The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Why do you keep saying this? You're not a moderator, so why do you think any forum member cares...?

 

If nobody cares, then why do keep asking me?

 

[Roger Odisio]

On 6/7/2024 at 11:24 PM, Tom Gram said:

I’ve never found the chain of custody argument very convincing. What evidence is there that the original film was even at NPIC/Hawkeye Works that weekend? I’ve read some contradictory reports on this so I’m genuinely curious. Do we know for sure it wasn’t one of the Secret Service copies? Do we have a clear chain of custody on those copies?

Some guy saying they processed the original film 30 years later isn’t really enough. Is there more than that, like a contemporaneous document? I’m clearly not an expert on this issue. Maybe that’s because I’m admittedly a bit biased, but I think these are reasonable questions. 

I’ve never found the witnesses who remembered different frames decades after the fact like Brugioni very convincing either. Memories can change. 

Other than those few ARRB witness statements I don’t recall seeing any evidence suggesting that anything nefarious was done to the film that weekend. It’s been inferred that a second set of briefing boards was prepared using an altered film, or something along those lines, but how do we know that someone didn’t just want two different teams to study the film independently to compare the results? Is that not also a plausible explanation for why the film could’ve been sent to Hawkeye Works? 

Put simply, without a forensic examination of the original film, I’m not sure where any additional evidence in support of alteration is going to come from at this point. That’s why I think research efforts are better served elsewhere. An exception would be those pursuing actual, verifiable forensic evidence, because that’s the only thing that I think would convince a majority of researchers and normal people that the film is inauthentic. 

There’s a reason many conspiracy inclined researchers are skeptical of Z-film alteration, myself included. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’ve never seen anything even approaching that level. 

Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough. I don’t doubt that the government would alter a home movie if it was deemed a national security threat, and a film proving conspiracy in the JFK case would definitely qualify. I also suspect that the technology existed to do so in 1963. I just find the evidence and arguments for authenticity a lot more compelling than the alternative.

I do have an open mind about it, to an extent, but until I see legitimately compelling evidence that the film was tampered with I will continue to be skeptical. I’m probably mostly biased from rolling my eyes at all the Rorschach test blurry anomaly spotting over the years that has been presented as “proof” of alteration. That junk has conditioned me to think that any pro-alteration analysis is going to range anywhere from speculative to ridiculous, at best. 

If you have some recommended documents or other primary source material on this topic I will check them out and give an honest opinion. If you wanted to make the case for an altered Z-film to a skeptic, what evidence would you tell them to look at? I always respect your opinions and do agree with you a good chunk of the time, so I’d like to see what you have on this. 

Sorry for the delay in answering.

 

This question was why I wanted you to comment on my previous post. Much of the discussion about what happened with the Z film is there. But perhaps I can be more comprehensive and precise in this note.

 

Zapruder was in the perfect spot  to capture the fatal shots of the murder. Soon after on that day, he had the film developed. He wanted to see what he had captured. Once developed, he watched the film several several times.

 

Zapruder had 3 copies made in addition to the original.

 

He was interviewed on local TV that afternoon and he told what his camera had showed. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI.

 

Starting early Saturday, that produced a media bidding war for the rights to the film.  It's my understanding that the CBS representative's bid was capped by headquarters at $10,000. Life Magazine won the bid by offering $50,000.

 

Life was to pay Zapruder $50,000 for the limited right to make stills for their magazine.  After they had made the stills, in a few days, Life was to return the original film to Zapruder in exchange for one of his copies.

 

In making the bid, Life was fronting for the CIA who obviously could not make their own bid. CD Jackson, the publisher of Life, was a long time CIA asset. The whole Henry Luce Time-Life empire was likely on board.  Luce despised Kennedy. This point should become clearer as we proceed.

 

The story we were told for decades was that Life then sent the film to their Chicago headquarters to begin preparation for showing some stills in their magazine a few days later.  That was a lie.

 

Instead the film was flown to the CIA's lab, the National Photo Interpretation Center in DC. There, the CIA's preeminent photo expert, Dino Brugioni, was assigned to make briefing boards with enlarged images of frames from the film.  Why? Somebody wanted to know exactly what the film showed.  That is, how difficult was it going to be to sell the Oswald story.  And what to do about the Z film if it was a problem. They needed to plan accordingly.

 

The answer became quickly apparent.  Their story was in big trouble.  Before the boards were even finished the film was flown to the CIA's then secret lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, N.Y. The existence of the lab was so secret, even its name was classified until 2010, after this story was first outed.

 

At HW, I suggest, attempts were made to conceal the incriminating parts of the film. This contention should become clearer as we discuss what followed.  

 

This was 1963. They lacked the tools to credibly alter the film to conceal everything it showed.  So they flew the film back to the NPIC from HW that Sunday, and made a second set of briefing boards from the altered film.  They were already well into pushing the Oswald story, and they had gotten rid of Oswald the same day so he could not contradict them.

 

Despite being the duty officer at NPIC that weekend and having done the first set of boards, Brugioni was not told about the second set until he was interviewed by Peter Janney in 2008,and then again by Doug Horne in a series of interviews in 2010. Brugioni's boards were destroyed in the mid 70s when he inadvertently revealed that he still had a copy of them.  The second set of boards made from the film back from HW now reside at NARA.

 

Brugioni's boards had to have been made from the original film as he insisted.  As I said, Zapruder had made three copies of the film on Saturady to go with the camera original.  Life had bought the original from which to make stills for its magazine on Saturday.  Zapruder kept the 3 copies back in Dallas as Life left with the original. 

 

When the film was diverted to the NPIC and then to Hawkeye Works it had to have been the original film that Life bought from Zapruder.  Under the deal, the original film was supposed to be returned to Zapruder a few days later in exchange for one of the copies he retained..   

 

The demand from his then boss to Brugioni in the mid 70s that he get rid of the set he still had, also indicates they were from the original film. The original film was gone when it was altered. Brugioni's boards made from it had to go too.

 

Was there another reason, beside the one I just gave for there to be a second set of boards made after the film had returned from HW?  Why was Brugioni not told that another crew had made a second set?  Why did Brugioni's then boss insist his boards (the last vestige of the film original) must be destroyed.  He had kept a copy not knowing a second set had been made. Was there some other reason the film was sent to HW once Brugioni's boards showed clearly what was on it?  Just a few of the questions we're trying to answer.

 

When it was clear the alteration attempts weren't enough, the CIA sent Life back to Zapruder.  Life gave Zapruder another $100,000, for  the full rights to the film, including the right to show it as a film.

 

Which Life never did because showing the film to the public (and probably reaping lots of money) was not why they bought the full film rights.  Their reason was the opposite: to conceal the film from the public for as long as possible while the Oswald story took hold.

 

Hiding the film not only prevented the public from seeing what actually happened, but right away publishing stills from it was designed to fool the public into thinking  they *had* seen every thing.

 

When a bootleg copy of the (altered) film was shown on TV by Geraldo Rivera in 1975, Life's job was done.  They gave the film they had back to the Zapruder family for $1. Thus verifying their purpose in hiding the film was not the profit motive.  They sold a few extra magazines with the stills in them, but that return was dwarfed by the money they could have made showing the film itself.  Even though it had been altered, it still contained enough information to cause Geraldo's audience to gasp and for there to  be a reopening of the case.  

 

A key takeaway from all of this is:  the alteration of the Z film was directed by the CIA.  Who else but the CIA had access to, and could have used, its own facilities to work on the film that weekend?  Particularly at the Hawkeye Works lab, which no one else even knew existed. 

 

When Doug Horne mentioned HW in a memo discussing the interviews of Brugioni and McMahon, he received a curt response from the CIA. The very name Hawkeye Works was classified; stop using it, even internally.  As I said, they eventually relented and declassified the name in 2010 as the 50th anniversary of the murder was approaching. Another limited hangout.

 

Both of the guys who brought the film to the CIA labs identified themselves as SS agents.  McMahon said it was the comically named "Bill Smith"  who actually chose the frames to be used in the second set of boards, not him.  He thought the (altered) film still showed shots from more than one direction.

 

One point of making the second set was now concealing as much as possible.  And as I said, work on those boards continued by unnamed individuals after McMahon left that Sunday night.

 

Any comments by you, Tom, or anyone else would be appreciated.

[Jonathan Cohen]

Roger, how does anything you outlined actually above prove "alteration" ? All it proves is that the film was a great subject of interest the weekend of the assassination. Why on earth would the "plotters" try to alter such primary source material without having ANY idea whether other films and photos from Dealey Plaza would surface and immediately contradict said revisions?

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sorry for the delay in answering.

 

This question was why I wanted you to comment on my previous post. Much of the discussion about what happened with the Z film is there. But perhaps I can be more comprehensive and precise in this note.

 

Zapruder was in the perfect spot  to capture the fatal shots of the murder. Soon after on that day, he had the film developed. He wanted to see what he had captured. Once developed, he watched the film several several times.

 

Zapruder had 3 copies made in addition to the original.

 

He was interviewed on local TV that afternoon and he told what his camera had showed. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI.

 

Starting early Saturday, that produced a media bidding war for the rights to the film.  It's my understanding that the CBS representative's bid was capped by headquarters at $10,000. Life Magazine won the bid by offering $50,000.

 

Life was to pay Zapruder $50,000 for the limited right to make stills for their magazine.  After they had made the stills, in a few days, Life was to return the original film to Zapruder in exchange for one of his copies.

 

In making the bid, Life was fronting for the CIA who obviously could not make their own bid. CD Jackson, the publisher of Life, was a long time CIA asset. The whole Henry Luce Time-Life empire was likely on board.  Luce despised Kennedy. This point should become clearer as we proceed.

 

The story we were told for decades was that Life then sent the film to their Chicago headquarters to begin preparation for showing some stills in their magazine a few days later.  That was a lie.

 

Instead the film was flown to the CIA's lab, the National Photo Interpretation Center in DC. There, the CIA's preeminent photo expert, Dino Brugioni, was assigned to make briefing boards with enlarged images of frames from the film.  Why? Somebody wanted to know exactly what the film showed.  That is, how difficult was it going to be to sell the Oswald story.  And what to do about the Z film if it was a problem. They needed to plan accordingly.

 

The answer became quickly apparent.  Their story was in big trouble.  Before the boards were even finished the film was flown to the CIA's then secret lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, N.Y. The existence of the lab was so secret, even its name was classified until 2010, after this story was first outed.

 

At HW, I suggest, attempts were made to conceal the incriminating parts of the film. This contention should become clearer as we discuss what followed.  

 

This was 1963. They lacked the tools to credibly alter the film to conceal everything it showed.  So they flew the film back to the NPIC from HW that Sunday, and made a second set of briefing boards from the altered film.  They were already well into pushing the Oswald story, and they had gotten rid of Oswald the same day so he could not contradict them.

 

Despite being the duty officer at NPIC that weekend and having done the first set of boards, Brugioni was not told about the second set until he was interviewed by Peter Janney in 2008,and then again by Doug Horne in a series of interviews in 2010. Brugioni's boards were destroyed in the mid 70s when he inadvertently revealed that he still had a copy of them.  The second set of boards made from the film back from HW now reside at NARA.

 

Brugioni's boards had to have been made from the original film as he insisted.  As I said, Zapruder had made three copies of the film on Saturady to go with the camera original.  Life had bought the original from which to make stills for its magazine on Saturday.  Zapruder kept the 3 copies back in Dallas as Life left with the original. 

 

When the film was diverted to the NPIC and then to Hawkeye Works it had to have been the original film that Life bought from Zapruder.  Under the deal, the original film was supposed to be returned to Zapruder a few days later in exchange for one of the copies he retained..   

 

The demand from his then boss to Brugioni in the mid 70s that he get rid of the set he still had, also indicates they were from the original film. The original film was gone when it was altered. Brugioni's boards made from it had to go too.

 

Was there another reason, beside the one I just gave for there to be a second set of boards made after the film had returned from HW?  Why was Brugioni not told that another crew had made a second set?  Why did Brugioni's then boss insist his boards (the last vestige of the film original) must be destroyed.  He had kept a copy not knowing a second set had been made. Was there some other reason the film was sent to HW once Brugioni's boards showed clearly what was on it?  Just a few of the questions we're trying to answer.

 

When it was clear the alteration attempts weren't enough, the CIA sent Life back to Zapruder.  Life gave Zapruder another $100,000, for  the full rights to the film, including the right to show it as a film.

 

Which Life never did because showing the film to the public (and probably reaping lots of money) was not why they bought the full film rights.  Their reason was the opposite: to conceal the film from the public for as long as possible while the Oswald story took hold.

 

Hiding the film not only prevented the public from seeing what actually happened, but right away publishing stills from it was designed to fool the public into thinking  they *had* seen every thing.

 

When a bootleg copy of the (altered) film was shown on TV by Geraldo Rivera in 1975, Life's job was done.  They gave the film they had back to the Zapruder family for $1. Thus verifying their purpose in hiding the film was not the profit motive.  They sold a few extra magazines with the stills in them, but that return was dwarfed by the money they could have made showing the film itself.  Even though it had been altered, it still contained enough information to cause Geraldo's audience to gasp and for there to  be a reopening of the case.  

 

A key takeaway from all of this is:  the alteration of the Z film was directed by the CIA.  Who else but the CIA had access to, and could have used, its own facilities to work on the film that weekend?  Particularly at the Hawkeye Works lab, which no one else even knew existed. 

 

When Doug Horne mentioned HW in a memo discussing the interviews of Brugioni and McMahon, he received a curt response from the CIA. The very name Hawkeye Works was classified; stop using it, even internally.  As I said, they eventually relented and declassified the name in 2010 as the 50th anniversary of the murder was approaching. Another limited hangout.

 

Both of the guys who brought the film to the CIA labs identified themselves as SS agents.  McMahon said it was the comically named "Bill Smith"  who actually chose the frames to be used in the second set of boards, not him.  He thought the (altered) film still showed shots from more than one direction.

 

One point of making the second set was now concealing as much as possible.  And as I said, work on those boards continued by unnamed individuals after McMahon left that Sunday night.

 

Any comments by you, Tom, or anyone else would be appreciated.

Thanks for the reply Roger. I have to agree with Jonathan on this though. It seems like quite the risk to alter a film without knowing if contradictory footage would surface. 

I did read your original post, and am familiar with the general outline of the NPIC story. My questions are similar to my previous comment:

1. What actual evidence is there that the original film was sent to NPIC? You said the film was transported by SS agents. Didn’t the SS obtain copies of the film in Dallas? How do we know for sure that the film taken to NPIC was not one of those copies? 

2. What actual evidence is there that the film was even sent to Hawkeye Works at all? Do we have an admission? A contemporaneous document? Or is it just based on witness testimony from the 90s? If the latter, whose testimony? 

3. Assuming the film was sent to Hawkeye Works, what actual evidence is there that the film was altered at that facility? I made this point in my previous post, but how do we know that someone didn’t just want two independent teams to study the film? The second team at NPIC could have been tasked with making briefing boards based on an analysis from Hawkeye Works. Do we have any contemporaneous documents discussing the creation of the briefing boards? Is it possible Brugioni was kept out of the loop because he didn’t have a need-to-know that a second analysis was being performed at a secret CIA facility? 

4. How do we know that Life was fronting for the CIA in its acquisition of the Z-film? Life did have some CIA connections, but they also had ample motive to obtain the film as a news organization. How do we know there was an ulterior motive, and that they didn’t just want the film to make money? 

5. What is the full story on the destruction of Brugioni’s set of briefing boards? Does that come from his ARRB testimony? Are there any contemporaneous records? 

6. What actual evidence is there that two distinct sets of briefing boards were even made at all? How do we know that Brugioni’s memory hadn’t faded? If there was a second set, how do we know that the second set was not just a copy of the first set? Are there any contemporaneous records proving the existence of two sets of distinct briefing boards? 

I’m not really interested in any synopsis or essays from Doug Horne. I’d like to see the actual primary source material, specifically any contemporaneous documents and anything corroborating Brugioni’s statements to the ARRB.

Like I said before, I’m really not an expert on this topic, and these are all honest questions. I’m familiar with the narrative you outline above, but I don’t recall ever seeing a compilation of all the evidence supporting that narrative. 

I will start with tracking down Brugioni’s ARRB statements, but if you have any MFF links or other links to the evidence it would be greatly appreciated. I’m hoping Horne would have RIFs to all this stuff in his footnotes, which would be helpful if you have them. 

Basically, I’d like to form my own opinion on the evidence itself, not Doug Horne’s theory of how it all fits together. I think that’s pretty reasonable. Once I can do that, I will let you know what I think. Currently I’m still pretty skeptical. 

Edited June 11 by Tom Gram

[Keven Hofeling]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sorry for the delay in answering.

 

This question was why I wanted you to comment on my previous post. Much of the discussion about what happened with the Z film is there. But perhaps I can be more comprehensive and precise in this note.

 

Zapruder was in the perfect spot  to capture the fatal shots of the murder. Soon after on that day, he had the film developed. He wanted to see what he had captured. Once developed, he watched the film several several times.

 

Zapruder had 3 copies made in addition to the original.

 

He was interviewed on local TV that afternoon and he told what his camera had showed. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI.

 

Starting early Saturday, that produced a media bidding war for the rights to the film.  It's my understanding that the CBS representative's bid was capped by headquarters at $10,000. Life Magazine won the bid by offering $50,000.

 

Life was to pay Zapruder $50,000 for the limited right to make stills for their magazine.  After they had made the stills, in a few days, Life was to return the original film to Zapruder in exchange for one of his copies.

 

In making the bid, Life was fronting for the CIA who obviously could not make their own bid. CD Jackson, the publisher of Life, was a long time CIA asset. The whole Henry Luce Time-Life empire was likely on board.  Luce despised Kennedy. This point should become clearer as we proceed.

 

The story we were told for decades was that Life then sent the film to their Chicago headquarters to begin preparation for showing some stills in their magazine a few days later.  That was a lie.

 

Instead the film was flown to the CIA's lab, the National Photo Interpretation Center in DC. There, the CIA's preeminent photo expert, Dino Brugioni, was assigned to make briefing boards with enlarged images of frames from the film.  Why? Somebody wanted to know exactly what the film showed.  That is, how difficult was it going to be to sell the Oswald story.  And what to do about the Z film if it was a problem. They needed to plan accordingly.

 

The answer became quickly apparent.  Their story was in big trouble.  Before the boards were even finished the film was flown to the CIA's then secret lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, N.Y. The existence of the lab was so secret, even its name was classified until 2010, after this story was first outed.

 

At HW, I suggest, attempts were made to conceal the incriminating parts of the film. This contention should become clearer as we discuss what followed.  

 

This was 1963. They lacked the tools to credibly alter the film to conceal everything it showed.  So they flew the film back to the NPIC from HW that Sunday, and made a second set of briefing boards from the altered film.  They were already well into pushing the Oswald story, and they had gotten rid of Oswald the same day so he could not contradict them.

 

Despite being the duty officer at NPIC that weekend and having done the first set of boards, Brugioni was not told about the second set until he was interviewed by Peter Janney in 2008,and then again by Doug Horne in a series of interviews in 2010. Brugioni's boards were destroyed in the mid 70s when he inadvertently revealed that he still had a copy of them.  The second set of boards made from the film back from HW now reside at NARA.

 

Brugioni's boards had to have been made from the original film as he insisted.  As I said, Zapruder had made three copies of the film on Saturady to go with the camera original.  Life had bought the original from which to make stills for its magazine on Saturday.  Zapruder kept the 3 copies back in Dallas as Life left with the original. 

 

When the film was diverted to the NPIC and then to Hawkeye Works it had to have been the original film that Life bought from Zapruder.  Under the deal, the original film was supposed to be returned to Zapruder a few days later in exchange for one of the copies he retained..   

 

The demand from his then boss to Brugioni in the mid 70s that he get rid of the set he still had, also indicates they were from the original film. The original film was gone when it was altered. Brugioni's boards made from it had to go too.

 

Was there another reason, beside the one I just gave for there to be a second set of boards made after the film had returned from HW?  Why was Brugioni not told that another crew had made a second set?  Why did Brugioni's then boss insist his boards (the last vestige of the film original) must be destroyed.  He had kept a copy not knowing a second set had been made. Was there some other reason the film was sent to HW once Brugioni's boards showed clearly what was on it?  Just a few of the questions we're trying to answer.

 

When it was clear the alteration attempts weren't enough, the CIA sent Life back to Zapruder.  Life gave Zapruder another $100,000, for  the full rights to the film, including the right to show it as a film.

 

Which Life never did because showing the film to the public (and probably reaping lots of money) was not why they bought the full film rights.  Their reason was the opposite: to conceal the film from the public for as long as possible while the Oswald story took hold.

 

Hiding the film not only prevented the public from seeing what actually happened, but right away publishing stills from it was designed to fool the public into thinking  they *had* seen every thing.

 

When a bootleg copy of the (altered) film was shown on TV by Geraldo Rivera in 1975, Life's job was done.  They gave the film they had back to the Zapruder family for $1. Thus verifying their purpose in hiding the film was not the profit motive.  They sold a few extra magazines with the stills in them, but that return was dwarfed by the money they could have made showing the film itself.  Even though it had been altered, it still contained enough information to cause Geraldo's audience to gasp and for there to  be a reopening of the case.  

 

A key takeaway from all of this is:  the alteration of the Z film was directed by the CIA.  Who else but the CIA had access to, and could have used, its own facilities to work on the film that weekend?  Particularly at the Hawkeye Works lab, which no one else even knew existed. 

 

When Doug Horne mentioned HW in a memo discussing the interviews of Brugioni and McMahon, he received a curt response from the CIA. The very name Hawkeye Works was classified; stop using it, even internally.  As I said, they eventually relented and declassified the name in 2010 as the 50th anniversary of the murder was approaching. Another limited hangout.

 

Both of the guys who brought the film to the CIA labs identified themselves as SS agents.  McMahon said it was the comically named "Bill Smith"  who actually chose the frames to be used in the second set of boards, not him.  He thought the (altered) film still showed shots from more than one direction.

 

One point of making the second set was now concealing as much as possible.  And as I said, work on those boards continued by unnamed individuals after McMahon left that Sunday night.

 

Any comments by you, Tom, or anyone else would be appreciated.

Roger, that's excellent summation of the disrupted chain of custody, and the initial suppression efforts of CIA/LIFE. For the naysayers who pretend that the absence of a CIA memo outlining the inner-workings of the work that NPIC and Hawkeyeworks performed on the camea-original Zapruder film is tantamount to there being no evidence of alteration, I pose the following question:

If the chain of custody and the work performed on the camera Zapruder film by CIA/LIFE on the weekend of the assassination was so innocent, then why did the CIA release only a few of the documents that were surely generated at every phase of the process from the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, fail to turn over any of those documents to the ARRB in the 1990's (claiming that no relevant documents could be located), and deny the freedom of information requests made by Doug Horne in 2009 for those documents on the basis that they are excluded from FOI requests on the basis that they involved a CIA operation?

As recited in the history you provided, the existence of Hawkeyeworks was in such a shroud of secrecy even in 1997, that when NPIC photoanalyst Homer McMahon named the facility while being interviewed by the ARRB, the CIA immediately intervened and ordered that the tape of the interview should be segregated and suppressed from the public.

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

All that had been released to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 were some copies of notes made during the second briefing board session which Homer McMahon presided over consisting of Zapruder film frame timing calculations (See pages 21 through 26 of above PDF file), and NONE of the official documents that had to have been generated by the NPIC, CIA and Secret Service to document the activities of those agencies involving the film on the weekend of the assassination.

And Doug Horne wrote the following about the CIA denials of his FOIA requests for the documents:

"...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...."  http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

The same legacy of secrecy initiated by the CIA through LIFE in 1963 continues today as the result of the Zapruder family having signed over their rights to all of the Zapruder film materials (except for the extant "original" film which the U.S. Government seized, paying the family 13 million dollars in compensation) to the Sixth Floor Museum which aggressively opposes any public dissemination and/or research of the film using threats of litigation. There is also the episode whereby it appears that the 5 x 7 transparencies of the 1998 MPI first generation copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film were altered to eliminate evidence of the infamous black patch on the back of JFK's head which appears during the headshot sequence of the extant Zapruder film, as well as "disappearing" the 5 x 7 TIME-LIFE transparencies of the Zapruder film -- which the museum’s Archivist, Gary Mack, acknowledged receiving in a well-publicized article in 2000 -- when Sydney Wilkinson and Doug Horne sought access to those materials in 2012.

The Sixth Floor Museum is at this point quite successfully obstructing the release of Sidney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's documentary (entitled "Alteration") which presents the analyses of at least 3 Hollywood cinematographers -- familiar with the film alteration technology that existed in 1963 -- who have concluded that the Zapruder film has been altered.

For information about the above recited encounters with the Sixth Floor Museum see "MASQUERADE AT THE MUSEUM" by David Mantik via the following link:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528713

It is my belief that the release of this documentary, if ever the obstacles imposed by the Sixth Floor Museum are surmounted, will be a game changer with regard to the argument that the extant Zapruder film was altered during the weekend of the assassination, and the naysayers who currently side with the CIA cover-up of the evidence of alteration will be forced to contend with the conclusions of bona-fide Hollywood professionals.

The following is an excerpt of a recent interview of two of these experts, Paul Rutan, Jr., and Garret Smith, in an article by Jacob Hornberger that was published on August 16, 2023, which in relevant part provides as follows:

https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/

"...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 June 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

If the chain of custody and the work performed on the camera Zapruder film by CIA/LIFE on the weekend of the assassination was so innocent, then why did the CIA release only a few of the documents that were surely generated at every phase of the process from the Rockefeller Commission in 1975, fail to turn over any of those documents to the ARRB in the 1990's (claiming that no relevant documents could be located), and deny the freedom of information requests made by Doug Horne in 2009 for those documents on the basis that they are excluded from FOI requests on the basis that they involved a CIA operation?

All of these questions are irrelevant to the material issue, which is that there is no hard evidence that the film was altered, regardless of where it may have been analyzed.

[Keven Hofeling]

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

All of these questions are irrelevant to the material issue, which is that there is no hard evidence that the film was altered, regardless of where it may have been analyzed.

Hard evidence like this, Mr. Cohen? In the event you are too young to remember this, the CIA had armed the administration of Bush the younger with all kinds of "hard evidence" of WMD's in Iraq and had suppressed all the evidence that there were none. Or are you one of those people who still contends that there were WMD's in Iraq?

 

[David Boylan]

Gary Murr did some excellent work on the Zap film. He has an unpublished manuscript on this subject. Here's a photo of the transmittal bag courtesy of Gary.

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Hard evidence like this, Mr. Cohen? In the event you are too young to remember this, the CIA had armed the administration of Bush the younger with all kinds of "hard evidence" of WMD's in Iraq and had suppressed all the evidence that there were none. Or are you one of those people who still contends that there were WMD's in Iraq?

What's your point? That we should be skeptical of people who claim to have "hard evidence"?

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Hard evidence like this, Mr. Cohen? In the event you are too young to remember this, the CIA had armed the administration of Bush the younger with all kinds of "hard evidence" of WMD's in Iraq and had suppressed all the evidence that there were none. Or are you one of those people who still contends that there were WMD's in Iraq?

Uh huh. So, in other words, you have no actual scientific or any kind of other specific evidence -- not circumstantial evidence -- to support your claim of massive Zapruder film alteration. Just as I suspected.

[Keven Hofeling]

38 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

What's your point? That we should be skeptical of people who claim to have "hard evidence"?

In the context of the JFK assassination and other crimes perpetrated by the United States Government, absolutely yes, we should be skeptical of what is claimed to be "hard evidence," such as in the cases of photographic and autopsy report evidence in particular, and even just as skeptical when there is an absence of evidence as the result of government concealment. If all is on the up and up with the involvement of the CIA's NPIC and Hawkeyeworks with the Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination then there should be absolutely no problem with releasing each and every item of evidence that pertains to those particular sojourns of the film, right?

Dr. David Mantik puts it much more aptly in the following abstract of his article entitled JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners:

"In the 54 years since November 22, 1963, numerous paradoxes in the JFK assassination have been exposed. Many of these relate to the autopsy, which was performed that same evening. Because of my life in medicine, this review focuses mostly on the medical evidence. These paradoxes are so profound (and remain officially unanswered) that the chief conclusion is inescapable: Critical primary evidence items cannot be authentic. This review identifies specific altered evidence. Most supporters of the Warren Commission (WC) fail to acknowledge this corruption of the data base. The disingenuous acceptance of this evidence has led to the misperception that the case is still a mystery. However, once specific items are recognized as fraudulent, it becomes clear that the corrupted evidence was not accidental—and the overall features of the case (for conspiracy) emerge with surprising clarity."

'JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS'
Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD
https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf
Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

 

Edited June 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

1 minute ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Uh huh. So, in other words, you have no actual scientific or any kind of other specific evidence -- not circumstantial evidence -- to support your claim of massive Zapruder film alteration. Just as I suspected.

Actually, there is the expert testimony and analyses that your friends over at the Sixth Floor Museum are working so hard to keep concealed from the American people...

You may not understand this, and obviously you will not agree with it, but it is through exactly this type of expert testimony that the chief arbitrers of our civilization decide such issues of fact and authentication, courts of law, and in that context your particular point of view is utterly meaningless, and means absolutely nothing.

These experts are telling you that the D-max black hexagon shaped patch with sharp edges that you are so convinced is a natural shadow wouldn't even fool a 12-year-old. Let that sink in...

https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/

"...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…."

 

[Mark Ulrik]

4 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

In the context of the JFK assassination and other crime perpetrated by the United States Government, absolutely yes, we should be skeptical of what is claimed to be "hard evidence," such as in the cases of photographic and autopsy report evidence in particular, and even just as skeptical when there is an absence of evidence as the result of government concealment. If all is on the up and up with the involvement of the CIA's NPIC and Hawkeyeworks with the Zapruder film on the weekend of the assassination then there should be absolutely no problem with releasing each and every item of evidence that pertains to those particular sojourns of the film, right?

I see. For a moment it almost seemed as if you were comparing "hard evidence" of Z film alteration to "hard evidence" of WMD in Iraq.

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Actually, there is the expert testimony and analyses that your friends over at the Sixth Floor Museum are working so hard to keep concealed from the American people...

You may not understand this, and obviously you will not agree with it, but it is through exactly this type of expert testimony that the chief arbitrers of our civilization decide such issues of fact and authentication, courts of law, and in that context your particular point of view is utterly meaningless, and means absolutely nothing.

Nope. That's not evidence. That's two people making a (flimsy) claim, and not showing their work or their specific reasons for believing what they believe other than "this doesn't look right to me." You also have not addressed Tom Gram's earlier questions about the Wilkinson study, including that they are working from at best a fourth- or fifth-generation copy of the film.

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Thanks for the reply Roger. I have to agree with Jonathan on this though. It seems like quite the risk to alter a film without knowing if contradictory footage would surface. 

I did read your original post, and am familiar with the general outline of the NPIC story. My questions are similar to my previous comment:

1. What actual evidence is there that the original film was sent to NPIC? You said the film was transported by SS agents. Didn’t the SS obtain copies of the film in Dallas? How do we know for sure that the film taken to NPIC was not one of those copies? 

2. What actual evidence is there that the film was even sent to Hawkeye Works at all? Do we have an admission? A contemporaneous document? Or is it just based on witness testimony from the 90s? If the latter, whose testimony? 

3. Assuming the film was sent to Hawkeye Works, what actual evidence is there that the film was altered at that facility? I made this point in my previous post, but how do we know that someone didn’t just want two independent teams to study the film? The second team at NPIC could have been tasked with making briefing boards based on an analysis from Hawkeye Works. Do we have any contemporaneous documents discussing the creation of the briefing boards? Is it possible Brugioni was kept out of the loop because he didn’t have a need-to-know that a second analysis was being performed at a secret CIA facility? 

4. How do we know that Life was fronting for the CIA in its acquisition of the Z-film? Life did have some CIA connections, but they also had ample motive to obtain the film as a news organization. How do we know there was an ulterior motive, and that they didn’t just want the film to make money? 

5. What is the full story on the destruction of Brugioni’s set of briefing boards? Does that come from his ARRB testimony? Are there any contemporaneous records? 

6. What actual evidence is there that two distinct sets of briefing boards were even made at all? How do we know that Brugioni’s memory hadn’t faded? If there was a second set, how do we know that the second set was not just a copy of the first set? Are there any contemporaneous records proving the existence of two sets of distinct briefing boards? 

I’m not really interested in any synopsis or essays from Doug Horne. I’d like to see the actual primary source material, specifically any contemporaneous documents and anything corroborating Brugioni’s statements to the ARRB.

Like I said before, I’m really not an expert on this topic, and these are all honest questions. I’m familiar with the narrative you outline above, but I don’t recall ever seeing a compilation of all the evidence supporting that narrative. 

I will start with tracking down Brugioni’s ARRB statements, but if you have any MFF links or other links to the evidence it would be greatly appreciated. I’m hoping Horne would have RIFs to all this stuff in his footnotes, which would be helpful if you have them. 

Basically, I’d like to form my own opinion on the evidence itself, not Doug Horne’s theory of how it all fits together. I think that’s pretty reasonable. Once I can do that, I will let you know what I think. Currently I’m still pretty skeptical. 

 

TG: Thanks for the reply Roger. I have to agree with Jonathan on this though. It seems like quite the risk to alter a film without knowing if contradictory footage would surface. 

 

RO:  They had no choice but to first try altering the Z film because of what it showed, which they quickly verified that Saturday night at the NPIC. Jonathon had made his point before.  What footage are you and he talking about?   A while back, someone on here, I don't remember who, went thru all of the other candidates and concluded none showed everything that the Z film did.  

 

But even if others did show some things, it was the Z film, on the day of the murder, that garnered all of the attention and produced the media bidding war the next day. That was Saturday.  It is obvious that the CIA knew it must control the information from that film or the jig was up. It must not let the public see it in its original form or let the media get their hands on it. 

 

TG:  I did read your original post, and am familiar with the general outline of the NPIC story. My questions are similar to my previous comment:

 

1. What actual evidence is there that the original film was sent to NPIC? You said the film was transported by SS agents. Didn’t the SS obtain copies of the film in Dallas? How do we know for sure that the film taken to NPIC was not one of those copies? 

 

RO:  No, I said both Brugioni and McMahon said they were told by the person delivering the film that he worked for SS.  More lies.  Btw, are you keeping track of the various lies being told along the way. Can you come with an innocent explanation, in Salandria's phrase, for each?

 

No, the SS had not gotten a copy of the film at that point.  The original film was put on a plane not long after the deal with Zapruder was struckthat Saturday.  Zapruder still had his 3 copies.

 

We know that the CIA left Dallas with the original film they had just bought (that was the deal), not a copy, and took it to its NPIC lab. 

 

TG:  2. What actual evidence is there that the film was even sent to Hawkeye Works at all? Do we have an admission? A contemporaneous document? Or is it just based on witness testimony from the 90s? If the latter, whose testimony? 

 

RO:  We know the film was sent somewhere even before Brugioni's boards were finished.  AS I recll, Brugioni said that. Time was of the essence. For one thing, under the original deal, Life would be using it to make stills for its magazine soon.

 

But there is no "contemporaneous document" saying the film was sent to HW!!  Remember?  Even the name of HW was classified at that time. No one but the CIA knew the lab even existed. Homer McMahon said that "Bill Smith" told him he was coming from HW when he delivered the film on Sunday. 

 

TG:  3. Assuming the film was sent to Hawkeye Works, what actual evidence is there that the film was altered at that facility? I made this point in my previous post, but how do we know that someone didn’t just want two independent teams to study the film? The second team at NPIC could have been tasked with making briefing boards based on an analysis from Hawkeye Works. Do we have any contemporaneous documents discussing the creation of the briefing boards? Is it possible Brugioni was kept out of the loop because he didn’t have a need-to-know that a second analysis was being performed at a secret CIA facility? 

 

RO:  Again you're looking for "contemporaneous documents" for proof of alteration.  As if its not the CIA we're talking about.

 

The idea that CIA sent the film to HW because they wanted to do another study is not credible.  Brugioni, the CIA's best photo analyst, had just taken the key frames from the original film. and blown them up to show clearly what happened.  That's why they're called briefing boards. At that point there was no doubt about what the original film showed.

 

Plus on its face your question falls apart. They did not use the approximately ten hours between receiving the film at HW and sending it back to the NPIC, to do another study.  The second set of boards was done back in the NPIC later that day. Instead, they tried to alter the film. And its just as obvious why they first flew the film to HW to do that, rather than doing it at the NPIC, isn't it?

 

No Brugioni was kept out of the loop for the obvious reason they didn't want him to know a second set was done with the altered film. Beside the fact he did the first set, Brugioni was also the duty officer at NPIC that weekend and so was supposed to be aware of everything done off hours at the lab. If you have seen the videos of his interviews with Horne (have you?), his surprise in finding out about the second set registers clearly,  He keeps returning to that fact voluntarily to ponder it.  He finally concludes he was excluded from the rest of the story that weekend because higherups knew he would not abide any chicanery. 

 

TG:  4. How do we know that Life was fronting for the CIA in its acquisition of the Z-film? Life did have some CIA connections, but they also had ample motive to obtain the film as a news organization. How do we know there was an ulterior motive, and that they didn’t just want the film to make money? 

 

RO: Because they had foregone the profits you ponder by only using the original film for stills in their magazine for a few issues. Once they had the full rights to the film that Sunday the return from selling a few more magazines would been have dwarfed by what they could have made by showing the full film to a public  and media interested to see it. Not to mention the publicity gained. If they had been acting on their own as a news organization.  But the CIA didn't want that.

 

The motive for buying the full rights to the film was the opposite.  It was to keep the news from the public.  To bury the film it for as long as they could.  In printing a few selected stills in their magazine they hoped to fool enough of the public into thinking they had seen every thing that happened. 

 

TG:  5. What is the full story on the destruction of Brugioni’s set of briefing boards? Does that come from his ARRB testimony? Are there any contemporaneous records? 

 

RO:  No as nearly I can tell, the full story began with a 2008 interview of Brugioni by Peter Janney who told Horne about it.  When Brugioni told the story of destroying his boards in one of his interviews with Horne, he emphasized that his then boss became irate when he found Brugioni still had a copy of his boards in his safe.   At that point Brugioni didn't know there was a second set.

 

There is that "contemporary records" question again.  Do you mean did Brugioni write a memo to files that he had destroyed his boards?

 

TG:  6. What actual evidence is there that two distinct sets of briefing boards were even made at all? How do we know that Brugioni’s memory hadn’t faded? If there was a second set, how do we know that the second set was not just a copy of the first set? Are there any contemporaneous records proving the existence of two sets of distinct briefing boards? 

 

I’m not really interested in any synopsis or essays from Doug Horne. I’d like to see the actual primary source material, specifically any contemporaneous documents and anything corroborating Brugioni’s statements to the ARRB.

 

Like I said before, I’m really not an expert on this topic, and these are all honest questions. I’m familiar with the narrative you outline above, but I don’t recall ever seeing a compilation of all the evidence supporting that narrative. 

 

RO: I don't know  what Brugioni told the ARRB in the 90s.  If you find something there that directly contradicts what he told Horne later, please make it known. Particularly if he denies he worked on the boards. No one disputes that as far as I know and I consider that an established fact. The same goes for what McMahon said. 

 

As for the memory fading argument, watch the Brugioni interviews (McMahon wasn't recorded on video) and judge that for yourself. While considering that these incidents for both men must have been easier to remember simply because they were so stark and important.

 

What I have just given you is  a compilation of the facts we know about and the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from them. Attack that if you can.  We're dealing with the CIA here. Looking for "contemporary records" for "proof" is a fool's errand. To be clear, I hasten to add I'm not saying you're a fool.

 

TG: I will start with tracking down Brugioni’s ARRB statements, but if you have any MFF links or other links to the evidence it would be greatly appreciated. I’m hoping Horne would have RIFs to all this stuff in his footnotes, which would be helpful if you have them. 

 

Basically, I’d like to form my own opinion on the evidence itself, not Doug Horne’s theory of how it all fits together. I think that’s pretty reasonable. Once I can do that, I will let you know what I think. Currently I’m still pretty skeptical. 

 

RO: I'm offering my conclusions about what happened, not Doug Horne's theory.