tabulations on the boards that shots were fired at times and points incompatible with the official findings" (p. 105). The footnote cites the Weisberg book, p. 303, and states "The times, number, and sequence were incompatible with the official findings and required another rifleman or riflemen to have fired the shots" (p. 312).

 

  

[David Andrews]

I confess that I'm doing below what one of my old professors derisively called "surfing" -- cruising from knowledge crest to knowledge crest without fully comprehending the troughs.

The first part is, as Ron says, a description of what frames were put on the briefing boards for the meeting.  To untangle that, you have to compare the accounts of Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni as to what briefing boards were prepared at Hawkeye Works.  I do not know what the successive "Print No." designations refer to.  Were 28 prints or more of the selected frames made to get the clearest version of every frame used on the briefing board(s) ?

The second section compares the film as screened at 24 frames per second, 18 frames, and 16 frames.  I don't know why there would be three projection rates viewed, since there is only dispute about which of two filming rates Zapruder used.  I also don't know if the same print is being screened at three different speeds, or if three prints were fabricated at those three rates.

Apparently there is discrepancy as to which projection rate offers the best timing for the shots, and at each rate some shots will not be at the same frames numbered in the other projection rates.  So, three prints for accuracy?  Or three prints fabricated to deliberately "establish" the shot timings for an ulterior motive?

There are certainly better minds that will correct my ignorance.

What is the word missing at the top of page 7?  "18 FPS [illegible] than it should have 'been run.' '"  Is this an analysis made by a photo expert at "Life Magazine"?

It seems one definition of hell would be to compare these notes with any non-film (i. e., YouTube) version of the Z-film.  Also, I can't tell if the analyst is using the "camera blur" method of gauging the shots.

Edited April 8, 2020 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

Jim raises an excellent question, up to now we have known that NPIC made at least two sets of storyboards....we have known virtually noting about their actual photo analysis and its conclusions....was any of that even submitted to the WC?

[Jeff Carter]

I did a review of Alexandra Zapruder’s book for the Kennedys and King site a few years ago. Part 2 of that article features a discussion of many of the topics noted above, including the paper trail. It is believed McCone briefed persons on the Sunday morning, based on briefing boards and textual analysis, concluding multiple gunmen. There is no written confirmation of this. The briefing boards and analysis have disappeared from the record entirely. Brugioni said he wrote a report of the NPIC analysis in the mid-70s, after the Rockefeller interest - but this too has disappeared.

According to Brugioni, the analysis at NPIC was controlled by the Secret Service. According to his descriptions, the Secret Service were interested primarily in the Zapruder sequence in and around the Stemmons sign. The Secret Service would do a trajectory analysis in Dealey Plaza a few days later, presumedly working from the NPIC analysis, but cannot find any official information describing their data. That trajectory work would produce charts which do not conform to the Zapruder film. It looks like they were attempting to fit a square “three shots” peg into a round “multiple gunman” hole.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/alexandra-zapruder-twenty-six-seconds-a-personal-history-of-the-zapruder-film-part-2

[David Josephs]

Those notes describe exactly what we see in the HOMER created boards, not DINO's.

They call out frames with shots possibly seen - there are 6 different frames offered and the question... How did LIFE determine the 1st and 2nd shots?

The page with all the frame numbers in a table :

   

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So how did Jerry get from this that the CIA said that the first shot did not come from the sixth floor, and there were at least two gunmen firing.

Do you see anything that indicates that?

Placing the first shot at 190 puts the tree between JFK and the 6th floor window Jim...  they used POS A to confuse the issue in the WCR by claiming that this was the position where the mark on the stand-in JFK hits the right spot... complete BS.  Look up the MATH RULES thread for details.

 

[John Butler]

After looking at this stuff for years I have to agree with Harold Weisberg:

[James DiEugenio]

David:

 

But where does. it say they place the shot at 190?  Are you saying that in your first column to the right of the boards where its says 190 in black, that means they think a shot was taken there?  

 

What then indicates multiple gunmen?  The fact that the other places in black are spaced too close together?

[David Josephs]

Been reading thru the Weisberg Archives...  by letter...

"Oswald as Agent" has 3 volumes and a wealth of interesting stuff...

The infamous CIA # 110669 which Tom Hume as well as Weisberg and peers saw used within encrypted messages...

the numbers in 110669 were used alot by Oswald...

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

David:

 

But where does. it say they place the shot at 190?  Are you saying that in your first column to the right of the boards where its says 190 in black, that means they think a shot was taken there?  

 

What then indicates multiple gunmen?  The fact that the other places in black are spaced too close together?

On a subsequent page Jim.

NPIC staff notes the 18 vs 16fps camera speed - which they know is wrong...

LIFE published saying which frames the shots were (I believe)... more importantly was when this was written.  How does NPIC know what LIFE has done if this is the weekend of the assassination unless someone tells them?

The multiple gunman comes from realizing that a East side 6th floor TSBD gunman has the trees in the way at 190...(see the SS photos at z186 below)By default, if 6th floor Eastwindow shooter can't hit JFK at 190 due to the tree... there MUST be a 2nd shooter with a clear line of sight... from the front.

 

[Matt Allison]

It's interesting when you're in Dealey Plaza to see the markings on the street where the throat wound and head wound occurred. For those two wounds to be from the same rifle that limo would have had to be moving really, really, really slowly.

[James DiEugenio]

I think I understand.

By placing it at 190, then it could not have been from the so called sniper's nest, because of the tree.   It had to come from somewhere else. Therefore there was a second gunman, if we keep the whole Oswald as killer meme.

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

And the fusillade  began  earlier.  

BTW, isn't 190 where he HSCA photo panel placed the first shot also?

Edited April 8, 2020 by James DiEugenio