The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Chris Davidson]

On 7/13/2024 at 9:19 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Surely there is and surely they were:

Summary
To achieve the result of changing the apparent speed of the car from      mph to    mph,       is the primary technique you would use. The        method mainly affects the appearance of       and does not significantly impact the      speed of the      . Therefore, the change in       between the       and the        from your original result is primarily due to       , not the        method.

What you see is not what you're getting.

 

 

It's easier to prove alteration using the above with other methods.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

I never said the logical inferences I draw *from evidence* are inevitable consequences!

Indeed. The point is that if Roger is presenting those logical inferences as proof that the Zapruder film was at NPIC on the Saturday evening, one of two things needs to happen:

1. either those inferences do need to be the inevitable consequences of his premises,
2. or he needs to support those inferences with actual evidence.

Roger admits that option one doesn't apply here. He now needs to provide some actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, his claim that the original Zapruder film was taken to NPIC is speculation.

Quote

Jackson "got hold of" the original film when Life bought rights to it Saturday morning.  Only you would try to claim this is speculation that needs proof.

We have documentary evidence that Jackson got hold of the film on behalf of Life. We have no documentary evidence that he got hold of it on behalf of the CIA. Roger is claiming that Jackson did get hold of it on behalf of the CIA. He needs to support this claim with documentary evidence. Otherwise, it is just speculation.

Quote

That the CIA had the means to transport the film to its NPIC lab is a fact.  Dispute that if you want, but while you're at it explain how anyone else but the CIA had access to either of its labs.

Having the means to transport the film is very much not the same thing as actually transporting the film. If Roger is claiming that the CIA got hold of the film in Chicago and flew it to Washington, he needs to provide actual documentary evidence that this happened. Otherwise, it is just speculation.

And before Roger claims that the CIA would have destroyed all of its internal memos, has he searched for other forms of relevant evidence? For example: interviews with Life's people in Chicago, in case someone happened to have disclosed information suggesting that the original film was given to a man wearing a dark suit and sunglasses who was not an employee of Life? What about internal documentation from Life concerning events on the Saturday evening? Or airport records? If Roger has searched for evidence like this, what did he find? If he hasn't bothered to look, why has he not bothered to look?

As for "explain[ing] how anyone else but the CIA had access to either of its labs", Chris Scally posted evidence earlier that the Secret Service lacked the facilities to examine films and would have asked the CIA to make use of their facilities. The actual evidence we have suggests that the Secret Service took their first-day copy to the CIA's NPIC facility for examination. There is no actual evidence, apart from decades-old recollections, that the original film was anywhere near NPIC that weekend.

Quote

Yes, we agree, the murder was not set up show it was done done by a lone nut. ... Incredibly, you now use that fact to argue that therefore the planners would have had *no reason* to alter the Z film.  Which recorded what actually happened.

Roger keeps making the same faulty assumption: that "the planners" wanted to alter the film because it contradicted the lone-nut story. He still doesn't seem to have grasped the point I made, namely that the circumstances of the assassination indicate that "the planners" would not have been concerned that any of the photographic evidence might contradict the lone-nut story.

If, as appears to be the case, the assassination was set up to look like a conspiracy, "the planners" must have wanted it to look like a conspiracy. Photographic evidence which supported that interpretation would have been welcomed by "the planners". They would have had no reason to alter any of it.

Quote

You have given the precise reason why something had to be done with the Z film:  to deal with the glaring discrepancy between what the film showed actually happened and what their Oswald story claimed.

Something was done with it! The original, unaltered film was largely hidden from public view for over a decade!

Edited 5 hours ago by Jeremy Bojczuk
Added some emphasis, for clarity

[Keven Hofeling]

On 7/11/2024 at 9:05 AM, Keven Hofeling said:

We know for a fact that the CIA's NPIC operative, Ben Hunter, during his 6-17-1997 ARRB interview, corroborated Homer McMahon's memory of the presence of a Secret Service Agent at NPIC with the Zapruder film during the weekend of the assassination:

Mr. Cohen:

Given that you have clearly been closely following the posts on this thread -- albeit with insubstantial responses of a distinctly cynical and unproductive nature -- and therefore were unlikely to have missed the following highlighted 6/26/1997 Call Report documenting Ben Hunter's amendment to his 6/17/1997 ARRB interview that I posted on 6/17/2024 [https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30511-the-zapruder-film-and-npichawkeyeworks-mysteries/?do=findComment&comment=539260] (stating that he recalled that the Zapruder film was in fact delivered to the CIA's NPIC by the Secret Service for the briefing board session he participated in on the weekend of the assassination), the question of why you have disregarded the significance of this supplemental testimony naturally arises, and I suspect the same is true for most everybody else here.

In case you somehow missed it, this appears to me to be clear corroboration of Homer McMahon's account of the Secret Service delivering the film to NPIC and supervising the briefing board session...

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I know you hadn't accused Brugioni of lying.  You have said what you're saying again here--Brugioni's age and memory mean he is not a credible source.  But that's a general statement that lacks specifics that the reader needs to judge its accuracy.  Brugioni provided a lot for information about that weekend.  Is any of it credible to you? For what exactly is he not a credible source?

Let's start with the basics. On Saturday, CIA director John McCone contacted Art Lundahl, head of NPIC, and ordered him to do briefing boards for him, not the SS, using the Z film.

Brugioni was NPIC's preeminent photo analyst.  A year earlier he had worked on the pictures of the missiles in Cuba that led to the missile crisis.  He later wrote a book about that, Eyeball to Eyeball.  Another of his books: Photo Fakery, a history.

He was the natural choice to do the boards and Lundahl asked him to head up a crew.

Brugioni knew both McMahon and Sands.  Hunter was a new employee.  He had been there about 2 weeks.

Brugioni did *not* misremember whether McMahon and Sands were there with him Saturday night. He was not unclear about that.  Horne asked him directly whether either man was there.  He said no. 

When Horne showed him the briefing boards and accompanying notes now at NARA, he said that was not his work.  His boards were configured differently; he wrote different notes. That establishes that there were indeed two different sets of boards done at NPIC that a weekend.

Unless Brugioni was lying.  Can you make that case?  It seems you have to in order to claim only one set of boards was done.

Brugioni said when the boards he worked on were finished early Sunday morning Lundahl came by and took them to brief McCone.  McCone then used them to brief Johnson.  That's who the boards were made for, not the SS.  Can you make the case that that's wrong; he was lying about that too?  That the boards were, for some reason, made for the SS as you.re now claiming, not the federal officials investigating the murder? 

Here is your counterclaim:  "During the Rockefeller Commission, it came out that the NPIC analysis was done on behalf of the Secret Service. One set of briefing boards was retained by McCone, and the other set went to the customer, the Secret Service." 

I don't know if at some point the SS got a copy of the boards.  It doesn't matter.  It was the top federal officials who were responsible for investigating the murder who ordered the boards and who were briefed using them.  Unless Brugioni is lying about that.

There comes a point when a person has offered so much detail, and I've only mention some of it from Brugioni, that it is no longer possible to claim "misremembering". 

I'm surprised you still think the fact that *both* couriers who delivered the film to NPIC said they worked for SS means anything.  Neither Brugioni nor McMahon had a need to know anything beyond what the task was they were supposed to perform.  McMahon said "Bill Smith" never even used the words Zapruder film to him.  The claim that the couriers were SS agents was the CIA's boilerplate compartmentalization.

It fit with the cover story, believed for decades, that original film went only to Life in Chicago to make stills for their magazine.  Made plausible by the fact that the SS had a copy right there in DC that could have been used for the boards.  Plausible, that is, as long as you didn't start thinking about why the federal investigators, who had a much more important use for the film original than Life, wouldn't have wanted to use the original for their purposes.  National security.  

Btw, are you or Jeremy ever going to discuss the point about resolving the different uses for the original film,  instead of asking where is the CIA memo that shows the point ever came up.

Janney did 6-8 interviews with Brugioni, that I don't think were recorded, before telling Horne about what Brugioni said.  Horne recorded several Brugioni interviews.  Here is a basic one.  Do I understand you to say you haven't seen this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsA 

My point is, and was, if you pursue your present view that McMahon did his boards on Saturday with the idea that Brugioni was there too (or even if he wasn't), and only one set of boards was done that weekend, you are inevitably going to have to claim the Bruigioni was lying.  Not about a few details but virtually everything important.

Btw, we're not in a courtroom.  I have previously posted the dictionary definition of evidence applicable here (you may have missed it):  "data on which a judgement or conclusion may be based, or by which proof or probability may be established". 

*All* such information can be evidence.  You'll notice the absence of "documentary" as a modifier.  Repeatedly calling for documentary evidence was your illegitimate way to shrink what you would accept to counter your claims, and expand what you could call "speculation".  More than once you and Jeremy  claimed everything I said was speculation. 

 

The Janney interviews were recorded, supposedly “on MP3”. I believe that comes from Horne himself. We also know the interviews were recorded because audio clips of Janney and Brugioni play during the O’Sullivan film. Horne also includes a few direct quotes in his summaries. 

The video you posted isn’t working for me. It says it was taken down. If it is a full uncut interview with Brugioni, I am interested in seeing it. The Janney interviews are more important for judging Brugioni’s credibility than anything with Horne though. 

Your claim that one must assume Brugioni was lying for there to have been only one NPIC event is absurd. By Brugioni’s own account, he couldn’t remember at least 75% of the people at NPIC that night, including “3 or 4” in the color lab. I’ll ask again: do you really think Brugioni could perfectly recall who wasn’t at NPIC that night but completely forget who actually was? This was almost 50 years later. 

If I recall, the main things Brugioni didn’t recognize about the NARA briefing boards were some notations like arrows and frame numbers. He also thought there might’ve been some additional prints. Some of those things could’ve been added later, some he could’ve just forgot. This was almost 50 years later. 

Brugioni said that during the Rockefeller Commission, he mentioned to his supervisor that he still had the briefing boards in storage. He was subsequently ordered to send the boards to the Director’s office, which he did. He was not told to destroy or “get rid of them”. 

In the Hoch memo addendum, the CIA told the Rockefeller Commission that the briefing boards had been removed from storage and were available upon request. 

That’s quite a coincidence. Is it possible that Brugioni himself was one of the sources for the Hoch memo addendum by tipping off/reminding CIA brass of additional agency involvement with the Zapruder film? I don’t think it can be ruled out. Sands’ ROCKCOM deposition would likely answer some questions, if we can ever find it.

Basically, the only requirement for there to have been a single briefing board event at NPIC is for Brugioni to have misremembered a few details 46-48 years later. That is highly likely, considering that Brugioni’s own statements suggest he misremembered major details of the event, like 75% of the total attendees. 

The key word in your definition for evidence is the word “data”. All I’ve been asking for is some actual data. Saying that the CIA had a better reason for using the Zapruder film than Life, and therefore they must have conspired with CD Jackson to obtain the original film is not data. Claiming the Secret Service agents at NPIC were really undercover CIA agents, and that the CIA maintained the cover 12 years later and lied to the Rockefeller Commission when they could have just said nothing at all is not data. Claiming the CIA had planes, and therefore they must have scooped up the original Z-film in Chicago and flown it to NPIC is not data. 

Without any supporting evidence i.e. “data”, those assumptions are pure speculation. We are not in a courtroom, but unless you can produce some actual evidence to support your theories, the Horne Z-film alteration narrative is essentially a dead end. There is a reason the Horne narrative is not widely accepted by WC critics. As demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, the evidence is very flimsy and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

I am open to evidence-based arguments for alteration. I’ve even found some solid leads. However, the evidence presented so far strongly suggests that the Hoch addendum is accurate, and that the film brought to NPIC on behalf of the SS was the first day copy the SS brought to Washington on the 23rd. 

I would be interested in finding out if the SS was ever asked about the NPIC event. I can’t imagine the ARRB wouldn’t have asked about it, but I’ve never seen anything like that. This is an example of some actual evidence that is worth looking for. 

We have corroborating reports that the Z-film was flown to New York on either the 23rd or 24th and shown to Life executives including CD Jackson. The copies made in Chicago were in black and white. I’m not sure about the so-called “dirty dupe”. I could use your same logic and say something like: “do you really think CD Jackson would settle for a black and white or “dirty” copy when making a purchasing decision on the most important film of the 20th century?”, but I’d prefer to see some evidence regarding the Z-film in New York that weekend. This is another example of some actual evidence that is worth looking for. 

Capt. Pierre Sands appears to have given a deposition to the Rockefeller Commission prior to 5/27/75 where he discussed the NPIC analysis. This is another example of some actual evidence that is definitely worth looking for. 

Edited 18 minutes ago by Tom Gram