Two Head Shots and the Zapruder Film

[Marcus Fuller]

I don't know what all the various studies have shown or what has been proven or disproven about the film but the one thing that stands out to me everytime I watch it is that large sign. Instead of it looking weathered with variations of its shadows and lighting etc it just looks like a modern day vector image just stuck in the video. The colours are very uniform and it all seems to 'perfect' to me to be a real sign. 

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Mike Aitken said:

Just curious, are you asking if the Kodak Hawkeye facility being used by the CIA was a fabrication by Lifton, or if Brugioni’s employment there was a fabrication by Lifton.  If it’s the former, it seems pretty well documented that Hawkeye was used as a CIA facility during the Cold War for photographic analysis.  There are a number of articles online referencing the use of the facility by the CIA.  Forgive me if I misinterpreted the question.
 

This is just a random one…

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/columnists/memmott/2014/03/18/remembering-kodak-chapter-rochesters-secret-history/6575363/

My recollection was that Lifton claimed he'd figured out that the film was taken to Hawkeye Works. Not that he'd made it up, but that he'd figured it out. From looking back through that old thread, it does indeed appear that he was the first to mention Hawkeye Works in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. But with the current availability of the ARRB's files, we can see that it was actually first brought up by McMahon. So...I honestly don't remember... Did Lifton read the ARRB files before writing his chapter? Or did he hear about it from Horne? And, if so, was this before or after the word "Hawkeye" was unredacted in the ARRB files? The thought occurs that Lifton read "Kodak Rochester" in the files and pieced together on his own that this was one and the same as Hawkeye Works. I'm hoping someone with the book can set me straight. 

P.S. Brugioni didn't work at Hawkeye Works. The Hawkeye Works story is pieced together from the statements of McMahon, who said he created some boards after the film was brought to him at NPIC from Hawkeye Works, and Brugioni, who later came to claim that he'd created boards for the film at NPIC the day before McMahon. His decades-later recollections, moreover, were that the film he worked on differed from the film on McMahon's boards--which is the film as known today. So there is no evidence Brugioni worked on the film outside Brugioni's say-so, and no actual evidence it was altered at Hawkeye Works. (To be clear, the belief it was altered there comes not from any witnesses to its alteration or paper trail demonstrating it was even there but conjecture holding that 1) McMahon's decades-later recollection it was brought to him from there is accurate, 2) Brugioni's decades later recollection of working on the film the day before McMahon is accurate, and 3) Brugioni's decades-later recollection of the specifics of the film are accurate.) 

P.P.S. In looking back through the ARRB file, a few more problems emerge. Both McMahon and Hunter were unsure if they looked at the film Saturday night or Sunday night. If Saturday, of course, Brugioni's claim is debunked. There's also some disagreement on whether they were working on an original film, or a copy. As Hunter felt fairly certain there were no images by the sprocket holes, for that matter, his recollections suggest it was a copy. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

On 12/23/2023 at 8:24 AM, Paul Bacon said:

I can't believe there is still any debate about Dino Brugioni's memories or credibility.  His memories are clear, as would be anyone's recollections of a horrifying and impressive event shown in a film.  He was amazed, at the time, of the cloud of brain matter that shot into the air.

Did he also mis-remember having, in the middle of the night, to wake up a film equipment supplier to provide an 8 mm film projector?  Has anyone here even seen the video interview Doug Horne did with Brugioni where, in real time, Brugioni discovers that there were two NPIC events?

In my view, the two NPIC events make complete sense, when one understands that the first one was done to provide an expert opinion on what was actually seen in the film, and that the second one was done to see if the altered version would pass muster.

The existing copy at NARA clearly shows alteration when scrutinized.  Yes, there were at least two shots to Kennedy's head--one from behind (Z312), and another, instantaneously, from the front (Z313) which throws Kennedy back and left.

At least two shots?  I thought Mantik and the neurologist from Arkansas, I can't remember his name,* the only two professionals to examine the x-ray's in the National Archives scientifically concluded most likely three head shots.  One from the rear two from the front.  One from the rear, evidenced by a partial bullet hole in the edge of the rear blow out.  One in the right temple, in the hairline slightly forward of the right ear, one in the hairline over the right eye.

This to me coincides with the initial statement of Dan Rather and Hoover's third man's recollection of what he saw in his first viewing of the z-film.  A surge forward of JFK's head.  Which was excised from the z-film in the process of eliminating spray of brain matter and a stop of the vehicle.  Followed within a split second by the two simultaneous front shots leaving back and to the left in the z-film.

*  Dr. Michael Chesser.

 

[Paul Bacon]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

At least two shots?  I thought Mantik and the neurologist from Arkansas, I can't remember his name,* the only two professionals to examine the x-ray's in the National Archives scientifically concluded most likely three head shots.  One from the rear two from the front.  One from the rear, evidenced by a partial bullet hole in the edge of the rear blow out.  One in the right temple, in the hairline slightly forward of the right ear, one in the hairline over the right eye.

This to me coincides with the initial statement of Dan Rather and Hoover's third man's recollection of what he saw in his first viewing of the z-film.  A surge forward of JFK's head.  Which was excised from the z-film in the process of eliminating spray of brain matter and a stop of the vehicle.  Followed within a split second by the two simultaneous front shots leaving back and to the left in the z-film.

*  Dr. Michael Chesser.

 

Thanks for this video Ron.  Yea, I didn't have a strong recollection of where I'd read about 3 head shots, so I tentatively wrote "at least two headshots".  So, yes, it was from these guys.

And, I don't think Dan Rather was lying or trying to mis-lead when he claimed Kennedy's head moved "violently forward" after having seen the original film that weekend.  I agree with your conclusions.

[Roger Odisio]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My recollection was that Lifton claimed he'd figured out that the film was taken to Hawkeye Works. Not that he'd made it up, but that he'd figured it out. From looking back through that old thread, it does indeed appear that he was the first to mention Hawkeye Works in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. But with the current availability of the ARRB's files, we can see that it was actually first brought up by McMahon. So...I honestly don't remember... Did Lifton read the ARRB files before writing his chapter? Or did he hear about it from Horne? And, if so, was this before or after the word "Hawkeye" was unredacted in the ARRB files? The thought occurs that Lifton read "Kodak Rochester" in the files and pieced together on his own that this was one and the same as Hawkeye Works. I'm hoping someone with the book can set me straight. 

P.S. Brugioni didn't work at Hawkeye Works. The Hawkeye Works story is pieced together from the statements of McMahon, who said he created some boards after the film was brought to him at NPIC from Hawkeye Works, and Brugioni, who later came to claim that he'd created boards for the film at NPIC the day before McMahon. His decades-later recollections, moreover, were that the film he worked on differed from the film on McMahon's boards--which is the film as known today. So there is no evidence Brugioni worked on the film outside Brugioni's say-so, and no actual evidence it was altered at Hawkeye Works. (To be clear, the belief it was altered there comes not from any witnesses to its alteration or paper trail demonstrating it was even there but conjecture holding that 1) McMahon's decades-later recollection it was brought to him from there is accurate, 2) Brugioni's decades later recollection of working on the film the day before McMahon is accurate, and 3) Brugioni's decades-later recollection of the specifics of the film are accurate.) 

P.P.S. In looking back through the ARRB file, a few more problems emerge. Both McMahon and Hunter were unsure if they looked at the film Saturday night or Sunday night. If Saturday, of course, Brugioni's claim is debunked. There's also some disagreement on whether they were working on an original film, or a copy. As Hunter felt fairly certain there were no images by the sprocket holes, for that matter, his recollections suggest it was a copy. 

You're grasping at straws, Pat.  Let me try to quickly cut through the nonsense.  Brugioni was the duty officer that weekend.  He worked on the film from late Saturday night  into the early hours of Sunday. Then he went home. The ""SS agents" took the film before Brugioni had finished making up the boards to went *somewhere* with it.  I don't remember if they told Brugioni they were going to HW. 

Brugioni didn't know anything, he was not told until decades later, about what happened on Sunday, even though he was the duty officer and it was his job to know.  Why do you suppose that was? 

That leaves Sunday night for the McMahon crew because we know the crews didn't know about each other.  When he showed up with the film on Sunday "Bill Smith" told McMahon, according to McMahon, he was coming from Hawkeye Works and that the film had been developed there.  That was untrue. It was developed in Dallas on Friday.  I suspect he said that in order to try to explain why he justify that he was coming from HW.   

That leaves your conjecture with the claim that Brugioni made up his story from whole cloth.

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You're grasping at straws, Pat.  Let me try to quickly cut through the nonsense.  Brugioni was the duty officer that weekend.  He worked on the film from late Saturday night  into the early hours of Sunday. Then he went home. The ""SS agents" took the film before Brugioni had finished making up the boards to went *somewhere* with it.  I don't remember if they told Brugioni they were going to HW. 

Brugioni didn't know anything, he was not told until decades later, about what happened on Sunday, even though he was the duty officer and it was his job to know.  Why do you suppose that was? 

That leaves Sunday night for the McMahon crew because we know the crews didn't know about each other.  When he showed up with the film on Sunday "Bill Smith" told McMahon, according to McMahon, he was coming from Hawkeye Works and that the film had been developed there.  That was untrue. It was developed in Dallas on Friday.  I suspect he said that in order to try to explain why he justify that he was coming from HW.   

That leaves your conjecture with the claim that Brugioni made up his story from whole cloth.

Not at all. I assume Brugioni was aware of and maybe even participated in the study performed by McMahon and Hunter. I admit I haven't studied the Brugioni story in detail. But I don't need to. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 

1. When did Brugioni's story first come out? To my understanding he was in his late 80's, right? 

2. When was it first recorded, and by whom? If by Horne, well, hell, we can only assume Horne had long talks with him before he ever went on the record. Well, how do we know he wasn't pushed in certain directions? I read an obituary of Brugioni's. It said he reveled in story-telling, and spent his last years speaking before audiences, etc. IOW, he was an attention-seeker. Did Horne or anyone else obtain copies or accounts of his speeches, and compare them to the historical record? Brugioni may very well have been a fabulist, a la O'Donnell. 

3. As to specifics... It is my understanding Brugioni claimed he'd worked with a team. Well, who were they? Did Horne track them down? Did he talk to them or their families to see if they could back up Brugioni? 

4. McMahon and Hunter told Horne and the ARRB they came in on Saturday or Sunday, and worked through the night. If they'd come in on Sunday, and worked into Monday morning, wouldn't they have remembered it? I mean, that makes sense, right? if you work late Sunday into early Monday morning, you either don't come in on Monday, or come in very late. Either way, it clicks a box in your brain. And yet neither remembered anything about missing time on Monday. 

5. I did see within the ARRB's files an interview with Rollie Zavada, in which he asserted the Rochester lab left initials on the films they'd developed, and that there was no such mark on the Z-film. Has this been countered? I mean, the belief the film was altered there suggests it was copied there as well, and that these copies were shipped out across the country and swapped out for the copies held by the FBI, SS, and Zapruder, right? Is there any evidence this was done? Is there any evidence the film viewed on Friday the 22nd was different than the film shown to reporters and sold what? That Monday? 

6. Bottom line. The Z-film's trip to the NPIC wasn't thoroughly investigated by the ARRB. Not that one can blame them. At the time, no-one foresaw that someone would come forth years later with stories suggesting that McMahon and Hunter studied an altered film... If they had they would have interviewed as many former NPIC employees as possible, right? And maybe cleared it all up. Because as it, there is no support for Brugioni's claims, outside the recollections of his 80 plus year old brain, right? 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

On 12/24/2023 at 5:09 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Thanks, Roger! I very much admire the work you've been doing to get the case reopened, but I think you're on the wrong lines with this particular matter, which I suspect is because you treat Horne as a credible researcher rather than a crank with an agenda.

I'll give a quick reply to some of your points before I switch off the computer and go into festive mode for a few days. Other points have already been answered by Pat.

 

JB: Thanks, Roger! I very much admire the work you've been doing to get the case reopened, but I think you're on the wrong lines with this particular matter, which I suspect is because you treat Horne as a credible researcher rather than a crank with an agenda.

 

RO: It's true I find Horne credible in this case.  He pieced together what Brugioni and McMahon told him about the two sets of briefing boards, separately done, and interpreted what it meant. I essentially agree with his conclusion.  So I don't see an agenda, but rather someone who has done a fine job developing information about what happened with the Zapruder film that weekend, as opposed to what we had been told, that led to a clearer discussion of whether or not the film was altered. 

 

Recall that the original story was that once they had bought some of the rights to the film, Life had flown it directly to its Chicago headquarters that weekend to begin work on the stills they were to publish a few days later.  I assume you no longer believe that, if you ever did.

 

Whether or not you believe Horne and Brugioni, it's clear that briefing boards were prepared that weekend. One set exists at NARA. For whom and what purpose were they prepared? My answer is that Brugioni's set was prepared that first Saturday to evaluate how clearly Zapruder contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with. Which became the basis for trying to alter Zapruder.

 

Oswald was still alive when Life (I believe fronting for the CIA) bought some limited rights to the film.  The killers knew any film that depicted the murder, and particularly one shot from where Zapruder was, would contradict their Oswald story.  That means film alteration *had* to be an important consideration and quickly. So an initial hurdle for you to overcome is to explain why they would not even try film alteration?

 

With Oswald still alive they would have try him in court. They knew he didn't do it. A trial was going to be difficult.  

 

It was only after they failed to conceal frontal shot(s),and other things, btw, in the film, that they resorted to hiding the film itself. They went back to Zapruder that Sunday, gave him another $100,000 in order to bury the film.  Oswald was dead by then and his frame was already in full swing.

 

As to Horne, you may know other things about him I don't, which form your opinion of him and  warrant the dismissal of him as a "crank". But that's not a good basis for dismissing him here, unless you can point to something specific in his work on this issue.  I think it's important to avoid the trap of saying that a person said x, so ignore him about everything else.  There is far to much of that kind of thing in the research community. 

 

  Quote

Nowhere in these articles nor at Duquesne last month, does he [Josiah Thompson] address the obvious question:  how are both shots depicted by only a one frame flash (about 1/18 of one second) of debris at 313? Shouldn't there be more?

 

JB:  There are more. The debris is visible in the next few frames, the precise number of which varies according to the quality of the copies you look at. Costella's version isn't of particularly high quality, but even there you can see debris in several frames: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/. There are better quality versions online, but I don't have the links to hand.

 

RO:  Let me rephrase my point.  There should be a longer (multiframe) and more spectacular depiction of the *impact* of two bullets to JFK's, head, particularly if they came from opposite directions, in Zapruder if it wasn't altered. Based not only what Brugioni said he saw, but other facts.  Like the degree to which the back of Kennedy's head was blown apart. Yet the extant Zapruder doesn't show that.  The back of Kennedy's head is strangely whole and distinctly blackened during the head shots.

 

At Duquesne the Thompson group clearly established a shot from the right front by depicting a substantial spray from the head shots shooting back and to the left at considerable velocity and hitting the two cops riding to the left of and behind JFK, among other things. The impact was of such velocity that one cop thought initially that he was hit by a bullet.

 

Thompson did not try to show this using Zapruder.  Instead he mapped out the positions of Martin, Hargis, and Hill and cited their testimony of being hit by tissue and bone to establish the trajectory of the sprays 

 

Why didn't he use Zapruder to make the case about the tissue and bone spray? I suggest Zapruder wasn't used because the extant version doesn't show what he thinks happened.  It's not there, as Thompson he described it verbally. Looking at Costella's frames you posted I did not see anything like what the Thompson group described either (though you did say there are better frames somewhere).

  Quote

Nor will it do to claim that because the extant film still contains evidence of a frontal shot, it must not have been altered. This has already explained in several notes.  There was only so much they could do to conceal a frontal shot in '63 (and maybe even today). 

 

JB:  That's an example of the special pleading I mentioned in my comment! If it wasn't possible to alter the film to remove all of the obvious evidence of conspiracy, why not just lose the film?

 

RO: Simple answer.  Because by that Sunday, when they realized they couldn't remove all of the evidence of a frontal shot, the Zapruder film was already well known. Zapruder had already been on TV talking about it.  Dan Rather had seen it and was describing it. There was an intensive bidding war to buy the film from Zapruder on Saturday, which Life won and was already planning the run prints of it in their magazine in a few days.  The film could not be disappeared.

 

They did the next best thing and buried it from public view.

 

JB:  The scenario proposed by Horne and others is that a bunch of all-powerful conspirators possessed the ability to plan and carry out the assassination, and had control of the film, yet lacked the ability to alter the film successfully, so they altered this bit and that bit but left in plenty of other stuff that negated the effect of the few alterations they did make, so they then decided to hide the film for a few years, not very successfully because plenty of bootlegs were floating around, and in the end they released the film to the public, who immediately spotted that it contained strong evidence of conspiracy.

 

This makes no sense. An alternative account might be that the people who performed the assassination either had no control over the photographic evidence, or that they simply didn't care what that evidence showed. Maybe they actually wanted there to be photographic or eye-witness evidence of more than one shooter. Maybe they didn't, but they weren't in any position to prevent such evidence existing. All of these alternatives sound more plausible to me than the notion of all-powerful figures who don't actually appear to be very powerful at all (I'd insert the obvious theological analogy here, but it's the festive season, so I won't).

 

RO:  Here is the heart of our disagreement.  It's clear to me that the murderers *were* very powerful. Their success at getting away with it, and for 60 years, is one indication of their power.  60 years later, their power, then and how it has grown, should be obvious. 

 

It helps to break out of the cocoon of treating the JFKA as an isolated incident if you want to understand that power.  The murder was the beginning of a string of political murders that solidified the policy control of the murderers, and led to the imposition of "Pax Americana" that JFK warned against.  And to endless wars to support the "rules based order" as it is now called, that underlies current US hegemony. 

 

They *did* have control over the photographic evidence. Both NPIC and Hawkeye Works were CIA labs. They did prevent the dissemination of contradictory evidence through their control of the major media.  A clear indication of their power.  Their power was such that they could pull off the murder, shift the blame to someone else, and cover up conflicting information about what happened for decades.

 

"Plenty of bootleg" copies were floating around, you say?  That clearly has meant nothing important.

  Quote

Realizing that the film after alteration still contradicted their Oswald story ... they kept it from the public for 12 years ... That seems to clarify what their motive was for hiding the film, doesn't it?

 

JB:  Not really. Life, along with whoever else was involved in the acquisition of the film, had a perfectly credible motive for keeping the film largely but not entirely out of public sight until the immediate fuss had died down. Namely, the fact that the film contained strong evidence that invalidated the lone-gunman theory.

 

RO:  I think you misunderstood me. That's *my* point.  Life fronting for the CIA kept the film from public view for as long as they could while the Oswald story took hold and most people forgot the murder, because it contradicted their frame of Oswald. 

 

  Quote

I'm not competent to assess the technical arguments between them about whether Horne's story is reasonable or even possible. Zavada says the alteration as described by Horne is not even possible.

 

I'm no expert either. In such cases, the rational course of action is to give the actual experts the benefit of the doubt.

 

JB:  One of the strongest points Zavada makes is that if the film that exists today is a copy and not the original, it must contain physical evidence of being a copy, and that if such evidence is not present the film must be the original. Copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film would inevitably increase the contrast, increase the grain, and distort the colours. According to someone with the relevant technical expertise who has examined the actual film, it contains none of these defects. The film that exists today must be the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination.

 

This rules out any alterations apart from something like painting over a hole in JFK's head, an alteration that is at least physically possible but has not yet been demonstrated.

 

RO: I'm going to abstain on these "technical" points until the larger questions I have posed have been answered. Except to ask a dumb question. If you take the original film and make some alterations, isn't it still the original, not a copy? 

 

Here is a short list of some possible alterations in Zapruder:

 

*The deletion of the turn on to Elm St. I believe both Zapruder and his aide standing with him said that once Zapruder started filming he never stopped until the motorcade passed him.

 

*The brief stopping of the limo, or at least a distinct slowing down right before the head shots, that so many witnesses saw. But is not in the extant film.

 

*The details around the head shots already discussed.

 

Do you claim that none of these changes were made to the original Zapruder? 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

On 12/25/2023 at 5:32 PM, Pat Speer said:

Not at all. I assume Brugioni was aware of and maybe even participated in the study performed by McMahon and Hunter. I admit I haven't studied the Brugioni story in detail. But I don't need to. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 

1. When did Brugioni's story first come out? To my understanding he was in his late 80's, right? 

2. When was it first recorded, and by whom? If by Horne, well, hell, we can only assume Horne had long talks with him before he ever went on the record. Well, how do we know he wasn't pushed in certain directions? I read an obituary of Brugioni's. It said he reveled in story-telling, and spent his last years speaking before audiences, etc. IOW, he was an attention-seeker. Did Horne or anyone else obtain copies or accounts of his speeches, and compare them to the historical record? Brugioni may very well have been a fabulist, a la O'Donnell. 

3. As to specifics... It is my understanding Brugioni claimed he'd worked with a team. Well, who were they? Did Horne track them down? Did he talk to them or their families to see if they could back up Brugioni? 

4. McMahon and Hunter told Horne and the ARRB they came in on Saturday or Sunday, and worked through the night. If they'd come in on Sunday, and worked into Monday morning, wouldn't they have remembered it? I mean, that makes sense, right? if you work late Sunday into early Monday morning, you either don't come in on Monday, or come in very late. Either way, it clicks a box in your brain. And yet neither remembered anything about missing time on Monday. 

5. I did see within the ARRB's files an interview with Rollie Zavada, in which he asserted the Rochester lab left initials on the films they'd developed, and that there was no such mark on the Z-film. Has this been countered? I mean, the belief the film was altered there suggests it was copied there as well, and that these copies were shipped out across the country and swapped out for the copies held by the FBI, SS, and Zapruder, right? Is there any evidence this was done? Is there any evidence the film viewed on Friday the 22nd was different than the film shown to reporters and sold what? That Monday? 

6. Bottom line. The Z-film's trip to the NPIC wasn't thoroughly investigated by the ARRB. Not that one can blame them. At the time, no-one foresaw that someone would come forth years later with stories suggesting that McMahon and Hunter studied an altered film... If they had they would have interviewed as many former NPIC employees as possible, right? And maybe cleared it all up. Because as it, there is no support for Brugioni's claims, outside the recollections of his 80 plus year old brain, right? 

 

I wrote a long answer to you, Pat, and accidentally deleted it.  Here is a shorter version.

 

Let me summarize what you're saying. 

 

There is no support for what Brugioni is saying apart from his own recollections. There was only one set of briefing boards done that weekend and that was by McMahon and Hunter. Brugioni was aware of and probably participated in McMahon and Hunter's work.

 

Brugioni was senile at the time of the interview by Horne--he was 89--or worse, probably a serial fabricator. He was lying about everything. That he had worked on the film and was there when two "Secret Service agents" took it off to Hawkeye Works with the enlargements he had done before he was even finished with the boards. Including that he was told 10-12 years later by his then supervisor to get rid of his board that he still  had in a safe because no one was supposed to see his version. He was just embellishing his lie.

 

You say you haven't studied Brugioni's story "in detail".  That's apparent.

 

We can dispose of your first assertions right away.  We know that Brugioni did not work with McMahon and Hunter because McMahon said so.  He and Hunter were the only staff working on the film that night when he was there.

 

And for the record, McMahon the leader of his team, did not prepare the boards. He only worked on enlarging some frames.  He left before the boards were put together by someone else (no, it wasn't Brugioni).  In fact, enlargement of some frames he had not worked on were included later and some of the ones McMahon did were not included at all. 

 

McMahon and Hunter were minor functionaries.  Unlike Brugioni, McMahon had no say in which frames were enlarged even at the time he was doing it.  He thought there were 5-8 shots on the film from three different directions. "Bill Smith", who had brought the film from Hawkeye Works (and told McMahon it was developed there to apparently explain his journey--the film was actually developed in Dallas on Friday) ignored him.  He was interested in depicting three shots from the front. 

 

Nor was Brugioni at the time aware of what McMahon and Hunter did with the film, despite being the duty officer that weekend. They were ordered to tell no one about their work, including their supervisor.  When putting in for the extra time they were to answer no questions about the work, but to refer a questioner to a third party.

 

You offer nothing to support your claim that Brugioni was lying. Except your claim you can discern that possibility from one obituary you read that he revelled in storytelling! Exceedingly slim reed, that.

 

You're apparently unaware of the work reputation Brugioni already had before the Zapruder incident.  He was a major figure in uncovering the Soviet missiles in Cuba in'62 that led to the Cuban missile crisis. He was the logical choice, not McMahon, for anyone who wanted to do briefing boards that could clearly show what happened. In fact, when told McMahon had worked on Zapruder too,Brugioni implied he wasn'treallyqualifiedtodothework.

 

When, during the Horne interview, Brugioni finally realized how he had been treated and why, he offered the following conclusion.  He was kept in the dark by the NPIC director, whom  he considered a friend more than a supervisor, he said, because the director knew he would not abide by such chicanery as that which happened.

 

As for his "senility", I urge you, again, to watch the full interview with Horne a pick out any instance you see off forgetfulness or confusion. Obviously the Zapruder incident had stuck in his mind as it likely would to anybody.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Here is a sketch of Dino Brugioni in Wikipedia, 

Brugioni flew in the 66th Bomb Squadron and a number of reconnaissance missions in World War II over North Africa, Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia and France. He received the Purple Heart, 9 Air Medals and a Distinguished Unit Citation. After the war, he received BA and MA degrees in Foreign Affairs from George Washington University. He joined the CIA in March 1948 and became an expert in Soviet industries. In 1955, he was selected as a member of the cadre of the newly formed Photographic Intelligence Division that would interpret U-2, SR-71 and satellite photography.

Role in Russian bomber and missile gaps[edit]

The American U-2 spy plane began flights over Russia in 1956. Under the cover of an abandoned Washington car dealership, the first CIA analysts were assembled to review the U-2's photos. The founding analysts included Dino Brugioni and small team of World War II photo interpreters, under the direction of Art Lundahl. Analysis of U-2 photography dispelled the "bomber gap" in 1956 and the "missile gap" in 1961. Analysis was also conducted on U-2 photography taken during the Suez, Lebanon, Chinese Off-Shore Islands, Middle East and Tibetan crises.

In January 1961, Lundahl's CIA group acquired military imagery intelligence capabilities^[5] to form the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), as a part of the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology. Brugioni was a key deputy to Lundahl.

His first assignments included counting Russian bombers, finding new Soviet airbases and assessing Russian naval readiness.^[6] He then was intimately involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis (see below)

Role in the Cuban Missile Crisis[edit]

Dino Brugioni in 1963

U-2 photographs taken on^[7] October 14, 1962, by some of the first U-2 aircraft piloted by US Air Force members rather than CIA personnel, brought back photographs, in which the NPIC analysts found visual evidence of the placement of Soviet SS-4 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM), capable of hitting targets, in the continental United States, with nuclear warheads. This triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis, sending the US intelligence community into maximum effort and triggering an unprecedented military alert.

The October 14 high-altitude photographs, taken from the periphery of Cuba, led to the US taking the additional risk of direct overflights of Cuba, at the orders of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. McNamara, Chief of Naval Operations George Whelan Anderson Jr and Lundahl concurred that the US Navy's Light Photographic Squadron VFP-62, flying F8U-1P Crusader fighters in a reconnaissance role, were best qualified to take low-level photographs, flying directly over Cuba. As well as the U-2 photographs, the low-level Navy photographs also streamed into NPIC, where Brugioni and colleagues analyzed them around the clock.

Klein (2002) described Lundahl's presenting the October 14 photographs and their interpretation to President John F. Kennedy: "Mr. Lundahl, when Kennedy was shown the photographs, he turned his head, looked at Lundahl, and said, "Are you sure?" And Mr. Lundahl said, "I'm as sure of this, Mr. President, as we can be sure of anything in the photo interpretation field. And you must admit that we have not led you astray on anything that we have reported to you previously." And the President said "Okay.""

Brugioni's book, although a general history, deals extensively with the role of imagery intelligence in the Cuban Missile Crisis. A selection of the actual photographs, as well as supporting data such as the chart of CIA photo are at the George Washington University National Security Archive.^[8]

Another source on technique, discussing the obscure technique of "crateology", or recognizing the characteristic ways in which the Soviets crated military equipment, is Hilsman's To Move a Nation.^[9] A photograph analyzed using the crateology technique is shown in.^[8]

After the Cuban Missile Crisis[edit]

Later assignments included finding chemical and nuclear weapons, missile sites and test blast areas. He provided intelligence to policymakers during World War II, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War and the Yom Kippur War.

Zapruder Film[edit]

In a video interview by Doug Horne (actually a digest of excerpts from 9 interviews by Peter Janney and Doug Horne), Dino Brugioni says that he and his team examined the 8mm Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination the evening of Saturday 23 November 1963 and into the morning of Sunday 24 November 1963, when he was the weekend duty officer at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. Dino and his team projected the film for two members of the Secret Service several times, and they indicated which frames they wanted prints made from, which in turn should be included on the briefing boards. Dino indicated in the interview that he was positive that they had the original film, and that when they projected it for the two members of the Secret Service, it was the first time they had viewed the film. After creating the required duplicate negatives from the desired frames, the film was returned the two members of the Secret Service, and that at approximately 3 AM they left the NPIC facility. He and his team then made up two identical sets of briefing boards, one set for CIA Director John McCone and one for the Secret Service, but both were eventually delivered to the CIA Director who would in turn provide a set to the Secret Service. Each set was consisted of two boards, hinged in the middle, and contained between 12 and 15 prints of frames from the film, with the frame number indicated on the board. Brugioni prepared identical one sheet of notes that accompanied each set the briefing boards, which included the name of each person who had seen the film and worked on the production of the prints and briefing boards. When the work was complete, Dino Brugioni reviewed the briefing boards and notes with his superior, Arthur Lundahl, whom he had called and requested come to the facility. The briefing boards and notes were then turned over to Arthur Lundahl.^[10][11]

Brugioni said he was not aware of a second examination of the film at NPIC, the night of Sunday 24 November and the early morning of Monday 25 November, by a completely different team. Apparently the team that worked on the second examination was given 16mm film and made up another, and possibly larger, series of frame prints, and that another set of briefing boards was also created.^[10][12]

Brugioni thought the Zapruder Film in the National Archives today, and available to the public, has been altered from the version of the film he saw and worked with on November 23–24. Specifically, the version of the Zapruder Film Brugioni recalls seeing had more than one frame of the fatal head shot to Kennedy with its resulting "spray" of brain matter that he referred to as a "white cloud", three or four feet above Kennedy's head. The version of the Zapruder film available to the public depicts the fatal head shot on only one frame of the film, frame 313. Additionally, Brugioni is adamant that the set of briefing boards available to the public in the National Archives is not the set that he and his team produced on November 23–24, 1963.^[10][13]

After retirement: using photo-intelligence for historical research[edit]

As more and more intelligence photographs are declassified, essentially all from World War II and a great many from the CORONA, ARGON, LANYARD and GAMBIT satellites, Brugioni has been active in guiding historians to use these collections in historical research.

After-the-fact intelligence about Auschwitz[edit]

Brugioni was one of the first historians to present photographic evidence of Auschwitz. A photographic plane was photographing an I.G. Farben factory in the general area, and didn't turn off its camera until after it had passed over the Monowitz camp.^[14] The factory was the main interest, and World War II interpreters just marked Auschwitz as an unidentified installation. No one in that organization knew about human intelligence reports of the death camps, and only in the seventies did researchers learn the significance of the camp photographs.^[15]

Brugioni explains why Allied intelligence knew little about the targets, even after the President asked that the camps be bombed.^[15]

When the bombing specialists were ordered to formulate plans for bombing the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex, officials of the Air Ministry, the Royal Air Force Bomber Command and the U.S. 8th Air Force bemoaned the lack of aerial photographic coverage of the complex. In fact, such photos were readily available at the Allied Central Interpretation Unit at Royal Air Force Station Medmenham, 50 miles outside London and at the Mediterranean Allied Photo Reconnaissance Wing in Italy. The ultimate irony was that no search for the aerial photos was ever instituted by either organization. In retrospect, it is a fact that by the time the Soviet Army reached Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, the Allies had photographed the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex at least 30 times.^{[citation needed]}

Brugioni is an authority on contrived or altered photography, described in his book Photo Fakery. His interest in the Civil War in the West is chronicled in The Civil War in Missouri and his interest in reconnaissance in From Balloons to Blackbirds. Brugioni has written more than 90 articles, mainly on the application of overhead imagery to intelligence and other fields. He has helped with and appeared in over 75 news and historical television programs.

Brugioni has received numerous citations and commendations, including the CIA Intelligence Medal of Merit, the CIA Career Intelligence Medal and the prestigious U.S. Government Pioneer in Space Medal for his role in the development of satellite reconnaissance. He twice received the Sherman Kent Award, the CIA's top award for outstanding contributions to intelligence. However, he remains most proud of the commendation he received from President John F. Kennedy for contributions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On April 13, 2005, he was inducted into the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Hall of Fame.

Bibliography[edit]

Books

• The Civil War in Missouri As Seen from the Capital City. Jefferson City: Summers Publishing, 1987.
• Eyeball to Eyeball. Ed. Robert F. McCort. New York: Random House, 1990.
• From Balloons to Blackbirds: Recommaissance, Surveillance and Military Intelligence: How It Evolved. McLean: The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, 1993.
• Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation. McLean: Brassey's, 1999.
• Eyes in the Sky: Eisenhower, the CIA and Cold War Aerial Espionage. Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2010.

Articles

• "The Unidentifieds." Studies in Intelligence. Summer 1969.

[Roger Odisio]

On 12/26/2023 at 6:47 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I wrote a long answer to you, Pat, and accidentally deleted it.  Here is a shorter version.

 

Let me summarize what you're saying. 

 

There is no support for what Brugioni is saying apart from his own recollections. There was only one set of briefing boards done that weekend and that was by McMahon and Hunter. Brugioni was aware of and probably participated in McMahon and Hunter's work.

 

Brugioni was senile at the time of the interview by Horne--he was 89--or worse, probably a serial fabricator. He was lying about everything. That he had worked on the film and was there when two "Secret Service agents" took it off to Hawkeye Works with the enlargements he had done before he was even finished with the boards. Including that he was told 10-12 years later by his then supervisor to get rid of his board that he still  had in a safe because no one was supposed to see his version. He was just embellishing his lie.

 

You say you haven't studied Brugioni's story "in detail".  That's apparent.

 

We can dispose of your first assertions right away.  We know that Brugioni did not work with McMahon and Hunter because McMahon said so.  He and Hunter were the only staff working on the film that night when he was there.

 

And for the record, McMahon the leader of his team, did not prepare the boards. He only worked on enlarging some frames.  He left before the boards were put together by someone else (no, it wasn't Brugioni).  In fact, enlargement of some frames he had not worked on were included later and some of the ones McMahon did were not included at all. 

 

McMahon and Hunter were minor functionaries.  Unlike Brugioni, McMahon had no say in which frames were enlarged even at the time he was doing it.  He thought there were 5-8 shots on the film from three different directions. "Bill Smith", who had brought the film from Hawkeye Works (and told McMahon it was developed there to apparently explain his journey--the film was actually developed in Dallas on Friday) ignored him.  He was interested in depicting three shots from the front. 

 

Nor was Brugioni at the time aware of what McMahon and Hunter did with the film, despite being the duty officer that weekend. They were ordered to tell no one about their work, including their supervisor.  When putting in for the extra time they were to answer no questions about the work, but to refer a questioner to a third party.

 

You offer nothing to support your claim that Brugioni was lying. Except your claim you can discern that possibility from one obituary you read that he revelled in storytelling! Exceedingly slim reed, that.

 

You're apparently unaware of the work reputation Brugioni already had before the Zapruder incident.  He was a major figure in uncovering the Soviet missiles in Cuba in'62 that led to the Cuban missile crisis. He was the logical choice, not McMahon, for anyone who wanted to do briefing boards that could clearly show what happened. In fact, when told McMahon had worked on Zapruder too,Brugioni implied he wasn'treallyqualifiedtodothework.

 

When, during the Horne interview, Brugioni finally realized how he had been treated and why, he offered the following conclusion.  He was kept in the dark by the NPIC director, whom  he considered a friend more than a supervisor, he said, because the director knew he would not abide by such chicanery as that which happened.

 

As for his "senility", I urge you, again, to watch the full interview with Horne a pick out any instance you see off forgetfulness or confusion. Obviously the Zapruder incident had stuck in his mind as it likely would to anybody.

You asked who else was with Brugioni when he did the first set of briefing boards.  Here is the answer from Doug Horne's book on the ARRB, vol. 4, cited by Bill Kelly in 2010 in the Zapruder discussion at EF you referenced.

 

"Brugioni said that DCI John McCone was notified sometime Saturday by the Secret Service that photographic support would be needed" [ed note:  "photographic support" would be needed because they knew the Zapruder film would contradict the Oswald story.  Also a side note:  McCone reputedly had told Bobby early on he thought there were (at least) 3 shots from different directions, presumably *because he had seen Brugioni's boards*] 

 

McCone notified Art Lundahl, NPIC's director; and Lundahl in turn called Brugioni because Dino was the duty officer that weekend.  [ed note: Also, It was natural for Lundahl to call upon Brugioni because of his experience. He was so closely involved with the briefing boards prepared for President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis that he wrote a book about the role of NPIC in the crisis, called Eyeball to Eyeball.  He had briefed Eisenhower as well.  

 

"In his capacity as duty officer, Brugioni then called NPIC's number one photogrammatrist, Ralph Pearse, as well as Bill Banfield, the management official in charge of the photographic lab facilities. Brugioni told Janney that Bill Banfield ordered in 3 or 4 photo technicians (who worked on the home movie to enlarge individual frames), and 2 or 3 people from the graphics department (who actually assembled the briefing boards in the graphics department, on the second floor, one floor above the photo lab)."

 

In the course of 7 interviews of Brugioni by Peter Janney, two years before Horne talked to Brugioni, Janney repeatedly questioned Dino about whether either a Captain Pierre Sands, the deputy director at NPIC, or Ben Hunter, had been present with him that night. Brugioni said neither were.  Neither did McMahon work with Bruigini as he himself said.  Sands was the person McMahon was told to refer to if anyone asked questions about what he was doing that Sunday night.

 

Janney had taken pictures of the boards now at NARA and showed them to Brugioni.  Brugioni said he didn't do them. The pictures were different, the attached notes were different than he wrote,  and the whole structure of the boards was different. Brugioni also said he put the names of the two Secret Service agents who had brought the film to him, but couldn't, in 2009, remember those names.  McMahon said "Bill Smith" brought the film to him.

 

Unless you want to pursue the claim that Brugioni was lying about all of this, the conclusion is inescapable. There were two sets of briefing boards done at separate times that weekend by two different groups of people.  The two sets of boards were different.  As were the films used to do them.  IOW, the original Zapruder film was altered in between the making of the two sets.  Otherwise there was no reason to do a second set.  Brugioni's boards would have sufficed (except for what they showed).

 

All evidence points to Brugioni doing the first set to alert the authorities to the extent of the problem the film posed. His boards were later disposed of.  The film was altered after the first set.  The second set done by McMahon, that now resides at NARA, was done using the altered film.

 

McMahon said others actually constructed the boards and he left before that work was done Sunday night. He said there were pictures he didn't work on that were on the final version of the boards, and some of his work was not included.

 

This means that there was no strict, known time limit for the alteration and their depiction on the boards to be done, as some have claimed, arguing the alterations could not be done that fast on the time allotted on Sunday.

 

The work on the boards continued past Sunday night.  For how long and by whom, we don't know.  Life (fronting for the CIA) had the film squirreled away for almost 12 years.  We don't know what if anything was done to it after Sunday night either.

 

What we do know is that the alterations were not successful in hiding what happened.  As evidenced by the gasps in the audience when even the revised version of Zapruder was shown to the public on Geraldo Rivera in 1975.  Which led to the hearings soon after to reexamine the case in the late 70s, the 1991 Stone movie, which led to the JFKA Act in 1992, which produced the ARRB briefly, and so on.

 

Imagine if we still had the original Zapruder to look at. 

[Miles Massicotte]

On 12/23/2023 at 6:20 PM, Roger Odisio said:

MM:  I think the point that Pat Speer frequently makes here still stands: the Zapruder film as it stands appears to show evidence of a conspiracy (even though, as I understand his theory on his website, Speer himself believes that all shots were from the rear. For what it is worth, since this thread is about the two head shots hypothesis, I think he makes the best and most coherent argument for it, in my highly non-expert opinion).

 

RO: If you think Pat believes all shots came from the back (I don't think that's correct but I'm not speaking for Pat) how can you then argue he makes the best and most coherent argument for 2 head shots.  Why would JFK's head go back and to the left after the last shot if all shots came from behind?

 

Yes the extant Zapruder still contains evidence of conspiracy because all of it could not be removed with the tools they had in '63.  Maybe even today. But if you believe there were two head shots, or at least a decent possibility of that, how can you believe the extant Zapruder's one frame flash (approximately 1/18 of a second) is an accurate depiction? 

 

MM;  The fact remains that the average schlub like myself who sees the Zapruder film and the back and to the left motion of Kennedy's head sees that and thinks "gee that looks like a shot from the front". Why then would conspirators who altered the film leave it looking like that?

 

RO:  Because JFK's body fell toward Jackie and she jumped on the trunk, etc.  They couldn't remove all of that.  Everyone saw that, for one thing.  The inability to completely alter the fact that at least one shot came from the front, and knowing that would torpedo their Oswald story, is a main reason Life (fronting for the CIA) went back to Zapruder on Sunday and gave him another $150 thousand for the rest of the rights to the film, including the right to (not) show it as a motion picture.  Then they buried the film for 12 years, while their Oswald story took hold. 

 

When the film was finally seen by much of the public on Geraldo in 1975, they gave the film and its rights back to Zapruder for $1. Does that explain Life's motive to you?

 

MM: I have heard it argued frequently by alterationists that the back and to the left motion is an "artifact" of alteration, but I haven't seen a decent explain of how such an "artifact" could occur. 

 

RO: Frequently?  I don't know who these "alterationists" are.  Cite?  You certainly won't hear that from me.  It's silly.

 

MM:   I have looked into Horne and his revelations with Brugioni extensively. I was drawn to Brugioni's recollections because he was one of the top photoanalysts in the world. Horne et al. cite this frequently as evidence for the credibility of Brugioni's recollections about the content of the Zapruder film. I disagree. I tend to agree about Hawkeye works, the two separate briefing board events, and etc. I disagree about Brugioni's recollection about the white mist, that it lasted longer than one frame, and the content/imagery of the Zapruder film itself. I think it is perfectly valid to question Brugioni's recollection of a few frames of a film he wasn't asked about until about 40 years later. I put him in the same category as the rest of the people who have claimed to have seen the "original" Zapruder film. Most people would have a faulty memory of a few frames of film they saw one time 40 years ago. Making Brugioni's recollection some kind of proof of alteration is not credible.

 

RO  If there were two head shots close together from opposite directions, the spray of debris would last longer than one frame, wouldn't it? If you claim (on what basis, you don't say) that the spray of tissue, blood and bone lasted only one frame, you are precluding a second head shot as the Thompson group and others have described.

 

MM:  Personally, I do tend to give some credence Brugioni's other recollections, but I think it is possible that they have an alternate explanation, namely that certain organizations like those who controlled Hawkeye works wanted information about Zapruder's film. It is perfectly reasonable, given what we know now about the CIA's (or elements thereof's) likely involvement with the assassination that someone "in the know" would want to have this info quickly, quietly, and covertly. 

 

RO:  That the CIA had Brugioni do the boards the next night to get clear information about the shots, and other things in the film, so the film could be altered is *the* explanation I offer, not some alternative!

 

MM:  So while the thrust of Roger's post I believe to be correct, namely that we should be looking for two head shots, I think that they most likely exist already somewhere in the extant Z-film, as it is not altered.

 

RO: Where does your conclusion that the film was not altered come from? It certainly was not explained in your post. 

 

I argue that starting with an understanding of the alterations in Zapruder is the best way to get to the truth of the two head shots and the murder itself.

To your points:

-The Z-film demonstrates forward motion of the head at the moment of impact. I am really not an expert in this and this always seems to open a can of worms on this forum about the head shot, but between z312 and 313 the head moves forward, as if struck from behind, before recoiling backwards. Even an alterationist like David Lifton noticed this (pointed out to him by Dr. Richard Feynman of all people) he comments on it here at 11:33

-As for the idea of that what we see in the extant Z-film is an artifact of alternation: i of course don't claim you argue this, and we agree it is silly. As I am commenting on general I don't feel like digging up a source here, but if you really require it then I will dig it up; I have seen it proposed right here on this forum. 

In any case, I don't feel that the back and to the left motion necessarily means a frontal shot upon closer examination, I think it could be, as Pat proposes, a tangential shot to the right temple from behind. But to the naked eye on a first impression I think nearly everybody thinks it looks like a frontal shot. 

-Like I said, I agree about the two briefing board events. The witnesses all line up on that. I think it is not unreasonable to think Brugioni's memory could and would be faulty about other details like the several frames of "white mist" for example. But it seems clear that two separate briefing board events did occur at NPIC. I just don't believe that they had anything to do with alteration. I think there must be another explanation, and I proposed one hypothesis.

-My personal conclusion that the film was not altered rests on several points:

1) the existence of the original in-camera negative 

2) the timeline; multiple copies of the film made immediately and not enough time for alteration before NPIC got the film

3) the film shows significant evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president

4) Zavada's analysis

5) I have seen many arguments for alteration and none of them convince me. Naturally there are dozens: the freeway sign, the capabilities of optical printing, the alleged limo stop, the missing turn, the people who don't turn to watch the president's motorcade, the blood being painted in, the boy that leaps out in one frame, Clint Hill running to leap on the car even though it is still moving....... on and on and on. To me, it is all so unconvincing. The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim that the film is altered, and all of the above that I listed is mired in speculation, what-ifs, contingencies. What I would love to see is the following: somebody take Zapruder's model camera, film a car from his position roughly the same speed (hell put a limo stop in there if you want), and make the proposed alterations using 1963 technology. That for me would at least go a long way to showing that alterations of the nature proposed are possible and would resemble the extant Z-film. I realize that will likely never happen though. 

6) Motive for alteration. It is of course always cited as removing evidence of multiple shooters. Well, possible of course, but I think it is possible that they may have been setting up Oswald as proof of a communist conspiracy, as a justification for war with Cuba and/or the Soviet Union. This has to do with my own personal opinions about many things including Mexico City, the Walker incident, and of course Oswald's past. So I plan to justify this position in the future as part of a theory of JFK's death as a coup d'etat from various echelons of government, but at the moment I am not prepared to make that argument so I simply give this for now as my personal opinion. 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

To your points:

-The Z-film demonstrates forward motion of the head at the moment of impact. I am really not an expert in this and this always seems to open a can of worms on this forum about the head shot, but between z312 and 313 the head moves forward, as if struck from behind, before recoiling backwards. Even an alterationist like David Lifton noticed this (pointed out to him by Dr. Richard Feynman of all people) he comments on it here at 11:33

-As for the idea of that what we see in the extant Z-film is an artifact of alternation: i of course don't claim you argue this, and we agree it is silly. As I am commenting on general I don't feel like digging up a source here, but if you really require it then I will dig it up; I have seen it proposed right here on this forum. 

In any case, I don't feel that the back and to the left motion necessarily means a frontal shot upon closer examination, I think it could be, as Pat proposes, a tangential shot to the right temple from behind. But to the naked eye on a first impression I think nearly everybody thinks it looks like a frontal shot. 

-Like I said, I agree about the two briefing board events. The witnesses all line up on that. I think it is not unreasonable to think Brugioni's memory could and would be faulty about other details like the several frames of "white mist" for example. But it seems clear that two separate briefing board events did occur at NPIC. I just don't believe that they had anything to do with alteration. I think there must be another explanation, and I proposed one hypothesis.

 

Like I said, I agree about the two briefing board events. The witnesses all line up on that. I think it is not unreasonable to think Brugioni's memory could and would be faulty about other details like the several frames of "white mist" for example. But it seems clear that two separate briefing board events did occur at NPIC. I just don't believe that they had anything to do with alteration. I think there must be another explanation, and I proposed one hypothesis.

 

RO:  Two separated briefing boards *showing different results* have nothing to do with alteration!  Brugioni was a recognized expert whom the NPIC director asked to do the first boards while Oswald was still alive because they knew the film would contradict their Oswald story and they wanted to see by how much.  Brugioni's boards were later destroyed.  The second boards were made after they tried to eliminate evidence of frontal shots among other things, but failed.  Which is why they went back to Life to buy the rest of the film rights so they could bury it as long as they could get away with. 

 

RO:  Why do you think they made the second set of boards? Why did Life go back to Zapruder and buy the full rights before they made the second boards?  Why did they then bury the film?  Why did his then supervisor insist Brugioni get rid of his boards  that he had kept, once he found about their existence in 1975, saying "we're not supposed to have them"? Why would he say that if Brugioni's boards did not contradict the second set now at NARA?

 

-My personal conclusion that the film was not altered rests on several points:

 

RO:  Where is this alternative to alterations hypothesis you say you proposed? 

 

1) the existence of the original in-camera negative

 

RO: Where? The original film was replaced by the alterations. 

 

2) the timeline; multiple copies of the film made immediately and not enough time for alteration before NPIC got the film

 

RO: I explained this.  The boards and probably the alterations were not finished by Sunday night.  McMahon talked about this.

 

3) the film shows significant evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president

 

Ro:  Yes, even after the alterations, which is why Life finished buying the rights and buried the film.

 

4) Zavada's analysis

 

RO: ?

 

5) I have seen many arguments for alteration and none of them convince me. Naturally there are dozens: the freeway sign, the capabilities of optical printing, the alleged limo stop, the missing turn, the people who don't turn to watch the president's motorcade, the blood being painted in, the boy that leaps out in one frame, Clint Hill running to leap on the car even though it is still moving....... on and on and on. To me, it is all so unconvincing. The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim that the film is altered, and all of the above that I listed is mired in speculation, what-ifs, contingencies.

 

RO:  All of these are worth pondering, but I didn't mention any of them to show alteration.

 

What I would love to see is the following: somebody take Zapruder's model camera, film a car from his position roughly the same speed (hell put a limo stop in there if you want), and make the proposed alterations using 1963 technology. That for me would at least go a long way to showing that alterations of the nature proposed are possible and would resemble the extant Z-film. I realize that will likely never happen though. 

 

RO:  You're not making sense.  The alterations they did make using '63 technology (of course) did not eliminate their problem!  E.g.,the change made in the impact of the head shots.

 

6) Motive for alteration. It is of course always cited as removing evidence of multiple shooters. Well, possible of course, but I think it is possible that they may have been setting up Oswald as proof of a communist conspiracy, as a justification for war with Cuba and/or the Soviet Union.

 

RO: Setting up Oswald as a motive for the alterations is a nonsequitur.  They obviously were setting him up, though Cuba/SU angle was vetoed by Johnson.

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Like I said, I agree about the two briefing board events. The witnesses all line up on that. I think it is not unreasonable to think Brugioni's memory could and would be faulty about other details like the several frames of "white mist" for example. But it seems clear that two separate briefing board events did occur at NPIC. I just don't believe that they had anything to do with alteration. I think there must be another explanation, and I proposed one hypothesis.

 

RO:  Two separated briefing boards *showing different results* have nothing to do with alteration!  Brugioni was a recognized expert whom the NPIC director asked to do the first boards while Oswald was still alive because they knew the film would contradict their Oswald story and they wanted to see by how much.  Brugioni's boards were later destroyed.  The second boards were made after they tried to eliminate evidence of frontal shots among other things, but failed.  Which is why they went back to Life to buy the rest of the film rights so they could bury it as long as they could get away with. 

 

RO:  Why do you think they made the second set of boards? Why did Life go back to Zapruder and buy the full rights before they made the second boards?  Why did they then bury the film?  Why did his then supervisor insist Brugioni get rid of his boards  that he had kept, once he found about their existence in 1975, saying "we're not supposed to have them"? Why would he say that if Brugioni's boards did not contradict the second set now at NARA?

 

-My personal conclusion that the film was not altered rests on several points:

 

RO:  Where is this alternative to alterations hypothesis you say you proposed? 

 

1) the existence of the original in-camera negative

 

RO: Where? The original film was replaced by the alterations. 

 

2) the timeline; multiple copies of the film made immediately and not enough time for alteration before NPIC got the film

 

RO: I explained this.  The boards and probably the alterations were not finished by Sunday night.  McMahon talked about this.

 

3) the film shows significant evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president

 

Ro:  Yes, even after the alterations, which is why Life finished buying the rights and buried the film.

 

4) Zavada's analysis

 

RO: ?

 

5) I have seen many arguments for alteration and none of them convince me. Naturally there are dozens: the freeway sign, the capabilities of optical printing, the alleged limo stop, the missing turn, the people who don't turn to watch the president's motorcade, the blood being painted in, the boy that leaps out in one frame, Clint Hill running to leap on the car even though it is still moving....... on and on and on. To me, it is all so unconvincing. The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim that the film is altered, and all of the above that I listed is mired in speculation, what-ifs, contingencies.

 

RO:  All of these are worth pondering, but I didn't mention any of them to show alteration.

 

What I would love to see is the following: somebody take Zapruder's model camera, film a car from his position roughly the same speed (hell put a limo stop in there if you want), and make the proposed alterations using 1963 technology. That for me would at least go a long way to showing that alterations of the nature proposed are possible and would resemble the extant Z-film. I realize that will likely never happen though. 

 

RO:  You're not making sense.  The alterations they did make using '63 technology (of course) did not eliminate their problem!  E.g.,the change made in the impact of the head shots.

 

6) Motive for alteration. It is of course always cited as removing evidence of multiple shooters. Well, possible of course, but I think it is possible that they may have been setting up Oswald as proof of a communist conspiracy, as a justification for war with Cuba and/or the Soviet Union.

 

RO: Setting up Oswald as a motive for the alterations is a nonsequitur.  They obviously were setting him up, though Cuba/SU angle was vetoed by Johnson.

Thank you for posting a video of the Lifton talk. He does indeed believe the film was altered and he explains the purpose of the alterations pretty clearly.  He does mention the slight forward movement of the head at frame 313.  But do you realize this was only 1/18 of one second (one frame), and as he says, it wasn't noticed by most researchers at first because it can't be seen by the naked eye in real time.

He concludes maybe Dan Rather wasn't lying when he said Kennedy's head at first moved forward. Interestingly, Horne reached the same tentative conclusion in his Brugioni interview 8 years later.

Moreover if Lifton and others are right and some frames were removed around this point in the film to try to conceal information about the bullet(s') impact, such as the spray Brugioni describes, or a second shot coming from a different direction within a second of the first, all such calculations about movement directions and when they occurred are rendered suspect, if not meaningless.

Lifton's talk was given in 2003. He mentions the McMahon work on the film, but never mentions Brugioni, probably because his talk was before the interviews of Brugioni in 2009 and 2011.  He gets some things wrong, imo, and there were things he didn't know at the time, but his perspective on what was done to the film and why is on the money.  He even knew the story about the name, Hawkeye Works being classified when Horne was looking into things at the ARRB, and Horne had redact the name from things he wrote.

So, I'm confused again as to why you would post his talk at the beginning of your message claiming you don't think Zapruder was altered.

[Michael Crane]

1 head shot from the rear at a downward angle that penetrated the cerebellum.

1 head shot from the right front that splattered blood and brain matter to the left/rear.

[Keven Hofeling]

Highly suggestive of the importance of the NPIC/Hawkeyeworks/Zapruder film topic is the following...

CIA MEMO DOCUMENTING INVOLVEMENT OF DINO BRUGIONI AND NPIC IN PLANNING A TRIANGULATED CROSSFIRE ASSASSINATION OF FIDEL CASTRO (THE OPERATION OUT OF WHICH THE JFK ASSASSINATION ORIGINATED):

William Kelly has recently updated his very interesting article entitled "Pathfinder at Dealey Plaza - Revised and Updated" -- https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2023/06/pathfinder-at-dealey-plaza-revised-and.html -- about CIA Operation Pathfinder, which concerns the CIA paramilitary operation to assassinate Fidel Castro by triangulated crossfire sniper action which, evidently, was ultimately modified to accomplish the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

 

In his article, Kelly references a 21, March 1975 CIA "Memorandum for the Record" (attached to below), contained in the CIA Security File of Frank Sturgis, which documents that Dino Brugioni, Chief of the Western Geographic Region of the CIA National Photographic Interpretation Center ("NPIC"), had been informed of the Pathfinder program to assassinate Fidel Castro, and subsequent CIA interviews of NPIC personnel revealed that NPIC was involved in providing advance photographic intelligence in support of the Castro assassination mission.

 

This, for me, raises the question of whether NPIC may have also been involved in providing advance photographic intelligence for the successor to Pathfinder -- the Kennedy assassination -- and perhaps post assassination work, such as that related to the films of the assassination, such as the Zapruder film (which is the source of our familiarity with Dino Brugioni). It would appear plausible that the duplication of the plan to assassinate Castro for purposes of assassinating Kennedy might also include duplication of the advance and post intelligence work by NPIC and Hawkeyeworks, and that perhaps the proximity of said operations to the actual culprits of the JFK assassination might explain why certain CIA operatives posing as JFK assassination researchers go batshit crazy with their denials and misinformation about Dino Brugioni's account of working with the camera-original Zapruder film at NPIC during the evening of November 23, 1963?

 

There is MUCH of additional interest in William Kelly's article, and I highly recommend that you read it in full:

 

'PATHFINDER AT DEALEY PLAZA – Revised and Updated'

By William Kelly – Billkelly3@gmail.com | Friday, June 9, 2023 | https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2023/06/pathfinder-at-dealey-plaza-revised-and.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1 by Keven Hofeling