The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

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

 

p. 19 bottom.

 

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

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

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

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

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

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

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

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

By Johnson, do you mean LBJ?

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Cloud]

51 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

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

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

 

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

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

 

These are important distinctions.  

Edited 3 hours ago by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

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

 

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

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

 

[Kevin Balch]

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

[Matt Cloud]

19 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

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

How did you become aware of it?