The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Not so fast.  McMahon is claimed to have stated that he identified 6-8 shots fired, from at least 3 different directions, and was overruled by SSA Bill Smith.

 

p. 19 bottom.

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10336-10024.pdf

McMahon admitted psychological/substance abuse difficulties. Douglas Horne and the ARRB seemed to have ignored this. It has been suggested that McMahon deliberately dropped this turd in the punchbowl to discredit himself (to avoid a perjury charge?) but those suggesting this have provided no evidence to back it up.

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Matt's correct.  But more important for your questions, Johnson and McCone, early Sunday morning, each saw that the Z film contradicted their Oswald story. 

Alterations couldn't be done at NPIC.  But, according to Brugioni, the film itself had already left there at about 3 AM.

The CIA had a secret lab, Hawkeye Works, at the Kodak plant in Rochester that no one else even knew existed.  Such work could be done there.

They had about 10-12 hours to try alterations to hide the incriminating evidence and make a new "original film".  That means that when Brugioni's boards were later destroyed they were the last vestige of what the original film showed.

Because the alterations failed (which we can see in the extant film), Life went back to Zapruder on Sunday, tore up the first contract that required the original film to be returned to Zapruder in a few days, and bought the full rights to the film for lots of money (about $1.5 million in today's dollars).  Life then buried the film from public view for as long as they could get away with.  About 12 years it turned out.  When a bootleg copy was shown on TV, Life gave the film back to Zapruder for $1, confirming their intent had been to hide the film.  

By Johnson, do you mean LBJ?

What would McCone (who had no photo interpretive experience) see in the briefing boards that NPIC’s top man (Brugioni) missed?

Why would those handling the film risk having Brugioni closely examine the film and possibly discovering evidence of multiple shooters?

Neither Brugioni nor McMahon noticed a limo stop. Are you saying the limo did not stop?

Wouldn’t an altered film invalidate the acoustics evidence that was supposedly perfectly synchronized to the film?

Jackson died shortly before the Warren Commission released its report. Do you include him among the mysterious deaths of JFK witnesses?

[Matt Cloud]

51 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

McMahon admitted psychological/substance abuse difficulties. Douglas Horne and the ARRB seemed to have ignored this. It has been suggested that McMahon deliberately dropped this turd in the punchbowl to discredit himself (to avoid a perjury charge?) but those suggesting this have provided no evidence to back it up.

I know this.  Any reader knows this.  This has been said many times here already.  I take no position as to the validity one way or another  My point is an analytical one: people cannot deal in the ambiguities and work straightforwardly and honestly with the material as it exists in the record.  

 

This is the same game that you got into with DiEugenio, albeit in that case, you were playing the straight guy.  You make a factual assertion, are provided with evidence to the contrary, and then spin it in the light most favorable to your initial, mistaken assertion.  

Here you write "it’s strange that neither team was asked about number of shots fired or number of shooters or direction of shots nor offered any opinions." The record, to the extent it can be called that, shows otherwise.  There are potential problems with McMahon's testimony, admittedly.  On the other hand, if you saw what he claims to have seen, and then saw it flushed down the toilet of history, you might have similar problems.  In that sense, his "difficulties" may rather support his claim, not weaken it.  But if you want to discredit the testimony in the record you can.  But do it on that basis -- you don't believe McMahon.  Okay. That is a different interpretive action than saying something didn't happen when evidence indicates it did.    

 

These are important distinctions.  

Edited July 30 by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

McMahon admitted psychological/substance abuse difficulties. Douglas Horne and the ARRB seemed to have ignored this.

 

If you read only McMahon's paragraph regarding his psychological problems and substance abuse, it indeed gives the impression that his testimony cannot be trusted.

But it's a whole different ballgame if you read his full testimony, complete with the self-disparaging comment for context. Reading it that way gives the impression that he knows exactly what he is talking about and admits when his memory isn't strong on something. And the self-disparaging remark sounds like it is said in jest, with a wink.

I agree with Tom Gram, that it is an exaggeration on McMahon's part.

 

Edited July 30 by Sandy Larsen

[Kevin Balch]

Why didn’t Doug Horne address the issue of McMahon’s credibility? As far as I can tell, it was never mentioned at all.

[Matt Cloud]

19 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Why didn’t Doug Horne address the issue of McMahon’s credibility? As far as I can tell, it was never mentioned at all.

How did you become aware of it?

[Keven Hofeling]

On 7/21/2024 at 8:58 AM, Tom Gram said:

This is incorrect Pete. Ben Hunter initially didn’t remember a Secret Service agent at all. He was asked during his initial ARRB interview if he recalled any Secret Service involvement, and said that the question “rang a bell” and that there may have been a SS agent present. He also prefaced his interview by saying his memory of the event was “extremely fuzzy”. 

In a subsequent phone call with the ARRB, he said he wanted to amend his previous comments. He now claimed that a SS agent did deliver the film to NPIC, and said it was the SS agent, not Capt. Sands, who told him not to talk about the analysis event. 

That’s it. Hunter never mentioned the name Bill Smith, and never mentioned anything at all about the film being in Rochester. That came entirely from McMahon. 

So yes, the only “evidence” the Z-film was ever in Rochester at all is sole-source second-hand 34 year-old hearsay from a witness with major credibility problems. 

Lastly, the CIA HRG did NOT confirm the Z-film was in Rochester. All they did was tell the ARRB that the name “Hawkeye works” was still classified TS/SCI, and that the McMahon interview must be marked and stored accordingly. That’s it. They did not comment at all on the substance of McMahon’s claims. 

On 7/21/2024 at 8:58 AM, Tom Gram said:

This is incorrect Pete. Ben Hunter initially didn’t remember a Secret Service agent at all. He was asked during his initial ARRB interview if he recalled any Secret Service involvement, and said that the question “rang a bell” and that there may have been a SS agent present. He also prefaced his interview by saying his memory of the event was “extremely fuzzy”. 

Mr. Gram here claims that during NPIC technician Ben Hunter's first interview by the ARRB, "Ben Hunter didn't initially remember a Secret Service agent at all."

But when we consult page 2 of the actual 6/17/1997 ARRB Meeting Report, it is stated that "[l]ater in the interview, when he was asked about Secret Service involvement, he said that our question did ring a bell with him, and that yes, he did believe there may have been a Secret Service employee present."[1]

[1] https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10336-10024.pdf

Mr. Graham is not accurately representing Hunter's testimony. Ben Hunter, during his first ARRB interview, did in fact corroborate Homer McMahon's representation that a Secret Service Agent had been present during the NPIC proceedings he participated in during the weekend of the assassination.

 

On 7/21/2024 at 8:58 AM, Tom Gram said:

In a subsequent phone call with the ARRB, he said he wanted to amend his previous comments. He now claimed that a SS agent did deliver the film to NPIC, and said it was the SS agent, not Capt. Sands, who told him not to talk about the analysis event. 

The 6/28/1997 ARRB Call Report[2] would have been been more accurate if it had said that Hunter wanted to expand upon rather than to amend his previous ARRB testimony, as he was not changing anything. Rather, Hunter had in the interim thought about the matter and recalled more, which is not at all unusual considering that the memories concerned events that had taken place thirty-four years prior.

[2] https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10336-10024.pdf

 

On 7/21/2024 at 8:58 AM, Tom Gram said:

That’s it. Hunter never mentioned the name Bill Smith, and never mentioned anything at all about the film being in Rochester. That came entirely from McMahon. 

So yes, the only “evidence” the Z-film was ever in Rochester at all is sole-source second-hand 34 year-old hearsay from a witness with major credibility problems. 

Though true that Homer McMahon's testimony that the Secret Service agent told him the Zapruder film was being delivered to him from Hawkeyeworks is as yet uncorroborated by additional evidence, what is truly amazing in the context of a highly sensitive CIA black op is that we have the evidence that we do at all. That it has been established at all that the CIA and Secret Service were tampering with the Zapruder film at the CIA's NPIC during the very weekend of the assassination on at least two separate occasions (with slit 8mm film on one occasion and unslit 16mm film on the other) is extraordinary and a testament to the human fallibility of those involved in highly compartmentalized deeply sensitive CIA black ops, which is obviously driving our CIA loving apologist friends crazy.

We have only enough pieces of the puzzle to allow us to see the skeletal outline of the black op, but the pieces all fit. We know with absolute certainty that there is probative evidence being withheld that would be determinative, such as the NPIC history that Dino Brugioni wrote which included the story of the first NPIC briefing board session, right? One strong indication that there is something to this -- in addition to the probative evidence -- is that the CIA apologists are so stirred up by it, and making every possible effort -- even to the point of being ridiculous, as in the above -- to kill the story, in this instance by death of a thousand paper cuts.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105096#relPageId=4

 

On 7/21/2024 at 8:58 AM, Tom Gram said:

Lastly, the CIA HRG did NOT confirm the Z-film was in Rochester. All they did was tell the ARRB that the name “Hawkeye works” was still classified TS/SCI, and that the McMahon interview must be marked and stored accordingly. That’s it. They did not comment at all on the substance of McMahon’s claims.

Exactly, Mr. Gram: Why haven't your friends at the CIA commented on the substance of Homer McMahon's claims, as well as those of Ben Hunter and Dino Brugioni? Why won't the CIA declassify the NPIC history that Brugioni authored which included mention of the NPIC briefing board session that Brugioni presided over? And why does the CIA routinely decline FOIA requests about the Zapruder film in relation to NPIC and Hawkeyeworks on the basis that the subject matter falls under an FOIA exclusion calculated to maintain classification of material that involved an active CIA op?

With regard to the incident referenced by you in which the CIA intervened to conceal mention of the "Hawkeyeworks" moniker from all materials related to the ARRB's interview of Homer McMahon, thus revealing the sensitivity of the avenue Doug Horne was attempting to illuminate, the following excerpt from Pig on a Leash by David Lifton describes same, as well as notes the peculiar administrative resistance that Horne encountered when he attempted to learn more...

Now a new possibility was emerging: that a Kodachrome processor was located either at Kodak's headquarters in Rochester or at Hawkeyeworks, precisely where the Kodachrome brought to MacMahon might have been processed.

McMahon was certain he had an original. From Horne's ARRB Report:

Horne asked whether he was working with the original film or a copy, and McMahon stated with some certainty that he was "sure we had the original film." Horne asked why, and he said that he was sure it was the original because it was Kodachrome, and because it was a "double 8"movie. Horne asked him to clarify whether the home movie was slit or unslit, and McMahon said that he was pretty sure the film was UNSLIT, because "we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation. (Horne Call Report, 6/12/97; see Appendix C)

There was another twist. When Doug wanted to pursue the matter, pull 1963 records, and question people as to whether the Z film had been at Rochester, his requests were simply refused-flatly refused-and without explanation. Moreover, from multiple sources, I learned what occurred when the CIA found out that the word "Hawkeyeworks" - a classified term - had been mentioned by one of its employees in an ARRB interview: the order went out to change the record. The ARRB was notified that the name was still classified, so it would have to be expunged. Doug was given the job of editing the audio tape record of the interview and deleting any mention of the secret facility by its classified codename. This he did, writing the appropriate memo to make the fact a matter of record.

The ARRB's Final Report accurately reported the important fact that what was done in Washington, D.C., at NPIC's color lab was simply the creation of color stills, but left out the related drama of Hawkeyeworks and the CIA's insistence that the term be deleted. The Final Report said:

Review Board Staff's Study and Clarification of Paul Hoch's FOIA Lead "CIA Document 450." The Review Board staff located and interviewed two former employees of the CIA' s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) and questioned them about "C I A Document 450," a 1970s Freedom Of Information Act release-original document undated-that indicates NPIC had a version of the Zapruder film, made "internegatives" and "copies," conducted a "print test," and performed a shot-and-timing analysis based on interpretation of the film's content.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10336-10024.pdf

 

Edited July 30 by Keven Hofeling

[Kevin Balch]

On 7/29/2024 at 6:37 PM, Matt Cloud said:

How did you become aware of it?

It’s in the transcript of the ARRB interview of McMahon.

There is an old Ed Forum thread about the transcript that 

includes this exchange:

HM: ......I don't know how the mind works, but I do know I am not.... I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a ....wet frame is? Well, you're looking at one. I damn near died. And I'm not a competent witness because I don't have accurate recall. I don't have absolute recall.

JG: With regards to the other events that you talked about, how do you think the accuracy is?

HM: I just told you, I don't have a full deck. I don't know how I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that's up for you to decide.

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

11 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

It’s in the transcript of the ARRB interview of McMahon.

There is an old Ed Forum thread about the transcript that 

includes this exchange:

HM: ......I don't know how the mind works, but I do know I am not.... I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a ....wet frame is? Well, you're looking at one. I damn near died. And I'm not a competent witness because I don't have accurate recall. I don't have absolute recall.

JG: With regards to the other events that you talked about, how do you think the accuracy is?

HM: I just told you, I don't have a full deck. I don't know how I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that's up for you to decide.

 

 

Exactly.  From the interview with Doug Horne.  So your position is I'm aware of McMahon's -- what? -- "credibility" issues thanks to Doug Horne but I'm surprised Doug Horne didn't make more of it?  Have I got it?

[Kevin Balch]

Just now, Matt Cloud said:

Exactly.  From the interview with Doug Horne.  So your position is I'm aware of McMahon's -- what? -- "credibility" issues thanks to Doug Horne but I'm surprised Doug Horne didn't make more of it?  Have I got it?

Neither Doug Horne nor any of the other alterationists really address it. Other than to say it was to, as I put it, throw a turd in the punch they were serving. Now, that is a possible way to tell the truth and avoid a perjury charge yet mitigate any potential damage. But that is an assertion and as such requires evidence to back it up. Dino Brugioni was willingly filmed during his interview and was as clear and specific in his details as one could be recalling events 50 years later. Other parts of the McMahon transcript he comes off as “off” such as recalling specific details.

I’ve looked for an obituary for Homer McMahon looking for details such as cause of death, age at death or suggestions that he was “in declining health for several years” but found nothing.

What was in the original film that Brugioni and associates missed that first night but could be discerned by others in the briefing boards they produced, and who realized it? If conspirators knew the film could very likely have captured evidence of a crossfire, why risk having NPICs best photo interpreters closely examine it?

[Matt Cloud]

Let me quote one of the CIA liaisons to the HSCA to you: "Our job is not to open doors but to point to them."  Consider that true for Horne and the ARRB.  This in't a homicide in the criminal law sense.  This is a matter of national and global policy.  

[Roger Odisio]

On 7/29/2024 at 6:14 PM, Matt Cloud said:

There's a lot of redundancy in these last two posts, material that has already been established.  Indeed, much as even been expanded upon already -- Kodak's other secret location, Lincoln Park, e.g.

In any case, the assumptions need to be identified.  So I will do that.  Herein is one: "Johnson and McCone, early Sunday morning, each saw that the Z film contradicted their Oswald story."  The assumption here is the "their" in "their Oswald story."  That's the part you don't know.  You don't know whose Oswald story it is.  It may well be, and we may well find, that CIA had to pin things on Oswald because of the larger geo-strategic implications of another reality.  That is to say, CIA may be in a bind here, not out front controlling things, but behind them, forced to accept things.  This, at any rate, any legitimate analyst must bear in mind as a possible scenario.

There shouldn't be any confusion about what I meant by "their" story. It has nothing to do with an assumption.

After the murder of a POTUS, there normally would have been an official investigation to establish what happened.  That didn't happen in this case.

Oswald was blamed by some officials the afternoon of the murder.   But then he was murdered 2 days later, eliminating a trial where his guilt would have to be proven. 

The Warren Commission was established 5 days after that.  It was a fraud. It replaced a legitimate investigation.  The WC's purpose was not to establish what happened, but to cover it up and frame Oswald.  That official story, remaining to today, was central to the coverup's success.

That left the planners of the murder free to control other aspects of the coverup, like the autopsy and what the Z film showed.  Which they immediately got to work on that weekend.

The briefing boards of the Z film, finished early Sunday morning, clearly contradicted officials' Oswald story and had to be dealt with.

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Neither Doug Horne nor any of the other alterationists really address it. Other than to say it was to, as I put it, throw a turd in the punch they were serving. Now, that is a possible way to tell the truth and avoid a perjury charge yet mitigate any potential damage. But that is an assertion and as such requires evidence to back it up. Dino Brugioni was willingly filmed during his interview and was as clear and specific in his details as one could be recalling events 50 years later. Other parts of the McMahon transcript he comes off as “off” such as recalling specific details.

I’ve looked for an obituary for Homer McMahon looking for details such as cause of death, age at death or suggestions that he was “in declining health for several years” but found nothing.

What was in the original film that Brugioni and associates missed that first night but could be discerned by others in the briefing boards they produced, and who realized it? If conspirators knew the film could very likely have captured evidence of a crossfire, why risk having NPICs best photo interpreters closely examine it?

McMahon was a minor figure in all of this.  His job was to make briefing boards from the film he was given Sunday night in order to replace the boards Brugioni's crew had done from the original film the night before.  He testified he left NPIC before his boards were finished.  Some of the prints were added later and some he did are missing from the boards now at NARA.

Again you misunderstand Brugioni's job.  He analyzed nothing.  He missed nothing. He and his crew watched the film more than once before working on it and I'm sure he developed opinions about what it showed.  But analyzing the film was the job of those who ordered the boards.  McCone for the CIA and then LBJ.

The reason they wanted the boards done is obvious.  They needed to understand exactly what the film showed--how precisely it contradicted the Oswald story--in order to decide what to do about the problem it created.  

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

McMahon was a minor figure in all of this.  His job was to make briefing boards from the film he was given Sunday night in order to replace the boards Brugioni's crew had done from the original film the night before.  He testified he left NPIC before his boards were finished.  Some of the prints were added later and some he did are missing from the boards now at NARA.

Again you misunderstand Brugioni's job.  He analyzed nothing.  He missed nothing. He and his crew watched the film more than once before working on it and I'm sure he developed opinions about what it showed.  But analyzing the film was the job of those who ordered the boards.  McCone for the CIA and then LBJ.

The reason they wanted the boards done is obvious.  They needed to understand exactly what the film showed--how precisely it contradicted the Oswald story--in order to decide what to do about the problem it created.  

Are you saying that McCone and Johnson, neither of whom had any experience in photo-interpretive experience, concluded multiple shooters from the Saturday night briefing boards? If they were so explosive, why were they not immediately destroyed?

How did they cover up the limo stop in so short a period of time?

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Are you saying that McCone and Johnson, neither of whom had any experience in photo-interpretive experience, concluded multiple shooters from the Saturday night briefing boards?

I suspect the evidence of multiple shooters was clear enough from the boards for anyone to understand.  In any case, Art Lundahl, head of NPIC and a renowned photo expert in his own right, took the boards to brief McCone.  Who then briefed LBJ. 

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

 

If they were so explosive, why were they not immediately destroyed?

I've answered this several times.  Have you read earlier posts?  Short answer: destruction was never a viable option.  The media and others knew that the Z film was important evidence.  There was an open bid for rights to the film Saturday morning.  Life won and said they were going to publish stills from the film in their magazine in a few days.  Most important, the officials  needed something they could claim was the original film. 

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

How did they cover up the limo stop in so short a period of time?

Actually they didn't remove all remnants of the limo slowing.  The extant film shows one of the motorcycle cops coming up beside the trunk for a short time and then receding.  As far as I know, there is no testimony he sped up at that time.  The limo must have slowed down.