The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Kevin Balch]

On 7/24/2024 at 11:54 AM, Roger Odisio said:

Control the autopsy that would reveal what actually happened.  Dr. Rose could not be allowed to get his hands on the body.

Many of the “mysterious deaths” happened in Dallas. Dr. Rose would have at least reviewed if not conducted the autopsies. Did ‘“they” get to him?

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 7/25/2024 at 12:36 AM, Kevin Balch said:

If Brugioni saw a camera original or a first generation copy on Saturday night, why didn’t he see the (supposed) limo stop?

If Zapruder filmed all or parts of the motorcade at 48 frames per second, why wasn’t this noted when the film was projected in Dallas or at NPIC on Saturday night?

If the film was altered, what is the explanation of the (supposed) correlation of the timing of the four shots from the acoustics evidence with the Zapruder film?

All great questions, Kevin. They reveal the massive alteration theory to be a house of cards.

[Kevin Balch]

On 7/27/2024 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

All great questions, Kevin. They reveal the massive alteration theory to be a house of cards.

My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences. I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing for an independent assessment or there was some kind of bureaucratic rivalry from another agency that had a borrowed copy and wanted their own. Maybe the second team’s film was copied at the commercial side of Kodak in Rochester “walked through” by Kodak employees at Bridgehead that had security clearances. Who ever had the film that was copied might not have wanted to risk having it developed by a local commercial printer for security concerns. Neither NPIC nor Bridgehead had the capability to process 8 mm movie film. It could have been Lundahl himself that ordered the second evaluation.

McMahon is not the most reliable witness as he apparently had substance abuse problems and admitted to the ARRB interviewers that his head wasn’t all there it’s possible that the second team didn’t examine the film until much later.. That is ignored by the alterationists.

I’m surprised the alterationists don’t give consideration to the Air Force’s Lookout Mountain facility in Los Angeles which not only did classified film work but also had animators on their staff.

 

And if you really want to go into a rabbit hole, consider that this location is right next to Laurel Canyon, the setting for Dave McGowin’s Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon about the connections between 1960s rock and roll musicians and the psychological warfare campaign of the US military.

[Matt Cloud]

12 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

"Neither NPIC nor Bridgehead had the capability to process 8 mm movie film."

 

What about the (more secret) A&OD Lincoln Plant?  121 Lincoln Avenue, separate from Bridgehead.

 

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/121921/F-2021-00017_C05132258.pdf (THE USE OF COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM MAY 1971 Report of the NRO Color Task Force Submitted to the Deputy Director, National Reconnaissance Office)

 

pp. 64-65.

"The space problems at Bridgehead are similar to those at AFSPPF. There is no space within the existing facility for significant color capability. The current color processing/reproduction capability is not located at Bridgehead, but at the Lincoln Plant. While there is space at Lincoln for expansion of the color capabilities, this is impractical as:

a. The building does not belong to the National Reconnaissance Office, but to the Navy. Each year there are questions as to whether or not the Navy is going to dispose of the building and force a move.

b. The interior of the building is made of timber and cannot hold any additional equipment loading without a serious possibility that the floors would collapse.

The problems are further complicated by the fact that very little, if any, of the current color processing equipment is really suitable. The two "production" color processors at the Lincoln Plant, the Grafton and the Ragdoll, are augmented by two 1411 Versamats and one 1811 Versamat on loan from the USAF. The Grafton is an original and duplicate color processing machine, while the Ragdoll is for processing duplicates only. Both pieces of equipment have been constructed of scrap parts and leftovers from discarded and/or obsolete black/white equipment. They are only marginally adequate for the current limited color test program and are subject to failure at any time.

To provide for the handling of significant amounts of color film, a new generation of film processors will be needed. Indeed, new processors may be needed just to carry out a limited experimental program. Fortunately, much of the printing equipment currently on hand for black/white is also usable tor color."

Edited 14 hours ago by Matt Cloud

[Kevin Balch]

47 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

What about the (more secret) A&OD Lincoln Plant?  121 Lincoln Avenue, separate from Bridgehead.

 

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/121921/F-2021-00017_C05132258.pdf (THE USE OF COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM MAY 1971 Report of the NRO Color Task Force Submitted to the Deputy Director, National Reconnaissance Office)

 

pp. 64-65.

"The space problems at Bridgehead are similar to those at AFSPPF. There is no space within the existing facility for significant color capability. The current color processing/reproduction capability is not located at Bridgehead, but at the Lincoln Plant. While there is space at Lincoln for expansion of the color capabilities, this is impractical as:

a. The building does not belong to the National Reconnaissance Office, but to the Navy. Each year there are questions as to whether or not the Navy is going to dispose of the building and force a move.

b. The interior of the building is made of timber and cannot hold any additional equipment loading without a serious possibility that the floors would collapse.

The problems are further complicated by the fact that very little, if any, of the current color processing equipment is really suitable. The two "production" color processors at the Lincoln Plant, the Grafton and the Ragdoll, are augmented by two 1411 Versamats and one 1811 Versamat on loan from the USAF. The Grafton is an original and duplicate color processing machine, while the Ragdoll is for processing duplicates only. Both pieces of equipment have been constructed of scrap parts and leftovers from discarded and/or obsolete black/white equipment. They are only marginally adequate for the current limited color test program and are subject to failure at any time.

To provide for the handling of significant amounts of color film, a new generation of film processors will be needed. Indeed, new processors may be needed just to carry out a limited experimental program. Fortunately, much of the printing equipment currently on hand for black/white is also usable tor color."

This report is from 1971. Interesting find.

Page 102 from this source lists the color processing equipment capabilities and the dates used.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead Eastman Kodak Company.pdf?ver=2019-03-29-1031353-233&timestamp=1553870223588

The 1971 report discusses both “Ragdoll” and “Grafton”. Both are described as being “… constructed of scrap parts and leftovers from discarded and/or obsolete black and white equipment. They are only marginally adequate for the limited color test program and are subject to failure at any time.” Only Ragdoll was available in 1963.

Ragdoll is described as “A reconfigured machine used mostly for making color internegatives for briefing boards early in the program to evaluate the advantages of color.”

Doesn’t sound like the kind of equipment you would want to rely on to alter the Zapruder film.

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:

This report is from 1971. Interesting find.

Page 102 from this source lists the color processing equipment capabilities and the dates used.

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead Eastman Kodak Company.pdf?ver=2019-03-29-1031353-233&timestamp=1553870223588

The 1971 report discusses both “Ragdoll” and “Grafton”. Both are described as being “… constructed of scrap parts and leftovers from discarded and/or obsolete black and white equipment. They are only marginally adequate for the limited color test program and are subject to failure at any time.” Only Ragdoll was available in 1963.

Ragdoll is described as “A reconfigured machine used mostly for making color internegatives for briefing boards early in the program to evaluate the advantages of color.”

Doesn’t sound like the kind of equipment you would want to rely on to alter the Zapruder film.

That may or may not be.   This whole area seems filled with technical vagaries -- perhaps because there may be a range of photo manipulation practices going on, across various fields of interest -- reconnaissance, space, weather, etc. -- the protection of which may be of paramount importance.  

However the case, saying that Kodak Rochester can't process color 8mm film is a bridge(head) too far.  

[Kevin Balch]

19 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

That may or may not be.   This whole area seems filled with technical vagaries -- perhaps because there may be a range of photo manipulation practices going on, across various fields of interest -- reconnaissance, space, weather, etc. -- the protection of which may be of paramount importance.  

However the case, saying that Kodak Rochester can't process color 8mm film is a bridge(head) too far.  

I think the second NPIC team might have examined a copy made at the Kodak commercial facility from the original or first generation copy that was “walked through” by Bridgehead personnel with security clearances.

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

I think the second NPIC team might have examined a copy made at the Kodak commercial facility from the original or first generation copy that was “walked through” by Bridgehead personnel with security clearances.

I think what you wrote immediately before that should be developed more, perhaps however somewhat reversed.  Thus, what you wrote,

"My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences. I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing for an independent assessment.", 

might be better formulated as,

"My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look.  I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences."

 

I don't see why your assumptions should be read into the former and not the latter.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Well, they sure had the quality equipment. Yet, so many years later we are still looking for better quality pictures because what was shown to the public was blurry, small, underexposed, you name it.  Even, a bunch of the (mostly) lab pictures were hurry-hurry-hurry-try-out negative captures (mirror effect)...

Well, it wasn´t the equipment for sure.

Also odd to see were the 3 autopsy pictures Kellerman (?) did not destroy (I think 3 pictures remained in the capsule when he exposed the rest of the film for whatever reason), these 3 were blurry, ofcourse.. not something you would expect from an autopsy picture where ALL the details matter.

So, in short, they had the high-end equipment, and published amateur results...

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

I think what you wrote immediately before that should be developed more, perhaps however somewhat reversed.  Thus, what you wrote,

"My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences. I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing for an independent assessment.", 

might be better formulated as,

"My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look.  I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences."

 

I don't see why your assumptions should be read into the former and not the latter.

 

That is a possibility, perhaps likely what happened.

Though it’s strange that neither team was asked about number of shots fired or number of shooters or direction of shots nor offered any opinions. Who saw something that supposedly required film alteration? Did somebody looking at the first set of briefing boards see a need for alteration? When on Sunday did they realize a need for alteration? That cuts into the time available for alteration.

I’m not an alterationist (other than perhaps a frame or two missing) but these are questions the alterationists have to answer or provide realistic possibilities. 

[Matt Cloud]

5 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

That is a possibility, perhaps likely what happened.

Though it’s strange that neither team was asked about number of shots fired or number of shooters or direction of shots nor offered any opinions. Who saw something that supposedly required film alteration? Did somebody looking at the first set of briefing boards see a need for alteration? When on Sunday did they realize a need for alteration? That cuts into the time available for alteration.

I’m not an alterationist (other than perhaps a frame or two missing) but these are questions the alterationists have to answer or provide realistic possibilities. 

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

 

p. 19 bottom.

 

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

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

I think what you wrote immediately before that should be developed more, perhaps however somewhat reversed.  Thus, what you wrote,

"My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences. I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing for an independent assessment.", 

might be better formulated as,

"My thinking is that the Brugioni team was asked to take a first look.  I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences."

 

I don't see why your assumptions should be read into the former and not the latter.

 

Neither the Brugioni nor and McMahon teams were asked to examine or analyzed anything.  They were assigned to make the boards so top govt officials could do that; could see what they showed.  Brugioni, who had worked on the boards used in the UN presentation about the missile crisis the year before, was the logical choice to make the Z film boards.  They were made for the CIA director, upon McCone's request through Art Lundahl. 

When the boards were finished about 5-6 AM Sunday morning Lundahl came by to take them (2 copies) to brief McCone.  McCone then took them to brief Johnson.  By that time Johnson and McCone knew what the film showed about Kennedy's murder. 

One of the boards was returned to Brugioni and Lundahl told him to put it away; don't let anybody see it.  Which he did until in 1975 he mentioned to his then boss that he still had them in his safe.  He was told to get rid of them.  Which he did by sending the boards to the CIA director's office.

The film contradicted the Oswald story officials were already going with.  These officials had to decide what to do about that.

Before Brugioni's boards were finished, about 3 AM Sunday, the couriers who had brought the film to NPIC scooped it up and took it somewhere.

A version of the film reappeared at NPIC Sunday evening for the McMahon crew to make a second set of boards. The film the second night was unslit 16 mms.  Brugioni had worked on a slit 8 mm film.

Why was a second set of boards done without telling Brugioni?  It wasn't to brief again the officials investigating the murder.  Who were they for?  What was their purpose?

I suggest the second set of boards was not made to brief anyone,  It was intended to replace the ones Brugioni did.  Hence the hiding of Brugioni's boards and their eventual destruction.  McMahon's boards are the only ones currently in the JFK Collection at NARA.

 

[Matt Cloud]

10 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Why was a second set of boards done without telling Brugioni?  It wasn't to brief again the officials investigating the murder.  Who were they for?  What was their purpose?

I suggest the second set of boards was not made to brief anyone,  It was intended to replace the ones Brugioni did.  Hence the hiding of Brugioni's boards and their eventual destruction.  McMahon's boards are the only ones currently in the JFK Collection at NARA.

 

Yes, That's why I re-formulated Kevin's question accordingly.

 

"I’m wondering if the McMahon team was asked to do the same thing to rule out multiple shooters, because of the potential geopolitical consequences.""

 

And you two are evidently now in alignment on that possible -- perhaps likely -- scenario.

Edited 8 hours ago by Matt Cloud

[Roger Odisio]

53 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

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

 

p. 19 bottom.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Cloud]

19 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Matt's correct.  But more important for your questions,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited 7 hours ago by Matt Cloud