The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

Keven Hofeling · June 18

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

See my last comment to Roger. You’re leaving out the not insignificant detail that McMahon remembered physically doing a timing analysis of the shots.

The issue with regard to the briefing board session conducted by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, it seems to me, is whether or not the timing analysis sheets based upon Paul Mandel's 12/6/1963 LIFE article were produced during their briefing board session or were produced by others unknown during some subsequent NPIC analysis of some kind.

You seem to be assuming that if any type of timing analysis was performed during McMahon and Hunter's NPIC briefing board session that such timing analysis accounts for the creation of the three full-length yellow legal pad pages of notes containing three possible 3-shot scenarios and a 16 FPS and 18 FPS timing analysis ("the LIFE computations"), and I think this assumption is unwarranted, based upon the available evidence.

The following are the references that Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter made to the analysis of the film they were involved in, and not only did neither of them mention anything even suggestive of any analysis of Paul Mandel's 12/6/1963 LIFE article, but they both denied producing or ever having seen the LIFE computations when the three full-length yellow legal pad pages of notes containing three possible 3-shot scenarios and a 16 FPS and 18 FPS timing analysis were shown to them by the ARRB.

Thus, it appears certain that a timing analysis was conducted by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter but I see nothing in the documented record to serve as justification for your conflation of the two events, and solid documented justifications for concluding that the analysis conducted by McMahon and Hunter (and apparently unnamed others) was not the same event that produced the LIFE computations, namely that they both specifically indicated they had no knowledge of the LIFE computations when asked:

From the 6/12/1997 ARRB Call Report of a telephonic interview of Homer McMahon:

-McMahon did recall the Zapruder film analysis in some detail, and confirmed ARRB's understanding that the analysis (of which frames in which shots struck occupants of the limousine) was performed at the request of the Secret Service. [Emphasis not in original]

-Prior to the production of intemegatives and color prints for briefing boards, he said he recalled an analysis "to determine where the 3 shots hit." He said he would not share the results of the analysis with us on the telephone. The film was projected as a motion picture 4 or 5 times during the analysis phase, for purposes of determining "where the 3 shots hit." [Emphasis not in original]

From the 6/17/1997 ARRB Meeting Report of the in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

...He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots," and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loupe to examine individual
frames. [Emphasis not in original]

From the 7/14/1997 ARRB Meeting Report of the in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events surrounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was a "joint process," McMahon said his opinion, which was that President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ultimately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said "you can't fight city hall," and then reminded us that his job was to produce intemnegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed the film and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings. [Emphasis not in original]

From page 4 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

McMahon (12:04): Well --- ah --- heh, heh --- well, Eastman Kodak had, had contracts with the U.S. government, and if you want to know, you can go through the CIA, they'll tell you [unclear]. OK, but he, he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he, and three other people, ah, timed the film, for the --- through observation you could tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and the slumps. We didn't know anything about any audio --- ah, it was just visual. And we timed it and determined, where the, the time between the, ah --- physically timed it, with a stopwatch --- ah, where the gunshot "hits" hit. And we, we, we, we went from, I think, maybe two frames before the first hit, and then we hit every single frame --- through, and we only, he only counted three hits, possibly four --- ah, couldn't tell, I think, when, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when, when
he [JFK] got hit the first time, and then the second time, as his head [was] going off into the angle, up, and --- [Emphasis not in original]

From page 9 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

McMahon (35:33): Ah --- now, the, the mounting on the briefing boards, and the, the
photointerpretation, so to speak --- I was not involved in, OK ---
Horne: OK 16
McMahon: --- and, I think I went home. Heh, but Smith probably went to another --- it's not even a
vaulted area, it's a finishing room upstairs.
Horne: Ah, did you and Mr. Hunter stop work at about the same time, or do you recall?
McMahon: Well, he might have stayed on and helped, but, ah, there was another chap that probably was involved in that work, and it probably was done by the other chap, not --- and I'm sure Bill Smith.... [Emphasis not in original]

From page 10 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Horne (37:13): Ah, you just mentioned another chap who may have been involved with briefing boards and photoanalysis ---
McMahon: --- and I can't recall his name ---
Horne: --- can't recall his name ---
McMahon: --- even if I could, I couldn't tell you, because he was young.
[Transcriber's note: the witness meant that because this person was a young employee in November of 1963, he might still be "current" or active, in 1997 at the time of the interview, and for that reason he would not divulge his name, even if he remembered it. The CIA culture is very protective of the names of its employees, particularly if they are operating under cover.] [Emphasis not in original]

From page 11 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Horne (40:01): Did you create, or do you recall anyone else creating, any records or notes during your work?
McMahon: I think, ah, Hunter and I did the only records of the work, and I think it was on, a, either a yellow, or a ah, a ah --- [chuckling] add something to this ---
Horne: You, you just put your hand on a yellow legal pad ---
McMahon: Yeah, it was on a legal type pad, unless it was recorded on --- we made our own, ah, marks on some of the --- to keep the --- but I did not put any classification or any[thing] of that nature--- I didn't put any control, no classification or control on any of the documents. Normally that's required before you could leave the vault; it has to be controlled with a Top Secret cover sheet. I did not do that. Now, after the briefing board is made from the material, then that classification precedes the classification of, in the [unclear] cover sheets. We made briefing boards,
teleprompters, and view graphs, as --- for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.
Horne: For other types of work --- ah, routine --- but for this job you, you recall that you may have made notes on a yellow legal pad ---
McMahon (41:35): Now, I 'm sure that this did --- I'm sure that this did not go to the Intelligence Community --- it was not part of the CIA --- it was not --- this was [done on] a, a "need-to know" basis, and it was used by whoever brought it in [chuckling] for, for either the Warren Commission, or to brief somebody else.

From page 12 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Gunn: Ah, yes. Ah, this goes back to something you said, ah, early on in the interview, where, ah, a couple of things, where you said, as I recall, ah: "He had --- he took three hits, possibly four." And it wasn't clear to me whether the "he" was Kennedy, or included Connally. Did, did you reach a conclusion as to the number of hits 20 that you thought President Kennedy had [unclear --- several words too indistinct to be made out]?
McMahon (45:13): Ah, my guess was 6 or 8, but the, the consensus of opinion was 2 or 3.
Gunn: Hits on Kennedy?
McMahon: Yeah. Connally, they said it hit Kennedy and then went into Connally --- ricocheted.
Horne: Did they say that that night? Or is this ---
McMahon: That, that, that was the --- we, we were just trying to, to get where all the shots of action ---and covered frames from both ends of it....

From page 16 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Gunn (13:18): So, what was it that you observed on the film of the assassination? 26
Horne: Your opinion.
McMahon: About eight (8) shots.
Gunn: And where did they come from?
McMahon: Three different directions, at least.
Gunn: Do you remember where --- what the directions were?
McMahon: No; but if you have the film --- you can plot vectors. Because you, you can go out --- I'm a photogrammetrist, as well [chuckling] --- [you] go out --- with a --- OK, there's a way to do it, believe me.
Gunn: Were you ever asked to do any of that kind of analysis on the ---
McMahon: No, no.
Gunn: Did you say this at the time that you were looking at the film with the others?
McMahon: I wasn't a photogrammatrist at that time [chuckling].
Gunn: No, I understand, but if --- when --- when you ---
McMahon: I later, I later worked for Photoscience. This was a photogrammetry [job] --- I was a, a, a [sic] aerial photographer, and I, I did aerial photography for, ah, whatever you want to call it, for mapping, for first, second, [and] third order, ah, survey; and I did that for about twelve years.
McMahon (14:38): And --- now, I was a shooter, and that's the only reason I can tell you what I saw, and thought I saw; and it wasn't stereo-vision, it was just intuition. No, I did not agree with the analysis at the time that I was doing the work; but that --- I didn't have to, because I wasn't a photogrammetrist [chuckling], I wasn't, I wasn't asked to do that.

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

He said the analysis was done in a briefing room, originally with “Bill Smith” himself and “three other people”, then changed the three “other” people to just himself, Smith, and Hunter.

Yes, the following is suggestive that there were issues involving the involvement in the analysis of individuals whose identities were still classified at the time of the ARRB in-person interview of McMahon. Something that goes with the landscape involved, the CIA, and spooks, and all that...

From page 10 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Horne (37:13): Ah, you just mentioned another chap who may have been involved with briefing boards and photoanalysis ---
McMahon: --- and I can't recall his name ---
Horne: --- can't recall his name ---
McMahon: --- even if I could, I couldn't tell you, because he was young.
[Transcriber's note: the witness meant that because this person was a young employee in November of 1963, he might still be "current" or active, in 1997 at the time of the interview, and for that reason he would not divulge his name, even if he remembered it. The CIA culture is very protective of the names of its employees, particularly if they are operating under cover.] [Emphasis not in original]

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Hunter did not remember doing a timing analysis himself, but he did mention three NPIC employees who might have done that sort of thing. Were those people ever contacted by the ARRB?

I've seen no indication that the ARRB ever learned the identities of the three NPIC employees you've referenced, and Ben Hunter in fact did indicate that he was assigned to "analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots," and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants," and Homer McMahon told the ARRB that he left the facility earlier than Hunter, that Hunter "might have stayed on and helped" with the analysis, and that both he and Hunter recorded calculations on a yellow legal pad (though McMahon and Hunter both denied having any knowledge of the pages containing the LIFE computations):

From the 6/17/1997 ARRB Meeting Report of the in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

...He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots," and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loupe to examine individual
frames. [Emphasis not in original]

From page 9 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

McMahon (35:33): Ah --- now, the, the mounting on the briefing boards, and the, the
photointerpretation, so to speak --- I was not involved in, OK ---
Horne: OK 16
McMahon: --- and, I think I went home. Heh, but Smith probably went to another --- it's not even a vaulted area, it's a finishing room upstairs.
Horne: Ah, did you and Mr. Hunter stop work at about the same time, or do you recall?
McMahon: Well, he might have stayed on and helped, but, ah, there was another chap that probably was involved in that work, and it probably was done by the other chap, not --- and I'm sure Bill Smith.... [Emphasis not in original]

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Both McMahon and Hunter both identified their handwriting on pages containing shot timing calculations.

But when asked, Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon both did not recognize the three legal pad pages of timing analysis data that are arguably associated with the 12/6/1963 LIFE article. I don't see how you can justify just ignoring this fact:

From page 3 of the Meeting Report of the 6/17/1997 in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

-He did not recognize any of the other pages in the NPIC working notes, nor did he think that such activity (e.g., 3 different shot scenarios, and calculation of seconds between shots at two different camera speeds) took place during the night he and Mr. McMahon performed their work. He was of the belief that the activity described in the NPIC working notes occurred during a second event at NPIC, one which occurred after the work done by he and Mr. McMahon. [Emphasis not in original]

From page 2 of the Meeting Report of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Toward the end of the interview, McMahon was shown the NPIC working notes and the surviving briefing board (there are four panels), which are both in the JFK Collection in flat # 90A.
NPIC Working Notes: McMahon recognized the half-sized sheet of yellow legal paper containing a handwritten description of briefing board panel contents, and on its reverse side containing a description of the work performed that night and how long each step took, as being written in his own handwriting (and partially in Ben Hunter's). He said that three other full-length yellow legal pad pages of notes (containing three possible 3-shot scenarios, a 16 FPS and 18 FPS timing analysis, and additional timing computations) were not in his handwriting, and were not made by him or previously seen by him. [Emphasis not in original]

From pages 18-20 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon, with images of the documents being discussed:

Horne (22:39): OK, we're back on the record. And from Record Group 233, Flat 90A, at the Archives, I have pulled out, ah, document ID number 1993.07.22.08:41:07:620600, titled "Analysis of Zapruder Film." Ah, the document date on the RIF [Record Identification Form] is 5-22-1975; and I'm now going to hand these, ah, notes to Mr. McMahon and let him read them and tell us whether he's seen them before. Please take your time.

McMahon (24:35): [Witness examines documents for a considerable period of time --- a total of five pages, with one page a half-sheet, having writing on both sides.] Some of the writing is mine; I don't know whose this is.
Horne: And by "this" --- ah, this page here, sir?
McMahon: I don't know whose that is.
Horne: OK, the page that we're not sure about is the page with 3 shot scenarios --- ah, one, one [shot scenario] is labeled: "LIFE magazine," and then the [other] two [are labeled] "other possibilities," OK.
McMahon: This is my writing.

Horne: OK, the one that Mr. McMahon has identified as his writing is on the back side of a half-

- 18 -

page, and the back side reads: "shoot internegatives, one-and-a-half hours; process and dry internegatives, two hours; print test, one hour; make three prints," [it] looks like, the 'each' sign [that is, the symbol "@" follows the phrase "make three prints," and precedes the time duration of "one hour; process and dry prints, one-and-a-half hours;" for a total of "seven hours."
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Below that, there are some --- that's in pencil /meaning the time duration for the creation of internegatives and prints discussed above] --- below that there are some blue ink, ah, long divisions and additions.
McMahon: This is my writing.
Horne: And those [the arithmetic calculations in blue ink] are also your writing?
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Also the pencil?
McMahon: Yes.
Horne: OK, could you explain what that --- well, what are the long divisions and additions, do you recall what those are?
McMahon: [Sighing] Idiot marks --- I don't know what they --- it's my writing, I think.
Horne: OK
McMahon: No, wait --- wait a minute --- I think it's my --- it's either mine or Ben's.
Horne: OK
McMahon: And, have you got Ben's handwriting?
Horne: I, I can show you one section on these notes that he recalled was his handwriting, ah, if you'd like, and then I can ask you that ---
McMahon: This --- this looks like Ben's handwriting, here.

Horne: OK, and now you are looking at the other side of the half-sheet ---
McMahon: This looks like my writing here ---

Horne: --- OK, the other side of the half-sheet, which is a description of the four (4) briefing board panels, and when you said it looked like Ben's writing you were pointing at the, the pencil: "Panel I, Panel II, Panel III, Panel IV."
[Transcriber's note: these are column headers on the short half-sheet; and below each column header there are two sub-columns, listing print numbers, and corresponding frame numbers, for the prints mounted on each briefing board panel.]
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Ben identified for us, right below that, ah, the printing: "print #" and "frame #" --- these, these two marks here are the only two that he thought were his writing, right here, in [pointing] --- which are underneath the column labeled "Panel I."
McMahon (27:01): Mmm-hmmm. This is in --- this looks like Ben's writing, to what I ... [now, suddenly focusing on the bottom of the half-sheet] this looks like my writing.

Horne: And your writing, ah, would be, ah, at the bottom of the half page, where we're, we're talking about frame numbers and time between shots.
[Transcriber's note: the writing referred to here is found at the bottom of the front of the half-sheet, the side containing the content descriptions for the four briefing board panels.]

- 19 -

McMahon: This is --- yeah --- and, I'm not sure about this --- this looks like mine, and this looks like mine.

Horne: OK, so the, ah ---
McMahon: Ah ---
Horne (27:33): --- just for the record, the descriptions of how long it took to make internegatives and prints are Mr. McMahon's writing.
McMahon (27:54): This is not mine.

Horne: OK, Mr. McMahon is now looking at the page, ah, [wherein] the top half says, "at 18 frames per second;" the bottom half [reads] "at 16 frames per second;" and he has just said that ---
McMahon: This is not mine.
Horne: --- that is not his writing.
McMahon: OK, and, this is not my writing --- and now, that might have been Ben Hunter's writing.

Horne: This next page that is not Mr. McMahon's writing is a page which, in the upper right-hand corner, reads: "Questions from the 8 mm film --- how do they know exact frames of first and second shot?" Question ---
McMahon: OK, we didn't know --- we were told what they thought they were; and this is what we were told they thought they were; and this is what we concluded they were; and this is what we set the photography team [unclear]. Ah [that's the] best I can do for ya.
Gunn (28:57): Do you remember when you prepared the notes that we just examined?
McMahon: Yeah, we were in a briefing room, ah, in building 213 in the Navy Yard. And, it was --- we were viewing it there because of the equipment.
Gunn: So they --- these were made on the day then that you --- [were] processing ---
McMahon: Yes, this is when we --- these are fairly accurate timing shots --- tim -- -the way that, that it, that we timed it. The 16 frames per second --- I, I don't know whether I agree on the 18 --- it might have been 18 frames per second. This might have been a further analysis.
Gunn: Do you know whether somebody else was preparing other notes that you don't recognize, at that time, or were they made later [unclear]?
McMahon: Ah, they, they conform to my best recollection of, of what we wrote on, that's all I know. I don't know why I remembered that.
Horne: By that you mean the yellow, legal-sized paper?
McMahon: Yeah.

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

McMahon said the notes were prepared in the briefing room, but didn’t recognize one of the pages that mentioned 18 frames per second. He then said it “might have been 18 frames per second, or it “might have been a further analysis”. He wasn’t sure, which is understandable considering this was over 30 years later. When pressed by Gunn on whether he thought there was a further analysis, he said the notes overall “conform to my best recollection of what we wrote on”, referring to the yellow legal pad.

See above. There were three sheets that McMahon did not recognize. The LIFE computations sheet, the sheet with 18 FPS at the top and 16 FPS in the middle, and the sheet directly above that mentions LIFE magazine on the top left side. These are all of the sheets that have anything to do with the 12/6/1963 LIFE article, and this combined with the other disclaimers of McMahon and Hunter has great probative value and is entitled to significant evidentiary weight.

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Hunter said his memory of the entire event was “extremely fuzzy” and stressed “repeatedly” that McMahon’s memory would likely be much better than his.

When pressed on the date of the event, McMahon was not at all certain about it.

Hunter's opinion that McMahon had a good memory is one of the reasons why I suspect that after his first ARRB telephonic interview, McMahon was either advised or decided himself to throw a poison pill into the mix, deliberately sabotaging the credibility of his account. I'd like further substantiation of his dementia/alcoholism claims...

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m not saying there isn’t ambiguity here, but there is a significant, non-zero probability that McMahon and Hunter worked on the film after the Life magazine article, and misremembered the date over 30 years later. Not recognizing a few pages of notes is irrelevant with that kind of time gap, especially since there was a SS agent and possibly others involved in the timing analysis.

You are grasping at straws, Mr. Gram. There is zero evidence that the LIFE computations have anything to do with McMahon and Hunter's briefing board session, and a good deal of affirmative evidence that they don't.

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’ve read both summary reports. McMahon’s actual transcript, which you provided, reveals a lot of relevant information that was not reported by Horne in the summary report. Do we have a transcript of Hunter’s actual interview?

I'm aware of no transcript of Ben Hunter's ARRB interview, and I'd be interested in seeing specific examples from you in support of your contention that "McMahon’s actual transcript, which you provided, reveals a lot of relevant information that was not reported by Horne in the summary report."

Edited June 19 by Keven Hofeling

Denise Hazelwood · June 18

On 5/27/2024 at 11:13 AM, Pat Speer said:

People are just exploiting inconsistencies in memories and pretending these people saw two different things. It would be like your mom's friend saying she thought her bridesmaid's dress was a different color than it is in your mom's wedding photos, and you concluding that your mom must have gotten married twice.

To my understanding, Horne et al, claim 1) Brugioni saw the original unaltered Z-film, and 2) this film was altered to add a large wound to the top of the head.

But if memory serves, Brugioni said the film he saw had an explosion from the top of the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwldcYcAv4

I’m pretty sure I would remember the processing of the film of the murder of the President. In any case, the film was processed by Brugioni—the most preeminent film guy in the country—on the Friday night/Saturday morning after the assassination, with all the briefing boards, etc. Why on Earth would it need to be processed again on Sunday night/ Saturday morning—unless the second film was a different one? The second film being “un-slit” is further indication that it was a fake film. And if that was the “real” film, then why would they have waited so long to process it? (The second event’s briefing boards are the ones that are in the Archives.)

Plus there is the work of John Costella proving film alteration—not to mention the “anomalies” that I (and anyone else) can see, like the “jumping lamppost” that jumps to the opposite side of the street for a single frame, and a bunch of other stuff that I point out on my website, and I’m sure a few others that I probably missed.

All indications are that the second film was not the same one as the first film, and that the second film was an altered version. The fact that the extant film does not match witness recollections of the limousine stop is further evidence of its fake nature. It should not be trusted as evidence.

Jonathan Cohen · June 18

12 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Plus there is the work of John Costella proving film alteration—not to mention the “anomalies” that I (and anyone else) can see, like the “jumping lamppost” that jumps to the opposite side of the street for a single frame, and a bunch of other stuff that I point out on my website, and I’m sure a few others that I probably missed.

John Costella has proven nothing other than that he thinks rain sensors were tracking his movements in Dealey Plaza, and many of his other claims have been authoritatively debunked for quite some time. Anomaly spotting is no substitute for actual scientific research, which to date has not surfaced any plausible scenario by which the Zapruder film could have been altered to the degree that people claim.

Edited June 18 by Jonathan Cohen

Pat Speer · June 18

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I’m pretty sure I would remember the processing of the film of the murder of the President. In any case, the film was processed by Brugioni—the most preeminent film guy in the country—on the Friday night/Saturday morning after the assassination, with all the briefing boards, etc. Why on Earth would it need to be processed again on Sunday night/ Saturday morning—unless the second film was a different one? The second film being “un-slit” is further indication that it was a fake film. And if that was the “real” film, then why would they have waited so long to process it? (The second event’s briefing boards are the ones that are in the Archives.)

Plus there is the work of John Costella proving film alteration—not to mention the “anomalies” that I (and anyone else) can see, like the “jumping lamppost” that jumps to the opposite side of the street for a single frame, and a bunch of other stuff that I point out on my website, and I’m sure a few others that I probably missed.

All indications are that the second film was not the same one as the first film, and that the second film was an altered version. The fact that the extant film does not match witness recollections of the limousine stop is further evidence of its fake nature. It should not be trusted as evidence.

I met Costella once and believe he was briefly a member of this forum. As I recall he concluded the film was either entirely genuine or entirely fake, I.O.W. he didn't.buy into the frequent claims of others that the head shot was real but moved to a different location, or that the limo came to a complete stop and which was then removed from the film.

if you search the archives of this forum, moreover, I believe you will find posts by Costella in which he made a clear break from Horne.

So I don't think you can cite Costella as support for Horne's theories.

As far as the timeline. I haven't studied this in detail but this is what makes sense to me.

The SS asks NPIC to study their copy of the film for them.

Boards are created by Brugioni.

A few weeks later the SS becomes aware of Life's article on the shooting scenario, and asks McMahon and Hunter to check their work.

They make some notes

Now, there is nothing about any of these boards or notes to suggest they were studying a different film.

Even so, Horne thinks the whole thing smells and pieces together a scenario where Brugioni saw the film before it was altered, and McMahon and Hunter saw it the next day after it was altered.

There's huge problem with this, however. Horne claims the film was altered to add a giant explosion from the front of the skull. Well Brugioni claimed the explosion he saw on 11-22-63 was bigger and went even higher than the one on the current film.

It doesn't add up, right?

Sandy Larsen · June 18

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

There's huge problem with this, however. Horne claims the film was altered to add a giant explosion from the front of the skull. Well Brugioni claimed the explosion he saw on 11-22-63 was bigger and went even higher than the one on the current film.

It doesn't add up, right?

Well geez Pat, of course it doesn't add up when you paraphrase it with your own spin and biases added. It probably would add up if Horne explained it himself.

Tom Gram · June 19

5 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The issue with regard to the briefing board session conducted by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, it seems to me, is whether or not the timing analysis sheets based upon Paul Mandel's 12/6/1963 LIFE article were produced during their briefing board session or were produced by others unknown during some subsequent NPIC analysis of some kind.

You seem to be assuming that if any type of timing analysis was performed during McMahon and Hunter's NPIC briefing board session that such timing analysis accounts for the creation of the three full-length yellow legal pad pages of notes containing three possible 3-shot scenarios and a 16 FPS and 18 FPS timing analysis ("the LIFE computations"), and I think this assumption is unwarranted, based upon the available evidence.

The following are the references that Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter made to the analysis of the film they were involved in, and not only did neither of them mention anything even suggestive of any analysis of Paul Mandel's 12/6/1963 LIFE article, but they both denied producing or ever having seen the LIFE computations when the three full-length yellow legal pad pages of notes containing three possible 3-shot scenarios and a 16 FPS and 18 FPS timing analysis were shown to them by the ARRB.

Thus, it appears certain that a timing analysis was conducted by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter but I see nothing in the documented record to serve as justification for your conflation of the two events, and solid documented justifications for concluding that the analysis conducted by McMahon and Hunter (and apparently unnamed others) was not the same event that produced the LIFE computations, namely that they both specifically indicated they had no knowledge of the LIFE computations when asked:

From the 6/12/1997 ARRB Call Report of a telephonic interview of Homer McMahon:

-McMahon did recall the Zapruder film analysis in some detail, and confirmed ARRB's understanding that the analysis (of which frames in which shots struck occupants of the limousine) was performed at the request of the Secret Service. [Emphasis not in original]

-Prior to the production of intemegatives and color prints for briefing boards, he said he recalled an analysis "to determine where the 3 shots hit." He said he would not share the results of the analysis with us on the telephone. The film was projected as a motion picture 4 or 5 times during the analysis phase, for purposes of determining "where the 3 shots hit." [Emphasis not in original]

From the 6/17/1997 ARRB Meeting Report of the in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

...He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots," and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loupe to examine individual
frames. [Emphasis not in original]

From the 7/14/1997 ARRB Meeting Report of the in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events surrounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was a "joint process," McMahon said his opinion, which was that President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ultimately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said "you can't fight city hall," and then reminded us that his job was to produce intemnegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed the film and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings. [Emphasis not in original]

From page 4 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

McMahon (12:04): Well --- ah --- heh, heh --- well, Eastman Kodak had, had contracts with the U.S. government, and if you want to know, you can go through the CIA, they'll tell you [unclear]. OK, but he, he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he, and three other people, ah, timed the film, for the --- through observation you could tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and the slumps. We didn't know anything about any audio --- ah, it was just visual. And we timed it and determined, where the, the time between the, ah --- physically timed it, with a stopwatch --- ah, where the gunshot "hits" hit. And we, we, we, we went from, I think, maybe two frames before the first hit, and then we hit every single frame --- through, and we only, he only counted three hits, possibly four --- ah, couldn't tell, I think, when, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when, when
he [JFK] got hit the first time, and then the second time, as his head [was] going off into the angle, up, and --- [Emphasis not in original]

From page 9 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

McMahon (35:33): Ah --- now, the, the mounting on the briefing boards, and the, the
photointerpretation, so to speak --- I was not involved in, OK ---
Horne: OK 16
McMahon: --- and, I think I went home. Heh, but Smith probably went to another --- it's not even a
vaulted area, it's a finishing room upstairs.
Horne: Ah, did you and Mr. Hunter stop work at about the same time, or do you recall?
McMahon: Well, he might have stayed on and helped, but, ah, there was another chap that probably was involved in that work, and it probably was done by the other chap, not --- and I'm sure Bill Smith.... [Emphasis not in original]

From page 10 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Horne (37:13): Ah, you just mentioned another chap who may have been involved with briefing boards and photoanalysis ---
McMahon: --- and I can't recall his name ---
Horne: --- can't recall his name ---
McMahon: --- even if I could, I couldn't tell you, because he was young.
[Transcriber's note: the witness meant that because this person was a young employee in November of 1963, he might still be "current" or active, in 1997 at the time of the interview, and for that reason he would not divulge his name, even if he remembered it. The CIA culture is very protective of the names of its employees, particularly if they are operating under cover.] [Emphasis not in original]

From page 11 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Horne (40:01): Did you create, or do you recall anyone else creating, any records or notes during your work?
McMahon: I think, ah, Hunter and I did the only records of the work, and I think it was on, a, either a yellow, or a ah, a ah --- [chuckling] add something to this ---
Horne: You, you just put your hand on a yellow legal pad ---
McMahon: Yeah, it was on a legal type pad, unless it was recorded on --- we made our own, ah, marks on some of the --- to keep the --- but I did not put any classification or any[thing] of that nature--- I didn't put any control, no classification or control on any of the documents. Normally that's required before you could leave the vault; it has to be controlled with a Top Secret cover sheet. I did not do that. Now, after the briefing board is made from the material, then that classification precedes the classification of, in the [unclear] cover sheets. We made briefing boards,
teleprompters, and view graphs, as --- for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.
Horne: For other types of work --- ah, routine --- but for this job you, you recall that you may have made notes on a yellow legal pad ---
McMahon (41:35): Now, I 'm sure that this did --- I'm sure that this did not go to the Intelligence Community --- it was not part of the CIA --- it was not --- this was [done on] a, a "need-to know" basis, and it was used by whoever brought it in [chuckling] for, for either the Warren Commission, or to brief somebody else.

From page 12 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Gunn: Ah, yes. Ah, this goes back to something you said, ah, early on in the interview, where, ah, a couple of things, where you said, as I recall, ah: "He had --- he took three hits, possibly four." And it wasn't clear to me whether the "he" was Kennedy, or included Connally. Did, did you reach a conclusion as to the number of hits 20 that you thought President Kennedy had [unclear --- several words too indistinct to be made out]?
McMahon (45:13): Ah, my guess was 6 or 8, but the, the consensus of opinion was 2 or 3.
Gunn: Hits on Kennedy?
McMahon: Yeah. Connally, they said it hit Kennedy and then went into Connally --- ricocheted.
Horne: Did they say that that night? Or is this ---
McMahon: That, that, that was the --- we, we were just trying to, to get where all the shots of action ---and covered frames from both ends of it....

From page 16 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Gunn (13:18): So, what was it that you observed on the film of the assassination? 26
Horne: Your opinion.
McMahon: About eight (8) shots.
Gunn: And where did they come from?
McMahon: Three different directions, at least.
Gunn: Do you remember where --- what the directions were?
McMahon: No; but if you have the film --- you can plot vectors. Because you, you can go out --- I'm a photogrammetrist, as well [chuckling] --- [you] go out --- with a --- OK, there's a way to do it, believe me.
Gunn: Were you ever asked to do any of that kind of analysis on the ---
McMahon: No, no.
Gunn: Did you say this at the time that you were looking at the film with the others?
McMahon: I wasn't a photogrammatrist at that time [chuckling].
Gunn: No, I understand, but if --- when --- when you ---
McMahon: I later, I later worked for Photoscience. This was a photogrammetry [job] --- I was a, a, a [sic] aerial photographer, and I, I did aerial photography for, ah, whatever you want to call it, for mapping, for first, second, [and] third order, ah, survey; and I did that for about twelve years.
McMahon (14:38): And --- now, I was a shooter, and that's the only reason I can tell you what I saw, and thought I saw; and it wasn't stereo-vision, it was just intuition. No, I did not agree with the analysis at the time that I was doing the work; but that --- I didn't have to, because I wasn't a photogrammetrist [chuckling], I wasn't, I wasn't asked to do that.

Yes, the following is suggestive that there were issues involving the involvement in the analysis of individuals whose identities were still classified at the time of the ARRB in-person interview of McMahon. Something that goes with the landscape involved, the CIA, and spooks, and all that...

From page 10 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Horne (37:13): Ah, you just mentioned another chap who may have been involved with briefing boards and photoanalysis ---
McMahon: --- and I can't recall his name ---
Horne: --- can't recall his name ---
McMahon: --- even if I could, I couldn't tell you, because he was young.
[Transcriber's note: the witness meant that because this person was a young employee in November of 1963, he might still be "current" or active, in 1997 at the time of the interview, and for that reason he would not divulge his name, even if he remembered it. The CIA culture is very protective of the names of its employees, particularly if they are operating under cover.] [Emphasis not in original]

I've seen no indication that the ARRB ever learned the identities of the three NPIC employees you've referenced, and Ben Hunter in fact did indicate that he was assigned to "analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots," and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants," and Homer McMahon told the ARRB that he left the facility earlier than Hunter, that Hunter "might have stayed on and helped" with the analysis, and that both he and Hunter recorded calculations on a yellow legal pad (though McMahon and Hunter both denied having any knowledge of the pages containing the LIFE computations):

From the 6/17/1997 ARRB Meeting Report of the in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

...He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots," and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loupe to examine individual
frames. [Emphasis not in original]

From page 9 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

McMahon (35:33): Ah --- now, the, the mounting on the briefing boards, and the, the
photointerpretation, so to speak --- I was not involved in, OK ---
Horne: OK 16
McMahon: --- and, I think I went home. Heh, but Smith probably went to another --- it's not even a vaulted area, it's a finishing room upstairs.
Horne: Ah, did you and Mr. Hunter stop work at about the same time, or do you recall?
McMahon: Well, he might have stayed on and helped, but, ah, there was another chap that probably was involved in that work, and it probably was done by the other chap, not --- and I'm sure Bill Smith.... [Emphasis not in original]

But when asked, Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon both did not recognize the three legal pad pages of timing analysis data that are arguably associated with the 12/6/1963 LIFE article. I don't see how you can justify just ignoring this fact:

From page 3 of the Meeting Report of the 6/17/1997 in-person interview of Ben Hunter:

-He did not recognize any of the other pages in the NPIC working notes, nor did he think that such activity (e.g., 3 different shot scenarios, and calculation of seconds between shots at two different camera speeds) took place during the night he and Mr. McMahon performed their work. He was of the belief that the activity described in the NPIC working notes occurred during a second event at NPIC, one which occurred after the work done by he and Mr. McMahon. [Emphasis not in original]

From page 2 of the Meeting Report of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon:

Toward the end of the interview, McMahon was shown the NPIC working notes and the surviving briefing board (there are four panels), which are both in the JFK Collection in flat # 90A.
NPIC Working Notes: McMahon recognized the half-sized sheet of yellow legal paper containing a handwritten description of briefing board panel contents, and on its reverse side containing a description of the work performed that night and how long each step took, as being written in his own handwriting (and partially in Ben Hunter's). He said that three other full-length yellow legal pad pages of notes (containing three possible 3-shot scenarios, a 16 FPS and 18 FPS timing analysis, and additional timing computations) were not in his handwriting, and were not made by him or previously seen by him. [Emphasis not in original]

From pages 18-20 of the transcript of the 7/14/1997 in-person interview of Homer McMahon, with images of the documents being discussed:

Horne (22:39): OK, we're back on the record. And from Record Group 233, Flat 90A, at the Archives, I have pulled out, ah, document ID number 1993.07.22.08:41:07:620600, titled "Analysis of Zapruder Film." Ah, the document date on the RIF [Record Identification Form] is 5-22-1975; and I'm now going to hand these, ah, notes to Mr. McMahon and let him read them and tell us whether he's seen them before. Please take your time.

McMahon (24:35): [Witness examines documents for a considerable period of time --- a total of five pages, with one page a half-sheet, having writing on both sides.] Some of the writing is mine; I don't know whose this is.
Horne: And by "this" --- ah, this page here, sir?
McMahon: I don't know whose that is.
Horne: OK, the page that we're not sure about is the page with 3 shot scenarios --- ah, one, one [shot scenario] is labeled: "LIFE magazine," and then the [other] two [are labeled] "other possibilities," OK.
McMahon: This is my writing.

Horne: OK, the one that Mr. McMahon has identified as his writing is on the back side of a half-

- 18 -

page, and the back side reads: "shoot internegatives, one-and-a-half hours; process and dry internegatives, two hours; print test, one hour; make three prints," [it] looks like, the 'each' sign [that is, the symbol "@" follows the phrase "make three prints," and precedes the time duration of "one hour; process and dry prints, one-and-a-half hours;" for a total of "seven hours."
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Below that, there are some --- that's in pencil /meaning the time duration for the creation of internegatives and prints discussed above] --- below that there are some blue ink, ah, long divisions and additions.
McMahon: This is my writing.
Horne: And those [the arithmetic calculations in blue ink] are also your writing?
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Also the pencil?
McMahon: Yes.
Horne: OK, could you explain what that --- well, what are the long divisions and additions, do you recall what those are?
McMahon: [Sighing] Idiot marks --- I don't know what they --- it's my writing, I think.
Horne: OK
McMahon: No, wait --- wait a minute --- I think it's my --- it's either mine or Ben's.
Horne: OK
McMahon: And, have you got Ben's handwriting?
Horne: I, I can show you one section on these notes that he recalled was his handwriting, ah, if you'd like, and then I can ask you that ---
McMahon: This --- this looks like Ben's handwriting, here.

Horne: OK, and now you are looking at the other side of the half-sheet ---
McMahon: This looks like my writing here ---

Horne: --- OK, the other side of the half-sheet, which is a description of the four (4) briefing board panels, and when you said it looked like Ben's writing you were pointing at the, the pencil: "Panel I, Panel II, Panel III, Panel IV."
[Transcriber's note: these are column headers on the short half-sheet; and below each column header there are two sub-columns, listing print numbers, and corresponding frame numbers, for the prints mounted on each briefing board panel.]
McMahon: Yeah.
Horne: Ben identified for us, right below that, ah, the printing: "print #" and "frame #" --- these, these two marks here are the only two that he thought were his writing, right here, in [pointing] --- which are underneath the column labeled "Panel I."
McMahon (27:01): Mmm-hmmm. This is in --- this looks like Ben's writing, to what I ... [now, suddenly focusing on the bottom of the half-sheet] this looks like my writing.

Horne: And your writing, ah, would be, ah, at the bottom of the half page, where we're, we're talking about frame numbers and time between shots.
[Transcriber's note: the writing referred to here is found at the bottom of the front of the half-sheet, the side containing the content descriptions for the four briefing board panels.]

- 19 -

McMahon: This is --- yeah --- and, I'm not sure about this --- this looks like mine, and this looks like mine.

Horne: OK, so the, ah ---
McMahon: Ah ---
Horne (27:33): --- just for the record, the descriptions of how long it took to make internegatives and prints are Mr. McMahon's writing.
McMahon (27:54): This is not mine.

Horne: OK, Mr. McMahon is now looking at the page, ah, [wherein] the top half says, "at 18 frames per second;" the bottom half [reads] "at 16 frames per second;" and he has just said that ---
McMahon: This is not mine.
Horne: --- that is not his writing.
McMahon: OK, and, this is not my writing --- and now, that might have been Ben Hunter's writing.

Horne: This next page that is not Mr. McMahon's writing is a page which, in the upper right-hand corner, reads: "Questions from the 8 mm film --- how do they know exact frames of first and second shot?" Question ---
McMahon: OK, we didn't know --- we were told what they thought they were; and this is what we were told they thought they were; and this is what we concluded they were; and this is what we set the photography team [unclear]. Ah [that's the] best I can do for ya.
Gunn (28:57): Do you remember when you prepared the notes that we just examined?
McMahon: Yeah, we were in a briefing room, ah, in building 213 in the Navy Yard. And, it was --- we were viewing it there because of the equipment.
Gunn: So they --- these were made on the day then that you --- [were] processing ---
McMahon: Yes, this is when we --- these are fairly accurate timing shots --- tim -- -the way that, that it, that we timed it. The 16 frames per second --- I, I don't know whether I agree on the 18 --- it might have been 18 frames per second. This might have been a further analysis.
Gunn: Do you know whether somebody else was preparing other notes that you don't recognize, at that time, or were they made later [unclear]?
McMahon: Ah, they, they conform to my best recollection of, of what we wrote on, that's all I know. I don't know why I remembered that.
Horne: By that you mean the yellow, legal-sized paper?
McMahon: Yeah.

See above. There were three sheets that McMahon did not recognize. The LIFE computations sheet, the sheet with 18 FPS at the top and 16 FPS in the middle, and the sheet directly above that mentions LIFE magazine on the top left side. These are all of the sheets that have anything to do with the 12/6/1963 LIFE article, and this combined with the other disclaimers of McMahon and Hunter has great probative value and is entitled to significant evidentiary weight.

Hunter's opinion that McMahon had a good memory is one of the reasons why I suspect that after his first ARRB telephonic interview, McMahon was either advised or decided himself to throw a poison pill into the mix, deliberately sabotaging the credibility of his account. I'd like further substantiation of his dementia/alcoholism claims...

You are grasping at straws, Mr. Gram. There is zero evidence that the LIFE computations have anything to do with McMahon and Hunter's briefing board session, and a good deal of affirmative evidence that they don't.

I'm aware of no transcript of Ben Hunter's ARRB interview, and I'd be interested in seeing specific examples from you in support of your contention that "McMahon’s actual transcript, which you provided, reveals a lot of relevant information that was not reported by Horne in the summary report."

There are five total pages of timing analysis notes, all on yellow legal pad, correct?

It is not disputed that the following page was part of the analysis performed by McMahon’s team, since both Hunter and McMahon identified their handwriting on that page. That makes sense, since this page lists the frame numbers used to prepare the four briefing boards.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=9

Now look at the page that says “based on 18fps as reported in Life magazine”. Take a look at the left hand column. Notice that the frame numbers are split into four sections with horizontal lines. Now, compare the frame numbers in that column to the frame numbers listed on the previous page for the briefing boards.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31994#relPageId=11

Does it really make sense in that the Z-film came in a so-called third time to NPIC, and a totally different team used the film to conduct a second timing analysis using exact same set of briefing boards, and took their notes on the same yellow legal pad?

I guess it’s not impossible, but I’d like to see some evidence for that. What does make sense is there was one timing analysis, and the notes McMahon and Hunter didn’t recognize were either prepared by the SS agent, someone else in the briefing room, or they just forgot 30+ years later. There are also longhand calculations on the three disputed pages that look almost identical to the calculations on the two pages identified by Hunter and McMahon.

Edited June 19 by Tom Gram

Pat Speer · June 19

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well geez Pat, of course it doesn't add up when you paraphrase it with your own spin and biases added. It probably would add up if Horne explained it himself.

I'm not being smarmy. I really don't know Horne's explanation for this, or if he even has one.

If you are aware of his explanation, I would appreciate your sharing it with us.

Keven Hofeling · June 19

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm not being smarmy. I really don't know Horne's explanation for this, or if he even has one.

If you are aware of his explanation, I would appreciate your sharing it with us.

@Pat Speer

If you are talking about your notion that Dino Brugioni claimed that the head shot plume that he remembers is somehow associated with the top of JFK's head, the answer is that you are getting that from a very brief and ambiguous upward gesture Brugioni made with his hand above his head during his interview by Horne. At the time of the gesture, Brugioni was saying that there was more to the plume than can be seen today, and that it went higher in the air. Somehow your mind has twisted this into meaning that Brugioni was talking about an explosion on the top of JFK's head, but other than the ambiguous hand gesture, Brugioni never communicated what you keep asserting that he did.

The following is the abbreviated version of Horne's take on the two events at NPIC, and on Dino Brugioni. It is long and comprehensive, but much shorter than the chapters he devotes to the matter in Volume IV of his book...

"The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne

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

Edited June 19 by Keven Hofeling

Denise Hazelwood · June 19

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

John Costella has proven nothing other than that he thinks rain sensors were tracking his movements in Dealey Plaza, and many of his other claims have been authoritatively debunked for quite some time. Anomaly spotting is no substitute for actual scientific research, which to date has not surfaced any plausible scenario by which the Zapruder film could have been altered to the degree that people claim.

I'm not interested in his "rain sensors" stories, but in his Zapruder film work. If you have information to "authoritatively debunk" his optical analysis, please post it, as I would like to see it. Anomaly spotting is something that I have personally argued with Costella about. He considered at one time many of the "anomalies" to be the product of "motion blur" or some such. He used to say that "most" of the Zapruder film was "genuine" (by which I think he meant that he couldn't personally "prove" alteration beyond his enumerated proofs, not as an authoritative statement that most of it was unaltered). He seems to have changed his tune, because that statement that "most" of the film is "genuine" no longer appears on his website. Instead, he says that the whole thing is altered. I take Costella to be extremely cautious about asserting alteration, but has finally come to realize that the whole thing is unreliable. He does not discuss what changed his mind, however. (I like to think it was my phone call with him.)

Anomaly spotting does contribute to the body of knowledge of alteration. The "jumping lamp post"? Or "Zombie JFK Rising from the Dead"? Or JFK's left arm being too long as it rises into the "chest-grab"? Or the impossibly fast head turns and body repositioning? I call these "anomalies," but they are all indicators of alteration.

Keven Hofeling · June 19

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I met Costella once and believe he was briefly a member of this forum. As I recall he concluded the film was either entirely genuine or entirely fake, I.O.W. he didn't.buy into the frequent claims of others that the head shot was real but moved to a different location, or that the limo came to a complete stop and which was then removed from the film.

if you search the archives of this forum, moreover, I believe you will find posts by Costella in which he made a clear break from Horne.

So I don't think you can cite Costella as support for Horne's theories.

Yes, @John Costella is a member of this forum, but hasn't posted for a number of years, and he did post a review critical of Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board which seemed to focus primarily upon issues related to the fact that the five volumes were self-published, but as you will see below, Costella continued to agree with Horne on certain matters concerning the alteration of the Zapruder film.

But you are really setting up an enormous straw man fallacy when you insinuate that anyone who suspects that photographic evidence related to the JFKA is doing so just to support "Horne's theories." For example, I had serious suspicions about the autopsy photographs and the Zapruder film in the early 80's before I had ever heard of Doug Horne, and when Horne started putting out information to the research community in the 1990's about the work of the ARRB, and especially after he published his books in 2009, he filled in many gaps in my understanding about the medical evidence and Zapruder film photographic forgery, but it was not because he had presented me with theories that he had made up, but because he brought to my attention new evidence that had been heretofore unknown to me, such as the Tom Robinson and Ed Reed interviews, and the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter. Horne did not make up these interviews and associated evidence, and his interpretations of same, though imperfect in some minor instances, do not constitute deviations from the evidence he is interpreting. Horne has done a great service to the research community, and it is perhaps for that reason that he has become such a lightning rod for lone nutters and hybrid lone nutters like yourself.

Having said that, I can't recall ever seeing Denise post accolades for Doug Horne, and that your lens translates any mention of any researcher who has concluded that some of the JFKA photographic evidence is fraudulent as meaning that they are doing nothing other but supporting "Horne's theories" just serves to further reveal formidable bias and resentment on your part (perhaps best exemplified by your very recent ridiculous musings that anybody who disagrees with your methods and interpretations is engaged in a conspiracy against you on behalf of Doug Horne and/or Dr. David Mantik). You wear your resentments like a scarlet letter, and that is plain for all to see.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As far as the timeline. I haven't studied this in detail but this is what makes sense to me.

The SS asks NPIC to study their copy of the film for them.

Boards are created by Brugioni.

A few weeks later the SS becomes aware of Life's article on the shooting scenario, and asks McMahon and Hunter to check their work.

They make some notes

Now, there is nothing about any of these boards or notes to suggest they were studying a different film.

As for when the LIFE computation notes were made, that's a complete mystery, as there is nothing in that page or the couple of pages with similar data that provides us with a date. But what we do know is that McMahon and Hunter both said they did not produce and had never seen those pages before when asked by the ARRB.

When this same controversy was being discussed on this forum over fourteen years ago, John Costella weighed in with his belief that the LIFE computations were made some time after Paul Mandel's 12/6/1963 article in LIFE in an effort to try to figure out how Mandel came to the conclusions that he did (recall that the 12/6/1963 article was a propaganda piece apparently calculated to sell the Oswald scenario, blatantly misrepresenting the Parkland evidence, and claiming that Kennedy had been shot in the throat while turned around and waiving to the crowd). Costella, in my view, has the most plausible explanation.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15387-arrb-interview-homer-mcmahon/?do=findComment&comment=183378

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, there is nothing about any of these boards or notes to suggest they were studying a different film.

Except that McMahon and Hunter specifically disclaimed producing or having ever seen the three pages of notes you wish to rely upon for setting the date of the second briefing board session beyond 12/6/1963, as shown in the following: