Sandy Larsen Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: @Sandy Larsen @Roger Odisio There has been some discussion in this thread about the extent of LBJ's involvement in the initial assassination plot, and I've just come across a very recent podcast interview of researcher John Newman which I believe may shed some light on this question. Thanks Keven. Very interesting! 10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: The primary topic of the excerpt is the July 1961 SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operational Plan for Nuclear Warfare) briefing given by the Joint Chiefs to President Kennedy concerning the plan for a massive nuclear attack on the USSR and China to be implemented in the fall of 1963. LBJ was present for the briefing, and seems to have had an understanding of how determined the Generals were to implement the plan, so much so that... 10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: ... in Air Force One on the way to Andrews AFB from Dallas on 11/22/1963, while staring out of a plane window, LBJ asked "Are the missiles flying yet?" FBI Agent James Hosty, in his book, claims that U.S. military aircraft were on their way to Cuba very early on after the assassination. So the military may indeed have taken it upon themselves to strike. (Those aircraft were called back before they arrived.) It is my current working theory that the Generals (JCS) initiated the assassination plot and got the CIA to plan it. The plan, besides killing Kennedy, was to have the assassination blamed on Cuba and the Soviet Union... which was accomplished with Mexico City shenanigans and the followup claims of Gilberto Alvarado and Elena Garro . Immediately when it was known that Kennedy was dead, the Generals sent war planes to strike Cuba. Upon doing so, they informed the guys in the Situation Room that there was intelligence pointing to Cuba and the Soviet Union being behind the assassination. Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy -- JFK's cabinet members in the Situation Room at the time -- understood the severe consequences of a strike on Cuba, and argued against the General's insubordinate move. Harriman fabricated a story that he'd met with the top Kremlinologists, and that they'd informed him that the Soviet Union definitely would not have had Kennedy assassinated. (As per @Cliff Varnell info.) He informed the Generals that the intelligence was wrong, and that the assassination was the doings of just one person. And then he radioed this information to President Johnson, who was onboard Air Force One returning to Washington. The Generals called off the Cuban strike. 10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: I've cued the video in advance for you to begin at 52:29, and you should listen until 1:23:44 to get to the point where LBJ asks the question: https://youtu.be/fMpZI-VKIPU?si=26WbBgIIlLcZR07e&t=3149 John Newman points out that the Generals were STILL trying to get Johnson to do a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union (and China) in August of 1964, with their Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 18 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: @Sandy Larsen @Roger Odisio There has been some discussion in this thread about the extent of LBJ's involvement in the initial assassination plot, and I've just come across a very recent podcast interview of researcher John Newman which I believe may shed some light on this question. The entire 3+ hour interview is well worth watching, but I have narrowed it down to about 30 minutes which offers some highly pertinent information concerning the issue. The primary topic of the excerpt is the July 1961 SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operational Plan for Nuclear Warfare) briefing given by the Joint Chiefs to President Kennedy concerning the plan for a massive nuclear attack on the USSR and China to be implemented in the fall of 1963. LBJ was present for the briefing, and seems to have had an understanding of how determined the Generals were to implement the plan, so much so that in Air Force One on the way to Andrews AFB from Dallas on 11/22/1963, while staring out of a plane window, LBJ asked "Are the missiles flying yet?" I've cued the video in advance for you to begin at 52:29, and you should listen until 1:23:44 to get to the point where LBJ asks the question: https://youtu.be/fMpZI-VKIPU?si=26WbBgIIlLcZR07e&t=3149 I've been interested in the details of this SIOP briefing for years, and the information about it Newman presents in the video is the best I have seen so far... ____________ "...On the other hand, the fact of a meeting, and Kennedy's personal reaction to it, has been reported. The President was displeased. But no account yet published has told what he was displeased about. For example, Arthur Schlesinger's Robert Kennedy and His Times gives this account: "...Kennedy received the Net Evaluation, an annual doomsday briefing analyzing the chances of nuclear war. An Air Force General presented it, said Roswell Gilpatric, the deputy secretary of defense, "as though it were for a kindergarten class.. Finally Kennedy got up and walked right out in the middle of it, and that was the end of it. We never had another one." (p. 483) McGeorge Bundy evidently refers to the same meeting in this passage: "In the summer of 1961 [Kennedy] went through a formal briefing on the net assessment of a general nuclear war between the two superpowers, and he expressed his own reaction to Dean Rusk as they walked from the cabinet room to the Oval Office for a private meeting on other subjects: "And we call ourselves the human race." (p. 354) (Dean Rusk's memoirs repeat Kennedy's remark, though they place the meeting "shortly after our assuming office." Richard Reeves, for his part, does not mention the July meeting, and attributes Kennedy's remark to a later briefing in September, 1961.) Numerous other apparent accounts of the meeting exist, though they do not refer to it by name or date. All agree on Kennedy's reaction. But none reveal what was actually discussed. Theodore Sorenson's Kennedy, published only four years later, presents an understandably benign version: "That briefing confirmed, however, the harsh facts [Kennedy] already knew: (1) that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could 'win' a nuclear war in any rational sense of the word; (2) that, except to deter an all-out Soviet attack, our threat of 'massive retaliation' to every Communist move was no longer credible, now that it invited our own destruction; and (3) that a policy of 'pre-emptive first strike' or 'preventive war' was no longer open to either side, inasmuch as even a surprise missile attack would trigger, before those missiles reached their targets, a devastating retaliation that neither country could risk or accept." (p. 513).... https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963.html Sorenson was writing what he understood to be Kennedy's reaction to the generals' proposal, Keven. And what he describes clearly was Kennedy's reaction. In the '61 meeting the generals argued for a preemptive strike on the SU because the US had nuclear superiority. They expected that superiority to have largely been largely gone by the fall of '63. But, Sorenson says, that meeting confirmed to Kennedy what he already knew: nuclear war was so devastating that neither side could "win" and so a preemptive strike was no longer an option, if it ever was. The idea that a nuclear war was unwinnable was not confined to Kennedy at the time; it was so obvious it soon became conventional wisdom. In 1972 Nixon signed the ABM treaty with the SU that severely restricted the deployment of ABM defense systems. Those systems weren't very good, but the main reason for the treaty was that nuclear war was understood to be unwinnable. That was the real deterrent to starting one. Defense systems actually could encourage someone to try. (Side note: Bush II pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002 but that just shows what a moron he was.) A decade later Reagan and Gorbachev, in a one on one meeting, agreed to get rid of all nukes. But their staffs, you know the people really making the decisions, would have none of it. How, then,could you justify what has become trillion dollar defense budgets? There is a current UN resolution signed by many countries that would simply ban nuclear weapons. But, this being the UN, it was no chance of being fully ratified or enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks Keven. Very interesting! FBI Agent James Hosty, in his book, claims that U.S. military aircraft were on their way to Cuba very early on after the assassination. So the military may indeed have taken it upon themselves to strike. (Those aircraft were called back before they arrived.) It is my current working theory that the Generals (JCS) initiated the assassination plot and got the CIA to plan it. The plan, besides killing Kennedy, was to have the assassination blamed on Cuba and the Soviet Union... which was accomplished with Mexico City shenanigans and the followup claims of Gilberto Alvarado and Elena Garro . Immediately when it was known that Kennedy was dead, the Generals sent war planes to strike Cuba. Upon doing so, they informed the guys in the Situation Room that there was intelligence pointing to Cuba and the Soviet Union being behind the assassination. Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy -- JFK's cabinet members in the Situation Room at the time -- understood the severe consequences of a strike on Cuba, and argued against the General's insubordinate move. Harriman fabricated a story that he'd met with the top Kremlinologists, and that they'd informed him that the Soviet Union definitely would not have had Kennedy assassinated. (As per @Cliff Varnell info.) He informed the Generals that the intelligence was wrong, and that the assassination was the doings of just one person. And then he radioed this information to President Johnson, who was onboard Air Force One returning to Washington. The Generals called off the Cuban strike. John Newman points out that the Generals were STILL trying to get Johnson to do a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union (and China) in August of 1964, with their Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation. Fanciful theory, very thinly supported. It can't withstand even cursory scrutiny. Johnson's alleged question, were the missiles flying yet, was typical LBJ playacting for the record. He knew he wasn't supposed to at the point know what happened. This was his way putting his ignorance, and innocence, into the record. Had the ICBMs been flying, in both directions, he would have already known about it. We're supposed to rely on Hosty for the claim that immediately after the murder the generals insubordinately sent planes to strike Cuba? Then these generals, not the CIA, informed the WH Situation Room that intelligence showed that Cuba and the SU were behind the murder. But Harriman saved the day (was he even in the Situation Room at the time?). He told the generals their "intelligence" was wrong. Kennedy was murdered by a lone assassin. (How did he or Bundy, who we know was there, know this at that time unless they were involved in the murder plan?) Then Harriman, not Bundy's subordinate, radioed Johnson on AF1 that Kennedy was murdered by a lone assassin already in custody. As I said, that message was not intended for Johnson, but to the WH staff on both planes coming back to DC. The murder has already been solved. Don't interfere. It's interesting that you assert that both Bundy and Harriman "understood the severe consequences of a strike on Cuba" after just arguing that Johnson did not. He was not afraid to attack Cuba after the murder, you said, in response to my claim that everyone involved in the plan would have known Johnson was not going to attack Cuba and risk a nuclear war with the SU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 (edited) Dino Brugioni Commenting on Z-313 and Z-317 -- Heretofore Unseen Footage From Doug Horne Interview https://youtu.be/VpwldcYcAv4?si=YzBT-339A7FCVbA3 'NEW, "Director's Cut" of French Zapruder Film Documentary "L'image 313" Now Up on YouTube!' insidethearrb | November 22nd, 2023 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21743.html insidethearrb November 22nd, 2023 Greetings, on this sad 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination. America experienced a coup d'etat in 1963; the galactic center of the plot was in the Pentagon, and those angry men, the true power and impetus behind the conspiracy, were aided and abetted by willing handmaidens in the CIA (and some private sector individuals, one of them a former government official). Kennedy was murdered by his enemies---plural. The causes were his refusal to bomb and invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his subsequent attempts to end the Cold War---which included not only detente with the USSR, but withdrawal from Vietnam by 1965, and his secret attempts in the fall of 1963 to pursue a rapprochement with Castro's Cuba. I am proud to announce that the NEW, Second Edit, or "Director's Cut," if you will, of the French documentary released back on October 18th, is now UP on YouTube. HERE IS THE LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZed8cNAu10 There are almost 8 minutes of new material added to this interesting documentary, directed by Yannick Rolandeau, and edited by his collaborator, Theo Bonaccio. For those of you who have not read my original posting about this film, I will simply say that it is about the Zapruder film's diverted chain of custody the weekend following JFK's assassination---and what happened to the film during its diversion on Saturday evening, 11/23, from Chicago to the CIA in Washington D.C.; then on to Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. on Sunday morning, 11/24, where the film was modified using visual special effects, and edited; then back to the CIA in Washington, D.C. late on Sunday night, 11/24. The new material added to this "Director's Cut" of L'image 313 is of two types: -good images of some of the high resolution Hollywood scans of the Zapruder film (digitally scanned at both 2K and 6K resolution), clearly showing evidence of alteration; and -new video footage, that the world has not yet publicly seen, of the world's foremost imagery analyst, NPIC's Dino Brugioni, as he views some of the Hollywood scans, and as he views the Zapruder film as a motion picture for the first time since he saw the unaltered film on November 23, 1963. I highly encourage all of you to watch this new, improved version of Yannick Rolandeau's film. We can honor the 35th President not only by studying his policies and actions during his administration---understanding the key decisions he made and their context---but we can also honor him by not succumbing to the continuing lies told about his assassination, and by uncovering different elements of the U.S. government coverup. This French documentary is an important new part of that effort. END Edited February 25 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 12 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: Fanciful theory, very thinly supported. It can't withstand even cursory scrutiny. Well it's stronger than your theory. The one that can't explain the fact that the same plotters that ensured Oswald was in the TSBD on 11/22/63 ALSO created pretexts for invasion or war with Cuba and the Soviet Union. You merely brush that aside. In the meantime, while you're busy criticizing me because my theory is different from yours, I will continue to pick your and other researchers' brains for useful information that can be used to improve my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) Going back to the logic of film alteration, if Dino Brugioni (probably the foremost photo interpreter of his day) did not detect evidence of multiple shooters or shots from the front, how was it determined that there was a need for alteration? If the second NPIC team examined a crude, hastily altered film, how did they not detect that it was altered? Something the alterationists leave out is this exchange during the ARRB interview of Homer McMahon who ran the second night NPIC team: ”McMahon: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really---anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know that I---that I’m not---OK, I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness, because I don’t have good recall---absolutely not---absolute recall. 30 Gunn (21:41): With, with regard to the other events that you talked about, ah, what, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that? McMahon: I just told you, I don’t, I don’t have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I don’t know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything here. So, this is not---at the time I did it, I was not---I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you’re talking to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].” Edited May 6 by Kevin Balch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) Here is a declassified history of BRIDGEHEAD AKA HawkeyWorks. It lists the equipment, films etc. that they used for the U2 and later satellite photographic platforms. I don’t see any reference to the equipment suggested by alterationists as needed to alter the Z-film. I don’t see where they had the ability to work with 16/8mm film. https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead Eastman Kodak Company.pdf?ver=2019-03-29-1031353-233×tamp=1553870223588 Edited May 6 by Kevin Balch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) On 5/5/2024 at 7:20 PM, Kevin Balch said: Going back to the logic of film alteration, if Dino Brugioni (probably the foremost photo interpreter of his day) did not detect evidence of multiple shooters or shots from the front, how was it determined that there was a need for alteration? If the second NPIC team examined a crude, hastily altered film, how did they not detect that it was altered? Something the alterationists leave out is this exchange during the ARRB interview of Homer McMahon who ran the second night NPIC team: ”McMahon: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really---anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know that I---that I’m not---OK, I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness, because I don’t have good recall---absolutely not---absolute recall. 30 Gunn (21:41): With, with regard to the other events that you talked about, ah, what, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that? McMahon: I just told you, I don’t, I don’t have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I don’t know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything here. So, this is not---at the time I did it, I was not---I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you’re talking to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].” Kevin Balch wrote: Quote Going back to the logic of film alteration, if Dino Brugioni (probably the foremost photo interpreter of his day) did not detect evidence of multiple shooters or shots from the front, how was it determined that there was a need for alteration? As Dino Brugioni stated himself, he had not been tasked with any kind of content analysis of the film. Brugioni was ordered to make briefing boards and calculate the timing of the scenes in the film, nothing more, and that is exactly what the NPIC crew did during the first briefing board session. You can hear Dino Brugioni himself answer your question at 5:42 of the following video, which I have cued up for you in advance: The question that is really most pertinent to the first briefing board session is whether or not Brugioni was working with the camera-original Zapruder film, or whether, as Zapruder film authenticity apologists claim, Brugioni was only working with one of the first-day copies of the film. The best proof that Brugioni was in fact working with the camera-original Zapruder film is that the film that was brought to him by the Secret Service was an 8mm film (the first day copies were in 16mm format). And how do we know for sure that the film delivered to Brugioni was in fact in 8mm format? Because CIA NPIC did not have an 8mm film projector, and Brugioni had to have a local merchant called to open his store the evening of November 24, 1963, so that NPIC could purchase a projector. At 1:32 of the following video (which I have cued up for you in advance), you can hear Brugioni himself describe receiving the 8mm film, and continue on to tell the story about having to wake up a merchant to purchase a projector: At 6:08 of the following video (which I have cued up for you in advance), Doug Horne asks Brugioni whether he believes he had the camera-original film or a copy, and why, and Brugioni answers that he believed he had the original because of the fact that the Secret Service agents were personally accompanying and closely guarding the film, and because there was no packaging accompanying the film to indicate that it had been developed as a copy: Kevin Balch wrote: Quote If the second NPIC team examined a crude, hastily altered film, how did they not detect that it was altered? Homer McMahon had also been told that he was working with the camera-original film, and was not asked to analyze it for alterations, nor to perform content analysis of the film, so he had no reason to look for alterations. Kevin Balch wrote: Quote Something the alterationists leave out is this exchange during the ARRB interview of Homer McMahon who ran the second night NPIC team: ”McMahon: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really---anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know that I---that I’m not---OK, I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness, because I don’t have good recall---absolutely not---absolute recall. 30 Gunn (21:41): With, with regard to the other events that you talked about, ah, what, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that? McMahon: I just told you, I don’t, I don’t have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I don’t know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything here. So, this is not---at the time I did it, I was not---I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you’re talking to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].” You make it sound as if "the alterationists," as you put it, have done something or not done something in an attempt to conceal McMahon's dementia soliloquy, but that is just not the case. It is right there in the transcript. If "the alterationists" concealed it, then why do you know about it? And as to the dementia/wet brain claims themselves, it's not difficult to figure out what happened: The ARRB first contacted Homer McMahon on June 12. 1997, at which point he made it clear that he was sure he was working with the camera-original film which the Secret Service had accompanied to his briefing board session a couple of days after the assassination, and he was told that the ARRB would soon be contacting him again. Before the in-person interview conducted by the ARRB on July 14, 1997, McMahon was either advised by his former CIA employer, or decided on his own accord to feed the ARRB a barium dose (otherwise known as "a poison pill") for purposes of discrediting himself to protect the CIA during his in-person interview by making claims that impugned his own memory, which he then did, with the effect that people like you are using the claim to discredit the testimony. When NPIC employee Ben Hunter was later interviewed by the ARRB, he had already gotten the message, or thought of it himself, and claimed that his memory was "fuzzy," and that "it would be better to talk to Homer McMahon." Wouldn't Ben Hunter know about McMahon's drug addiction/alcoholism/wet brain/dementia? I assume that both Hunter and McMahon retired in good standing from the CIA's NPIC -- as I can find nothing to the contrary, and the CIA has to my knowledge not disseminated contrary information to discredit their testimony -- so the claims don't quite pass the tummy test. But perhaps the best indication that the claims are indeed "a poison pill" designed to discredit the testimony is the transcript of the testimony itself, which does not read like the statements of an individual disabled by wet brain and dementia. To the contrary, Homer McMahon spoke intelligently and in great detail to the ARRB on July 14, 1997, as can be seen from the transcript excerpts below. So, in short, I'm just not buying the dementia/wet brain claims, which are ultimately coming from the CIA attempting to deny its involvement in the alteration of the Zapruder film and the cover-up of the assassination, a component of all of this which apparently has not occurred to you. ____________ Doug Horne wrote: "...NPIC EVENT # 2 (Presided over by Homer McMahon) As stated earlier, as a member of the ARRB staff, I interviewed Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter three times each between June and August of 1997.[18] A written call report was produced following each interview; additionally, the second of three Homer McMahon interviews—on July 14, 1997—was tape recorded, and that recording may be obtained from the National Archives, along with all of the written interview reports. In May of 2012, I completed a verbatim transcript of the audiotaped interview with Mr. McMahon on July 14, 1997. The summary below recapitulates the totality of the information provided by McMahon and Hunter over the course of all of their interviews in the summer of 1997. Time and date: The strong and final consensus of opinion between the two men was that the NPIC event they participated in took place “about two days after” JFK’s assassination, and “before the funeral.” [The funeral was Monday afternoon, November 25th.] They both agreed that their NPIC activity took place before the funeral of the 35th President. McMahon initially recalled the event as taking place 1 or 2 days after the assassination, and Hunter initially recalled it as taking place 2 or 3 days after the assassination; but both men consistently agreed that their NPIC activity definitely occurred prior to President Kennedy’s funeral. The work commenced after dark, and lasted all night long. [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC for McMahon and Hunter to work with was not copied as a motion picture; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]..." https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ ------------------------------------------------------------- EXCERPTS FROM HOMER MCMAHON INTERVIEW REGARDING THE ZAPRUDER FILM BEING AT HAWKEYEWORKS IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK Homer A. McMahon (Former CIA/NPIC Employee) conducted on July 14, 1997 at Archives II in College Park, Maryland. Interviewers: Douglas P. Horne and T. Jeremy Gunn "...McMahon (9:55): OK. But the best that I remember, of how I came to work on this project---and, of course, we all heard of, of, you know, that motorcade, where Kennedy got killed, and I think we shut up shop and went home---af---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, and he was, to the best of my knowledge, introduced as “Bill Smith.” - 4 - Horne: “Bill Smith” of---what? McMahon: Of [the] Secret Service, he was an agent. And he had, 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 that on film---and he shot it with a little ‘Brownie,’ ah, double 8 [camera]. And he took it, took it to Rochester, and---we had a division up there, I won’t go into that--- but they processed the film---it was Ek---it was Kodachrome (I think, I or II, the daylight version, whichever it was), and it was double 8 [film]. 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, ah, take every frame on there--- [chuckling]---of the entire event, and, and make, ah, the best possible quality reproduction. Horne: When you say, “They told him,” who do you mean, ah---? McMahon (12:04): Well---ah---heh, heh---well, Eastman Kodak had, had contracts with the U.S. government, and if you want to know, you can go through the CIA, they’ll tell you [unclear]. OK, but he, he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he, and three other people, ah, timed the film, for the---through observation you could tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and the slumps. We didn’t know anything about any audio---ah, it was just visual. And we timed it and determined, where the, the time between the, ah---physically timed it, with a stopwatch---ah, where the gunshot “hits” hit. And we, we, we, we went from, I think, maybe two 7 frames before the first hit, and then we hit every single frame--- through, and we only, he only counted three hits, possibly four--- ah, couldn’t tell, I think, when, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when, when he [JFK] got hit the first time, and then the second time, as his head [was] going off into the angle, up, and---..." "... Horne: That’s all we are trying to do, for the record, is to clarify that when you said that statement, were you referring to this particular film, or other jobs? McMahon: OK, I---this---I had---I had other clearances; ah, but, 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 could be divulged to anyone (that we had it, that we did it), and I know that it was being used for a briefing, but I don’t know who they briefed on it. My only guess---[was] that we normally briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the National Reconnaissance Committee; and the President of the United States, from the work that I did. And 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 different Top Secret classifications, to the Community, go ahead---..." "...Horne (18:19): OK. Would you allow me to, ah, test your recollection on something, the firmness of it? Ah, you, you said a moment ago that you thought this was, ah, within two days of the assassination. Ah, is there any particular reason why you associate it as being that close to the assassination, any particular other events, or--- McMahon: I think, I think I was told---that this---to get the film from the individual; take it and get it processed; come back---was, was, a couple of days---I’m not sure. I’m not---I don’t know [if I can] recall that. Horne: Do you recall whether this work that you did was before the funeral, or after the funeral, of the President? [Transcriber’s note: President Kennedy was assassinated on Friday, November 22nd, 1963; and his funeral was on Monday, November 25th, 1963.] McMahon (18:56): I’m pretty sure it was before...." "...Horne (28:23): How certain are you that Mr. Smith said he went down to pick up the film from the person who took it, and then took it to Rochester? Are you--- McMahon: I know he took it to Rochester. I’m not certain other than I think he said that---that it--- that he got it from the original person himself, but I’m not positive. I, I am positive that he said that he took it to Rochester---hand-carried it, got it processed, and then they guided him back to us to do the--- Horne: So--- McMahon: Rochester wasn’t set up to do what we were set up to do. Horne: In the sense that you had the big enlarger and they did not? Is that what--- McMahon: We had a complete ‘world beyond’ facility--- Horne: OK Horne (42:08): Before we move along, and before I show you the notes that the Archives has---ah, let, let me revisit with you, ah, what exactly did Mr. Smith say in regard to secrecy or nondisclosure, ah, regarding this event, can you tell me that story again? McMahon: I know that, that my immediate supervisor was not allowed in the room---that it was so sensitive, and he had all the tickets---and he was not allowed in the room. It was strictly on a “need to-know” 19 [basis], do the job, and get it out, and no one knew about it, to my knowledge. No record--- Gunn: [Interrupting] Just---just so the record’s clear, when you say “all the tickets,” you mean all the security clearances that he had? He had a lot of security clearances? McMahon: He had clearance, ah, equal to or [the] same as I had, but he was not allowed---it was not, it was not the CIA, or---a---I held other clearances: Atomic Energy, ah, National Security Agency, and, and it was not under any of these. Gunn: Was there any other compartment, or was it just with a name, such as, ah--- McMahon: I---There was no code name on it that I know of, and if there was, I couldn’t tell you anyway [chuckling]. Horne (43:48): Did, did Mr. Smith ever say to you, ah, “This is classified at a certain level”--- - 12 - McMahon: Yes. He said it is definitely classified on a “need-to know;” and he didn’t give me anything other than it was---that I was sworn to secrecy, and I had---I don’t know whether I had to sign the document, I don’t recall that. But I do know that it could not be divulged. Horne: Did he give you a level of classification, like Confidential or Secret--- McMahon: I have no---no, it did not have---he said it was above Top Secret---..." "...Gunn: OK, what Bill Smith said about what he already knew about the film and what it showed? McMahon (47:17): It---you didn’t---you, you didn’t---after it was processed, at Eastman Kodak; and it wasn’t in---it was not in the Kod[ak] factory---it was at “Hawkeyeworks.” Horne: Pardon me? 21 McMahon (47:30): There, there was another Top Secret lab--- Gunn (3:18): OK, and, ah, what did, ah, Mr. Smith say had happened to the film prior to the time that he brought it, in terms of processing, where it had been, and how it had been processed. McMahon (3:33): OK, because of expedite and the, the expedite part, is, is in---they wanted to find out what happened, and they had, they had film, that was generously turned into them by a very patriotic person, and [they were] told that he would give it to them, because they--- it might help in the investigation. That---this is what, what he was told---what I was told---and that it was of the utmost urgency. So he hand-carried it through; and flew to Rochester; and got it processed at the---the processing division there, and they were made aware that he was coming. Ah, and did it immediately for him, and I also think they made duplications of that, which I was told, and then he came back [to Washington D.C.], because they told him they couldn’t do what he wanted to get done, and that NPIC could do it. And it fell in our laps, and we did it. Gunn (4:55): What---when you said, “They couldn’t get done what needed to be done,” did you mean the enlargements, or was there some other---? McMahon: They, they didn’t have a, a laboratory that, that could do the quality of work that he- 14 -wanted. He wanted maximum sharpness, the most “seeability” that, that he could get of the imagery, and that we were set up to do: and we were well beyond the state-of the- art in, in the quality that was turned out. Gunn: For the film of the, the assassination, was it your understanding that anything more had been done to it other than developing the original film and making some prints of the original film? 23 McMahon: The prints, the prints were duplications of the original--- Gunn: Film. McMahon: Yeah. Gunn: Had anything else been done to the film, besides--- McMahon: No, no one else had gotten it---to my knowledge. Horne (5:52): Was it your understanding that Mr. Smith had come directly to Washington from Rochester? McMahon: Yeah---mmm-hmmm, yes. He’d gotten off the airplane and came from National Airport directly to, to our building. Gunn (6:06): Just so we’re, we’re clear on something---it was our understanding that the film had been processed by Kodak; ah, when you said it was done in Rochester, it---was that an inference that you drew, when they said it had been processed by Kodak, or did the---did he mention Rochester? McMahon: Ah, you’re, you’re getting on classified grounds here, ah, that I can’t answer that question. I know, but I can’t talk to you about that. There was another Top Secret lab, that the government--- you--- Gunn: Ah, if you’re uncomfortable talking about it, we, we can stop that here, so that---that’s fine. But this is something that would---that is important for us to be able to do, so we can go, ah, back to the Agency, and talk to them, so [unclear]--- McMahon: No, you can do that back through the Agency, and I know that hasn’t been down graded, to, to---public domain. [Transcriber’s note: McMahon was referring here to the code-name “Hawkeyeworks,” for the Top Secret lab at Rochester.] Gunn: Ah--- Horne (7:12): I think there’s a way to rephrase the question, so that it’s ah, not a classified---so that you don’t perceive a classified intent. I, I think the way to rephrase the question might be, did Mr. Smith say, ah, “This was developed at Kodak?” or did he say, “This was developed at Rochester?”24 McMahon: Again, again, I know where it was done; I know who did it. And I’m not going to answer[chuckling]--- Horne: Is there any chance that, ah, where it was done was at a Kodak lab in Dallas? That’s another way of raising this question. McMahon: To my knowledge, no--- McMahon (8:08): When you’re in bed with the Yellow God[Transcriber’s note: the primary color in the Kodak logo is yellow]---we had their top scientists and photochemists and optical people working in the ‘world beyond; ’we had their people---I shouldn’t even talk about it, I’m sorry. And there was a definite link, on the- 15 -national level, where we had “the best there was” working with us. Gunn (9:01): Would it be fair to say that there was, ah, another facility--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---where [it was] your understanding that this was processed--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---and that that facility was mentioned to you by name, so that you knew--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: ---where it was--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: [Is] That fair [garbled] to say--- McMahon: Yes. Gunn: OK, but in terms of the name of it we don’t need that, but just--- there, but, there was reference made to a particular place--- McMahon: But, I don’t know if there was any downgrading [of the classification level of that facility’s code name, “Hawkeyeworks”]. “National Photographic Interpretation Center” was Top Secret--- you could not say it. You could say “NPIC,” and that was Secret. Horne: I see. That’s--- 25 McMahon: And my cover was that “I worked for the CIA”---I did not work for NPIC. And the military that worked there, worked for the military---whether it was Navy, Army, Air Force, or whatever--- they did not work for [unclear] [Transcriber’s note: subsequent, extended interviews---in 2009 and 2011---of Dino Brugioni, NPIC’s Chief Information Officer, by researchers Peter Janney and Douglas Horne, established that Mr. Brugioni presided over an entirely different “Zapruder film briefing board event” at NPIC the night before Mr. McMahon did. The product created at Mr. Brugioni’s event was entirely different, and the attendees present were entirely different, as was the format of the film delivered for the making of selective enlargements. Furthermore, Mr. Brugioni, whose event commenced the night before McMahon’s, on Saturday night, 11/23/63, was the Duty Officer of record at NPIC the entire weekend following President Kennedy’s assassination: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, as well as on Monday (which became a national holiday because of President 39 Kennedy’s funeral). Mr. Brugioni did not participate in the second NPIC event, which commenced on Sunday night (i.e., the McMahon event), and as Duty Officer, he did not call anyone into work at NPIC on Sunday night, - 24 - 11/24/63. The McMahon event--- the second NPIC event that weekend---took place without the NPIC Duty Officer of record (Mr. Brugioni) being informed, or involved, in any way; we now know that the NPIC Duty Officer (Brugioni) was completely bypassed by those who arranged and conducted the McMahon event, and a completely different NPIC work crew was assembled the second time around (that is, Mr. McMahon and Mr. Hunter, and Navy Captain Sands, in lieu of Mr. Brugioni’s team from the night before). All of these things were unknown by the ARRB staff, and by Mr. McMahon, in July of 1997 when this interview was conducted. Similarly, Mr. Brugioni was not aware, until 2009 (when he was interviewed by Peter Janney), that there had been a second “Zapruder film briefing board event” at NPIC that weekend, following his own event. The “Brugioni event” at NPIC is discussed at length in Volume IV of the transcriber’s book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, on pages 1230-1239, and 1323-1334. This interview transcript can only be properly appreciated when one knows its true historical context; we now know that there were two compartmentalized operations involving the Zapruder film at the CIA’s NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and that the McMahon event was the second of these two operations.] https://dickatlee.com/issues/assassinations/jfk/homer_mcmahon_transcript_reformat.pdf ____________ Edited May 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) On 5/5/2024 at 9:33 PM, Kevin Balch said: Here is a declassified history of BRIDGEHEAD AKA HawkeyWorks. It lists the equipment, films etc. that they used for the U2 and later satellite photographic platforms. I don’t see any reference to the equipment suggested by alterationists as needed to alter the Z-film. I don’t see where they had the ability to work with 16/8mm film. First of all, the link you provided to the declassified history of BRIDGEHEAD AKA HawkeyWorks is broken, and inaccessible. Secondly, the Hawkeyeworks history that I am interested in, and that you should also be curious about, is the still classified history involving the Zapruder film that the CIA refuses to release to Doug Horne: Doug Horne wrote: "...“Hawkeyeworks” Explained: After the Homer McMahon interview was released in 1998, JFK researchers loyal to the concept of an authentic Zapruder film that is “ground truth” in the Kennedy assassination downplayed the importance of the “Hawkeyeworks” story, either doubting its existence because there was no documentary proof, or alternately saying that the “Hawkeyeworks” lab was solely dedicated to U-2 and Corona satellite photography. But these critics were wrong on both counts. First, Dino Brugioni, during his 2009 and 2011 interviews with Peter Janney and me, not only confirmed the existence of the state-of-the-art Kodak lab in Rochester used by the CIA for various classified purposes, but confirmed that he visited the place more than once, including once prior to the JFK assassination. (He also confirmed its existence in his recent book, Eyes in the Sky, on page 364.) Second, Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”[21] The CIA refused to provide me with any information about “Hawkeyeworks” when the Agency finally responded to my September 12, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 7, 2011. But that was hardly surprising, since over one year earlier, on January 27, 2010, the CIA wrote to me, cautioning: “The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA.” What this meant, in rather blunt language, was that if the CIA was running an “op,” such as the alteration of the Zapruder film immediately after JFK’s assassination, then they didn’t have to search for those records or tell me about it, in any way. So the failure by the CIA to answer any of my many questions about “Hawkeyeworks” means literally—nothing. The plain facts are these: (1) the 8 mm (already slit!) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two Secret Service officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning; and (2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester (using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks”) himself. “Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films. A new Zapruder film was clearly created at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, in an optical printer. Bill Smith told the truth when he said the film he carried had been developed there at “Hawkeyeworks;” he lied when he said that it was the camera-original film taken by the photographer in Dallas. If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood. Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia. The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday. No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22] In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital. (More on this below.)..." http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ Edited May 27 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: First of all, the link you provided to the declassified history of BRIDGEHEAD AKA HawkeyWorks is broken, and inaccessible. Secondly, the Hawkeyeworks history that I am interested in, and that you should also be curious about, is the still classified history involving the Zapruder film that the CIA refuses to release to Doug Horne: Doug Horne wrote: "...“Hawkeyeworks” Explained: After the Homer McMahon interview was released in 1998, JFK researchers loyal to the concept of an authentic Zapruder film that is “ground truth” in the Kennedy assassination downplayed the importance of the “Hawkeyeworks” story, either doubting its existence because there was no documentary proof, or alternately saying that the “Hawkeyeworks” lab was solely dedicated to U-2 and Corona satellite photography. But these critics were wrong on both counts. First, Dino Brugioni, during his 2009 and 2011 interviews with Peter Janney and me, not only confirmed the existence of the state-of-the-art Kodak lab in Rochester used by the CIA for various classified purposes, but confirmed that he visited the place more than once, including once prior to the JFK assassination. (He also confirmed its existence in his recent book, Eyes in the Sky, on page 364.) Second, Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”[21] The CIA refused to provide me with any information about “Hawkeyeworks” when the Agency finally responded to my September 12, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 7, 2011. But that was hardly surprising, since over one year earlier, on January 27, 2010, the CIA wrote to me, cautioning: “The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA.” What this meant, in rather blunt language, was that if the CIA was running an “op,” such as the alteration of the Zapruder film immediately after JFK’s assassination, then they didn’t have to search for those records or tell me about it, in any way. So the failure by the CIA to answer any of my many questions about “Hawkeyeworks” means literally—nothing. The plain facts are these: (1) the 8 mm (already slit!) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two Secret Service officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning; and (2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester (using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks”) himself. “Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films. A new Zapruder film was clearly created at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, in an optical printer. Bill Smith told the truth when he said the film he carried had been developed there at “Hawkeyeworks;” he lied when he said that it was the camera-original film taken by the photographer in Dallas. If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood. Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia. The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday. No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22] In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital. (More on this below.)..." http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ Why would the alterationists provide the camera original film to NPIC where it might be realized that there were multiple shooters or shots from the front? Why weren’t the briefing boards made from the camera original destroyed once the altered film version was made? How were the alterationists made aware of the necessity to alter the film and what specifically needed to be altered? How did the alterationists miss the need for a Single Bullet Theory? If Homer McMahon is falsely pleading mental incompetence, why should the other details he provides have any credibility? Presumably he was under oath and could be subject to perjury. Do the ARRB investigators believe that McMahon is not being truthful when discussing his mental and substance abuse issues? Here is the declassified NRO BRIDGEHEAD history: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead Eastman Kodak Company.pdf?ver=2019-03-29-1031353-233×tamp=1553870223588 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said: KH: My responses are interlineated below in dark blue: Why would the alterationists provide the camera original film to NPIC where it might be realized that there were multiple shooters or shots from the front? KH: The conspirators knew they were safe entrusting the briefing board jobs to the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center ("NPIC") and the alteration of the film to the supersecret CIA/Kodak Hawkeyeworks lab because it was all classified work that did not even begin to get incorporated into the official timeline of the Zapruder film until "...in 1976, assassination researcher Paul Hoch discovered CIA #450 among a batch of documents released by CIA because of a Freedom of Information Act request. Item 450 consists of nine pages of documents relating to an analysis of the Z film conducted for the Secret Service by the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, one of the world's most technically sophisticated photo-analysis laboratories...." https://jfk.deeppoliticsforum.com/melanson.html Prior to that time it was believed, according to the "official" timeline, that the government was relatively disinterested in the Zapruder film. Then during the tenure of the Assassination Records Review Board ("ARRB") during the 1990's, the ARRB was tipped off about NPIC employees Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, from whom the ARRB elicited testimony, and following the sunset of the ARRB, "...in February of 2009, [Doug Horne] was contacted by JFK researcher Peter Janney of Massachusetts (author of Mary’s Mosaic, 2012), who had just commenced a long series of interviews with a third former NPIC employee who had also participated in an NPIC “briefing board event” the weekend following JFK’s assassination...," Dino Brugioni. https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ It was through this conflagration of events, spanning a period of 33 years, that Doug Horne and other members of the JFKA research community have been able to piece together the fragmentary evidence that has led to the current best working scenario of the alteration of the Zapruder film that likely took place during the weekend of the assassination. Thus, it was not the risk to the sustainability of the cover-up that you seem to be assuming it was to involve the NPIC. The cover-up was and continues to be successful. To this day, the vast majority of Americans still have no idea about the intimate involvment of the CIA with the Zapruder film during the weekend of the assassination. Why weren’t the briefing boards made from the camera original destroyed once the altered film version was made? KH: The NPIC briefing boards in the National Archives today are those which resulted from the second NPIC briefing board session of Sunday, November 24, 1963. The briefing boards from the first NPIC briefing board session presided over by Dino Brugioni on Saturday, November 23, 1963 (and continuing past midnight into the 24th) disappeared, and were presumably destroyed. The last word we have on the existence of the briefing boards created during the first NPIC briefing board session presided over by Dino Brugioni was described as follows by Doug Horne: "...Sometime in late April or early May of 1975, in response to the Commission’s inquiries about domestic activities (and more specifically, the Paul Hoch memo asking about the Zapruder film), Dino Brugioni reported to the NPIC Director, John Hicks, that he possessed one of the two-panel briefing boards he had made during his Zapruder film event at NPIC; the board had been returned to NPIC when John McCone retired, and the then-Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, had given it to Dino Brugioni and told him to lock it up, saying that no one was to see it except for Lundahl or Brugioni. Since that time, Arthur Lundahl had retired. Dino Brugioni not only informed John Hicks about the existence of the two-panel briefing board; he showed it to him. Hick’s response was both profane, and violent. Hicks said to Brugioni, when shown the two-panel briefing board made from the unaltered Zapruder film: “Goddammit, what the hell are you doing with that?” Hicks followed with immediate instructions: “Get the Goddamn thing out of here!” A shaken Dino Brugioni, who is still mystified today about the anger expressed by Hicks, wrapped up the two-panel briefing board, sent it over to the office of CIA Director William Colby, and never saw it again.[27] Mr. Hicks, the key player in this drama, then proceeded to withhold from the Rockefeller Commission the existence of the two-panel briefing board, and to withhold from Dino Brugioni the fact that a four panel briefing board (different form Dino’s) had also been found at NPIC, along with working notes indicating substantial NPIC activity with the film.[28] (This was peculiar behavior, since Brugioni was the Chief Information Officer at NPIC, and in this capacity was the “briefing board czar” for Mr. Hicks.) Not only was Hicks maintaining the compartmentalization put in place at NPIC the weekend following the assassination, but he is the one and only persuasive candidate who fits the bill as the “probable author” of what can only be viewed as an intentionally misleading communication sent to the Rockefeller Commission about the NPIC Zapruder film activity..." https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ How were the alterationists made aware of the necessity to alter the film and what specifically needed to be altered? KH: Again, I think that Doug Horne has the best answer to offer to your question: "...(1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing. In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head). I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.” There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible. As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film. They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.” Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film. (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film. When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed. Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front. The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils. Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.) Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny. That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film. By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making. By Sunday night, November 24th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat. After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments. His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years...." https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ How did the alterationists miss the need for a Single Bullet Theory? KH: It seems to me that the single-bullet theory was more about accounting for the number of gunshots that could plausibly be fired within the time period available within which LHO could fire an Italian Carcano rifle from the sixth floor of the TSBD while JFK was in range, and had much less to do with the content analysis issues that the technicians at NPIC and Hawkeyeworks were concerned with, right? If Homer McMahon is falsely pleading mental incompetence, why should the other details he provides have any credibility? Presumably he was under oath and could be subject to perjury. KH: That is the whole point, isn't it? The dementia, drug addiction, alcoholism and wet brain issues that Homer McMahon introduced into the mix during his July 14, 1997 ARRB interview introduced an element of plausible deniability to every element of his account, and robs it of the impact it would otherwise have on a jury of factfinders. From the perspective of an attorney, it would have put me in the position of having to subpoena all of McMahon's medical and employment records, and then to have to treat him as a hostile witness for aggressive cross examination, which would still be unlikely to overcome reasonable doubt. And as for the "perjury" issue you mentioned, how many examples can you think of in which the prospect of prosecution has turned CIA agents and operatives into truth tellers? Contrary to popular belief, the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, it is by contemplation and design a law-breaking agency. Do the ARRB investigators believe that McMahon is not being truthful when discussing his mental and substance abuse issues? KH: I am unaware of any material available in print which discloses the nature of the ARRB investigators' assessments of McMahon's mental infirmity representations, the absence of which causes me to suspect, at least on Doug Horne's part, that he didn't take them seriously. Here is the declassified NRO BRIDGEHEAD history: https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead Eastman Kodak Company.pdf?ver=2019-03-29-1031353-233×tamp=1553870223588 This PDF file (the link to which is below) contains the internal correspondence concerning the ARRB's investigation of the Zapruder film events at the NPIC on the weekend of the assassination, about contacting and interviewing Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and includes copies of CIA documents about same provided to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, and copies of the working notes from the second NPIC session itself: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10336-10024.pdf The following is the premier article on the alteration of the Zapruder film by Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board, and author of the five volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board." If you read it thoroughly you will understand the Zapruder film issues inside and out. It is well worth the read! --------------------------------------------------------- "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ Edited May 6 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) On 5/6/2024 at 2:32 PM, Keven Hofeling said: This PDF file (the link to which is below) contains the internal correspondence concerning the ARRB's investigation of the Zapruder film events at the NPIC on the weekend of the assassination, about contacting and interviewing Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and includes copies of CIA documents about same provided to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, and copies of the working notes from the second NPIC session itself: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10336-10024.pdf The following is the premier article on the alteration of the Zapruder film by Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board, and author of the five volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board." If you read it thoroughly you will understand the Zapruder film issues inside and out. It is well worth the read! --------------------------------------------------------- "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ This is a fascinating paper by Doug Horne. Thanks for linking it, Keven. So the CIA worked with Secret Service and whomever ran 'Hawkeyeworks' in New York state to doctor the Zapruder film. Presumably to obscure evidence of shots from the front? Edited May 8 by Charles Blackmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 — All the controls for the Acme-Dunn optical printer were accessible from one side of the machine. Photograph: The Cine-Technician, May/June 1944. Initially, the Acme-Dunn printer was manufactured purely for governmental use, with the first machine snapped up by the U.S. Navy’s Central Photographic Laboratory in Washington, D.C. After the war, widespread production began and the Acme-Dunn became what motion pictures had always lacked: an industry-standard optical printer. On 15 March 1945, the Academy Research Council bestowed a Class 3 Award on Linwood Dunn, Cecil Love and Edward Furer for the design and construction of their new optical printer, commenting, “This machine exemplifies technical advancement necessary to keep pace with the ever increasing scope of the motion picture art18.” Nearly forty years later, in 1981, the Academy recognised the same three men for the same achievement, retrospectively awarding them a special Oscar for technical merit. Experiments in Optical Once standardised, the optical printer solidified its reputation as a piece of essential equipment capable of performing a multitude of onerous tasks without complaint — and saving the production valuable dollars to boot — as illustrated in this laconic report from a 1956 edition of Motion Picture Daily: “C&G Films Effects, New York City, announce the acquisition of a new optical printer that does everything but write dialogue ... The idea, of course, is to save time in the industry where time is money19.” — Press advertisement from 1962 for an Acme optical printer.    Even though the optical printer was rapidly becoming an old dog, it was still capable of learning new tricks. For example, during the 1950s, Raymond Spottiswoode, an early proponent of 3D cinema, published a number of papers citing the optical printer as a useful tool in the delicate task of adjusting stereo displacement effects. And in 1957, Oxberry introduced the first commercially available aerial image optical printer, so named because the receiving camera was focused not on the plane of the film it was copying, but on a “virtual” or “aerial” image floating in empty space between its own lens and that of the projector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) On 5/7/2024 at 11:36 AM, Charles Blackmon said: This is a fascinating paper. Thanks for linking it, Kevin. So the CIA worked with Secret Service and whomever ran 'Hawkeyeworks' in New York state to doctor the Zapruder film. Presumably to obscure evidence of shots from the front? Are you referring to the article by Doug Horne? "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ If so, I agree with you: Next to the Zapruder film chapter in Volume IV of Doug Horne's book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, I think that the online essay linked above is the best and most comprehensive tutorial on the Zapruder film that exists. From the available testimony of CIA NPIC officials Homer McMahon and Dino Brugioni, it would appear that Hawkeyeworks in Rochester, New Your, was a highly classified joint CIA/Kodak film lab that was, in addition to NPIC, in possession of the camera-original Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination, and all but a few documents from the second briefing board session at NPIC remain classified. I don't know why this would still be the case after all of these years other than that something highly nefarious took place, namely, alteration of the Zapruder film. When Homer McMahon was interviewed by the ARRB in 1996, and divulged the name of the facility, "Hawkeyeworks," the CIA immediately informed the ARRB that even the name of the facility itself was classified. The following is a memo from Doug Horne memorializing that communication: For me, it is the alterations in the Zapruder film itself that are the surest indications that it was modified that weekend (we know it happened that weekend because the same alterations are present in the NPIC briefing boards made on November 24, 1963, and in the Zapruder film stills that were published in the November 29, 1963 assassination edition of LIFE magazine). In particular, the headshot sequence scenes depict damage to JFK's head that was not reported by any of the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses, and which is not present in the autopsy photographs; namely, a cavernous hole in the President's forehead, that is approximately the size of a cantaloupe, as we can see in the following stills from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" digital copy of the "original" Zapruder film which are highlighted to make the forehead crater clearer to the naked eye: That wound is somehow -- perhaps magically? -- missing from the autopsy photographs: The closest witness to the head wound, Jackie Kennedy, of course described to the Warren Commission a wound completely different than what we are seeing in those Zapruder stills above: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...." In the Zapruder film we can see Jackie feel the margins of the back of the head wound that she later described to the Warren Commission (and which roughly twenty Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses reported), just before she went out onto the trunk to retrieve a piece of brain that had been blown out of the back of her husband's head that she would turn over to Dr. Marion Jenkins upon her arrival at the hospital: Notice above that what Jackie Kennedy appears to be feeling with her white gloved hand has the appearance of a large black blob instead of a bloody blow out wound. Zapruder film authenticity apologists of the variety that admit the existence of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head generally claim that we are not seeing the blood, brain and skull we should be seeing because "Zapruder's camera just couldn't pick up such details"; but note that in the same footage WE ARE seeing Jackie's red roses, so WE SHOULD also be seeing the blood, brain and skull associated with that wound. So what is the deal with that black blob that appears where the occipital-parietal wound should be? It is most clearly seen in frame 317 of Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6K scans of the Forensic Copy of the "original" Zapruder film that they purchased from the National Archives in 2009, in which we more clearly see that the black blob is a hexagon shaped D-max black patch with sharp edges that has been inserted over the occipital-parietal wound, and is definitely not the "natural shadow" that Zapruder film authenticity apologists claim that it is: And when we look at the clearest Zapruder film stills from the headshot sequence that follow Z-313 (the frame of the headshot) also from Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans, we see that same black patch covering the back of the head wound morphing in shape from frame to frame: What would professional cinematographers who are familiar with the special effects of 1960 era films think of this? We don't have to wonder, because Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead have already solicited opinions from some of them, and the following is what they had to say: https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/ "...I’m going to present one last piece of evidence to complete my case. That evidence consists of expert testimony from three witnesses — Paul Rutan, Jr., Garrett Smith, and Dr. Roderick Ryan. In my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I include a partial transcript of an interview of Rutan and Smith, both of whom closely examined a high-quality copy of the extant Zapruder film — that is, the film that is in the National Archives that is purported to be the original film but that is actually the altered, fraudulent copy of the film that the CIA secretly produced at its top-secret Hawkeyeworks facility in Rochester, New York. I was fortunate to be able to include a portion of that interview in my book. The interview was conducted by Thom Whitehead, a Hollywood television and feature-film mastering editor specializing in motion pictures. The interview was conducted as part of a documentary on the Zapruder film that is being produced by Whitehead and his colleague Sydney Wilkinson. Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and who served on the staff of the ARRB, requested permission from Whitehead and Wilkinson to include a portion of the interview in my book, and they graciously agreed. As far as I know, my book is the first and only place where that portion of the interview has been published. Rutan and Smith The following are excerpts from the partial transcript of that interview that I included in my book: Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration. Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration? Rutan: Yes. Whitehead: Where do you see them? Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real…. Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head. Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer…. Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black. Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]…. Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…." Edited May 8 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy -- JFK's cabinet members in the Situation Room at the time McGeorge Bundy was at the Situation Room. Averell Harriman was at the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department. On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said: -- understood the severe consequences of a strike on Cuba, and argued against the General's insubordinate move. Harriman fabricated a story that he'd met with the top Kremlinologists, and that they'd informed him that the Soviet Union definitely would not have had Kennedy assassinated. (As per @Cliff Varnell info. Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57: <quote on> At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association. </q> The US governments "top Kremlinologists" were Llewellyn Thompson, Charles Bohlen, George Kennan and Harriman himself. There was no consultation between them that day. On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said: He informed the Generals that the intelligence was wrong, and that the assassination was the doings of just one person. There's no record of contact between Harriman and the generals. On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said: And then he radioed this information to President Johnson, who was onboard Air Force One returning to Washington. According to Craig Roberts and Jim Bishop, it was McGeorge Bundy who claimed to have spoken to Johnson on AF1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now