The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Claim: Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter were not present during Brugioni’s briefing board event. 

Supporting Evidence: 

To my knowledge, the only direct quotes we have from Brugioni on this topic are in the O’Sullivan film. 

DH. While you worked at NPIC did you know a gentleman by the name of Ben Hunter? 

DB Yes

DH. Was he there that night with you? 

DB. No. 

DH. Are you sure about that? 

DB. Yes… cause Ben Hunter was in the..was a photogrammetrist in the photo..photogrammetry…and I didn’t need him. I mean I wouldn’t have called him in. 

DH. Did you know a Homer McMahon? 

DB. I knew him, yes but… not that night. When we went to the third floor….

That’s not very convincing, even on its own, but here’s where it gets interesting. Horne asks again later in the film: 

DH. Were Pierre Sands, Homer McMahon or Ben Hunter present at the event over which you presided. 

DB. No. No.. just Ralph Pearse, Bill Banfield, and uh.. I think there was about three in the lab and three in the, uh, pasting the thing together and…

[Horne cuts him off and changes the subject]

Incredibly, Horne never asked Brugioni to identify the six unnamed people who were present at NPIC that night, including the “three in the lab”. 

Peter Janney wasn’t any better. Here’s Horne’s own summary of Brugioni’s first interview with Janney: 

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 four follow on interviews, Janney repeatedly and specifically questioned Dino about whether either a Captain Sands, or Ben Hunter, had been present that night. Brugioni consistently said that he was acquainted with both people, and that neither Captain Sands nor Ben Hunter was present at the NPIC event he presided over. 

Not surprisingly, we do not have a tape or transcript of the first Janney interview. In fact, we don’t have tapes or transcripts for any of the “four follow on interviews” either. All we have from any of the six interviews Janney conducted with Brugioni is a partial transcript of the sixth interview and a 90 second audio clip from the O’Sullivan film. 

Why was Brugioni only asked about Hunter and Sands in the “four follow on interviews”? Was he asked to identify the 3 or 4 photo technicians in the first interview? Was he ever asked at all? Did Janney not ask about McMahon?

Taking his lowest estimates, Brugioni didn’t remember 5 out of 7 total people there that night other than himself. With his highest estimates it’s 7 out of 9. 

Horne’s summary is also interesting in comparison to the O’Sullivan film. Brugioni’s fumbled reasoning that Ben Hunter wasn’t there was that he was a photogrammetrist and that he “wouldn’t have called him in”. Well, according to Horne’s summary, Brugioni told Janney that the lab crew was called in by Bill Banfield, not himself.

Basically, Brugioni’s denials regarding Hunter, McMahon, and Sands are not credible at all. He had no idea who worked on the enlargements in the color lab. Period. It is ridiculous to think that Brugioni could perfectly recall who wasn’t in the lab that night 46+ years later but have no idea who actually was. 

To make matters worse, Janney and Horne appear to have realized that questioning Brugioni about his anonymous “three or four” person “lab crew” could severely hurt their theory, so they immediately changed the topic every time he brought it up. Without the complete Janney tapes however, especially the first one, we can’t say for sure. Where are the Janney tapes? Why are they being withheld from the research community? 

We also have corroboration from the ARRB.  McMahon and Hunter had no idea who worked on the actual briefing boards upstairs at NPIC. Hunter also told the ARRB that Sands remained “close by”, observing the work in the lab. In other words, the NPIC witnesses’ own statements suggest that the lab and briefing board crews did not interact that night. 

Brugioni mentioned the unnamed lab crew again in the partial transcript of the sixth Janney interview. All Brugioni says in the transcript is “and then there was a lab crew”. That’s it. There was no follow up by Janney nor any attempt to ascertain the identities of this anonymous “lab crew”. 

Conclusion: NOT CREDIBLE. 

Does this prove that there was only one briefing board event? No, but it does prove that Brugioni is not a credible witness on the topic of attendees. He had no clue who worked on the prints in the lab that night. McMahon and Hunter had no clue who worked on the briefing boards upstairs. Hmmmm…. 

I'm baffled about where you're going with this, Tom.  At this point, you're no longer claiming, I assume, that Brugioni might not have worked at all on the boards Saturday night.  Or that he was just some incidental bystander  (don't remember if that claim came from you or Jeremy).

In fact Brugioni was the main guy on the crew.  The right hand man to Lundahl at NPIC, he says.   Recall, the year before he had worked on the briefing boards used at the UN during the Cuban missile crisis. He later wrote a book about that. He was the obvious choice to head a crew that did the boards to used to brief Johnson and McCone.

He was at NPIC for something like 8 hours that night.  It's hard to believe he would not have run into McMmahon or Hunter if they were there too. 

You say Brugioni he was not a "credible witness" about who everybody was who worked with him (or for him) because they might have done different jobs or worked on different floors.  So what.  

You're correct that even if you're right about this, it has nothing to do with the important question of whether two sets of boards were done that weekend. 

That point is clear.  By itself, Brugioni's statement that his boards had two panels with a hinge while McMahon's boards at NARA have 4 panels with no hinge is enough to establish that.  Brugioni offered other differences as well.

But I'm really puzzled about what you would do with the information if you succeeded in proving McMahon and Hunter were actually there Saturday night.

[Jean Ceulemans]

Roger, the claim for 2 events was (part. ?) based on Brugioni not having McMahon and Hunter present during his event.  Tom is prooving Brugioni in just not a credible witness when it´s about who was there or not.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Jean Ceulemans

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Roger, the claim for 2 events was (part. ?) based on Brugioni not having McMahon and Hunter present during his event.  Tom is prooving Brugioni in just not a credible witness when it´s about who was there or not.

 

 

That's not the basis for believing there were 2 events, Jean.  When asked, Brugioni said neither person was there Saturday night with him.  Tom has brought up his contention that Brugioni did not name everybody who was there in order to claim that means those two could have been there.  That's proof of nothing about the existence of the boards .

It leaves a bunch questions dangling.  McMahon worked on the boards that are now at NARA.  If he was there with Brugioni on Saturday, when did he do that?  Was he there 2 nights?  Was Brugioni lying that he worked on the boards at all?   

One convincing basis for the existence of 2 events (there are others) was Brugioni explaining that the boards at NARA, done by McMahon were different than the ones he worked on.  Tom keeps saying that Brugioni didn't recognize the NARA boards as his.  That's a mischaracterization.  Brugioni emphatically said the NARA boards were different than the ones he did.  His boards had 2 panels with a hinge.  The NARA boards have 4 panels, no hinge.  That's clear enough isn't it?  

If there were two sets of boards there was two events.