Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Washington Navy Yard NPIC
National Photographic Interpretation Center
http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/npic.htm
The National Photographic Interpretation Center, whose functions have since been absorbed into the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), was formerly a component of the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology (DS&T). NPIC produced imagery interpretation reports, briefing boards, videotapes for national-level consumers, and provided support for the military. NPIC employed some 1,200 image interpreters and archivists.
NPIC -- Washington Navy Yard - 4 meter resolution
FROM: The wizards of Langley: inside the CIA's Directorate
http://books.google.com/books?id=bM9r_83Ito8C&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=NPIC+5th+%26+K+St.&source=bl&ots=qFGUG7gapl&sig=xRrkVvh5J6y3Vcvpvk8ALdZbZRM&hl=en&ei=b8VGS_HwJMHBlAeylYwN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA - v=onepage&q=&f=false
In 1962, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and members of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board visited and were shocked by the conditions at 5th and K and advised the President that NPIC needed a new building. 3
Kennedy promptly told DCI John McCone “to get them out of that structure” and wanted to know how soon a move could be accomplished. McCone recommended that the Naval Gun Factory appeared to be a reasonable choice but that it would require a year to refurbish it. Kennedy’s reply was “All right, you do it.” 4
On January 1, 1963, NPIC move into its new home – Building 213 in the Washington Navy Yard, often referred to as the “Lundahl Hilton.” It was, according to McCone, a “rags-to-riches” situation. The 200,000 square feet of floor space meant that hundreds of more workers could be added. The building had large elevators, air conditioning, and good security. Most of all, it was the national center that Lundahl had envisioned almost ten years earlier. Most people in the building worked for the CIA - the people who typed letters, drove courier trucks, ran the computes and library searches, and produced he graphics. 5
But the photo interpreters came from the CIA, DIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, and other organizations. An Air Force interpreter who studied photos of Soviet silos might ride the elevator with a CIA interpreter who pored over photos of Chinese nuclear facilities and a Navy representative whose safe was filled with the latest photography of Soviet submarines.
Of course, the environment at the Washington Navy Yard, itself located in a rundown area of Washington, was far from luxurious. And working in a building whose windows, for security reasons, were bricked up certainly could be claustrophobic. But at least NPIC personnel were located in a larger facility with some amenities.
Even before the first KH-9 mission, NPIC officials, including director Arthur Lundahl and senior manager Dino Brugioni, realized that...
FROM DOUG HORNE'S INSIDE THE ASSASSINATIONS RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
Chapter 14 - The Zapruder Film Mystery
The NPIC Revelations of Dino Brugioni in 2009
Peter Janney was in the right place at the right time, for his father, Frederick Wistar Morris Janney, had worked for the CIA for many years, and had known Dino Brugioni. Therefore, when Peter contacted Brugioni and introduced himself as “Fred Janney’s son,” he was able to immediately establish a rapport with Dino based on this history, and it really paid off. Peter and I consider ourselves extremely fortunate that Dino Brugioni was not only still alive in 2009, but that his memory was still so good at the age of about 88, and that he was so patient and accommodating with Peter’s many questions about his involvement with the Zapruder film. Dino Brugioni was the Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, and worked directly for the Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, from 1954 until Lundahl retired in 1973.
Arthur Lundahl, as Dino Brugioni explained to Peter Janney, was the western world’s foremost photoanalyst during those two decades. And anytime that Mr. Lundahl needed a briefing board prepared, it was Dino Brugioni, working with NPIC’s photo-interpreters and graphics department, who oversaw its preparation, and the preparation of the associated notes that Lundahl would use to brief Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, for example. Dino Brugioni was so closely involved with the briefing boards prepared for President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was able to author an excellent and captivating book about the role of NPIC in that crucial Cold War episode, called Eyeball to Eyeball. Dino Brugioni, therefore, is the ultimate, insider source for what was going on at NPIC during the 1950s and 1960s. He possesses unimpeachable credentials.
It was the combination of Dino’s unimpeachable credentials and good memory that made what he had to say about his Zapruder film experience at NPIC the weekend of the assassination so important. For Dino Brugioni clarified for Peter, after repeated and persistent questioning, that the event he participated in actually commenced on Saturday evening, November 23rd (rather than Sunday, November 24, as he had incorrectly estimated for David Wrone in 2003); that it involved the original 8 mm film—not a copy—and that it did not involve either Homer McMahon, or Ben Hunter, or Captain Sands, but an entirely different cast of characters. Furthermore, Dino examined photographs Peter Janney had made at Archives II of the 4 surviving briefing board panels made from the photos developed by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and Brugioni stated categorically that the four panels in flat # 90A in the JFK Records Collection are not the briefing boards he produced while on duty at NPIC from late
1230
Saturday evening, November 23rd, through early Sunday morning, November 24th, 1963.
I will first recount the details of what Dino Brugioni relayed to Peter Janney in the seven lengthy interviews during the first half of 2009, and then I will discuss the differences between the “Brugioni” event (Event I) and the “McMahon” event (Event II), and discuss what these differences imply about the true chain-of-custody of the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination.
Peter Janney first interviewed Dino Brugioni on January 30th, 2009, after reading my interview reports of McMahon and Hunter in Murder in Dealey Plaza. Author and researcher Dick Russell then assisted Peter Janney in establishing contact with me, and Peter and I worked together on a set of extensive follow-on questions that Peter would ask Dino in future interviews. We were vitally interested in ascertaining whether Dino Brugioni had participated in the same event as McMahon and Hunter, or in a different event at NPIC that weekend. In the way of preparation, Peter also flew to Washington, D.C. and examined and photographed both the original NPIC briefing notes, and the 4 surviving briefing board panels (both in flat # 90A) at Archives II, so that he could ask Dino whether those materials looked familiar to him. Janney also obtained an audio recording of my second interview of Homer McMahon, the only one of my three interviews of McMahon that I had been allowed to record. Peter Janney then conducted six additional interviews of Dino Brugioni on February 12th, 13th, 14th, March 6th, May 5th, and June 27th of 2009. In addition to the 7 interviews (which Janney recorded), Dino also called Peter a couple of times and left recorded phone messages in response to follow-on questions.
Here is a summary of the information gleaned from Peter Janney’s 7 recorded interviews, and the two phone messages left for him by Dino Brugioni:
Timing of the event: In the final analysis, Dino was of the very firm opinion that the event at NPIC which he supervised, as NPIC duty officer the weekend of the assassination, began on Saturday night, November 23rd, and ended early Sunday morning, November 24th. In his first interview with Peter, Dino referred to the event as occurring the night of the assassination, but in subsequent interviews, as Dino refreshed his recollection, he became adamant that it commenced the next night—a day after the assassination. The event began about 10 PM in the evening, when Dino personally met two Secret Service agents at the entrance to the NPIC, and ended at about 6 or 7 AM the next morning when Brugioni’s boss, Art Lundahl (the Director of NPIC), arrived and the briefing boards which Brugioni and the NPIC staff had created were presented to Lundahl, along with the briefing notes Brugioni had prepared. Lundahl then took both sets of briefing boards to the office of CIA Director John McCone, along with the briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him; briefed the DCI; and then returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24th, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that his briefing of McCone had gone well. Brugioni told Janney that the two Secret Service agents who had delivered the film to NPIC had departed with the film early Sunday morning, as soon as the last frames from the home movie had been enlarged and the briefing boards had been completed.
When Peter Janney challenged Brugioni by telling Dino that he had apparently given author David Wrone an estimate of Sunday, November 24th as the day the event commenced, Dino said, “No, I don’t think so,” and said that he no longer believed the event commenced on Sunday evening because he had a recollection of trying (unsuccessfully) to attend President Kennedy’s funeral on Monday, and in his
memory the end of the NPIC event—turning over the two very large briefing boards to Lundahl, along with the briefing notes—did not occur on the same day that he tried to attend JFK’s funeral. In
1231
summary, then, during the first interview with Janney, Brugioni thought the NPIC event had occurred the same evening as the assassination, but during the subsequent six interviews, he definitively ruled this out and expressed the firm and unwavering opinion that the event he participated in began at about 10 PM on Saturday, November 23rd, and ended at about dawn on Sunday, November 24th.
Attendees: Brugioni said that DCI John McCone was notified sometime Saturday by the Secret Service that photographic support would be needed; McCone notified Art Lundahl, NPIC’s director; and Lundahl in turn called Brugioni because Dino was the duty officer that weekend. In his capacity as duty officer, Brugioni then called NPIC’s number one photogrammatrist, Ralph Pearse, as well as Bill Banfield, the management official in charge of the photographic lab facilities. Brugioni told Janney that Bill Banfield ordered in 3 or 4 photo technicians (who worked on the home movie to enlarge individual frames), and 2 or 3 people from the graphics department (who actually assembled the briefing boards in the graphics department, on the second floor, one floor above the photo lab). In the four follow-on interviews, Janney repeatedly and specifically questioned Dino about whether either a Captain Sands, or Ben Hunter, had been present that night. Brugioni consistently said that he was personally acquainted with both people, and that neither Captain Sands15 nor Ben Hunter was present at the NPIC event he presided over. Two Secret Service agents delivered the home movie of the assassination to NPIC, and the agent who was “in charge” made the decisions about which frames to magnify and create prints from. Dino told Peter Janney that at the end of the night, the Secret Service wanted a list of everyone who had been present at NPIC; he also said that he placed the names of the two Secret Service agents in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl that night, but that he could not remember now, in 2009, what their names were.
Film format and characteristics: Dino was adamant with Peter Janney, as he had been with David Wrone, that the film delivered to NPIC for processing by the Secret Service was an 8 mm home movie, and he recalled this clearly and without any doubt whatsoever because Bill Banfield had to awaken the owner of the CIA’s favorite commercial photo outlet (Fuller and d’Albert), and ask him to to open his downtown shop, so that Banfield could purchase an 8 mm home movie projector. While Banfield was procuring the 8 mm projector in downtown Washington D.C. in the dead of night, Brugioni, Pearse, and the two Secret Service agents were examining individual frames of the film on a light table with a stereomicroscope. About midnight, when Banfield returned with the 8 mm home movie projector, the film was viewed at least 4 or 5 times, and at different speeds, by the two Secret Service agents, Brugioni (the duty officer), Pearse (the lead photogrammatrist), and Banfield (the production supervisor). Dino told Peter Janney, just as he had told David Wrone, that it was a “white glove operation” all the way, and whereas Wrone did not mention in his account whether or not Brugioni believed he had the original film, Dino made clear to Janney that he did believe it was the original film. He said: “Everything pointed toward it being the original,” and when Janney wisely asked Brugioni if he recalled whether Dino said that Captain Pierre Sands, 15 U.S. Navy, was the Deputy Director of NPIC, which Peter Janney subsequently confirmed on the internet. Sands’ one-page bio states that Pierre N. Sands was born on April 16, 1921, and died on May 26, 2004. He served in the Navy from May 1939-June 1973, and was placed in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Photographic Center after serving at NPIC. His biography on the internet identifies him as a member of the Presidential briefing staff during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
1232
there were images between the sprocket holes (which are visible on today’s extant ‘original’ film but not on the ‘first generation’ copies), Dino paused and then responded: “I’m almost sure there were images between the sprocket holes.” During a follow-on interview when Janney tested Dino’s firmness of opinion about whether the film was the original or not, Brugioni said definitively: “I’m sure it was.” Dino said one of the factors that reinforced his impression that the film was the original was how nervous the two Secret Service agents were about how the film was handled by the NPIC staff—they repeatedly expressed concern that the film not be torn or damaged in the projector, or in the enlarging equipment. When repeatedly asked by Janney whether he was told where the film had been developed, or flown in from, Brugioni consistently said that no mention was made of where the film was developed, one way or another. Product produced: Brugioni told Janney that while the Secret Service agents made the decisions about which frames to reproduce, there was never any discussion by them of specific frames in which shots occurred, or of how many shots were fired at the motorcade. He did recall that most of their attention was centered around the action just prior to the limousine going behind the road sign, while it was behind the sign, and after it emerged from behind the sign. He said that the lead Secret Service agent had the demeanor of a lawyer who was preparing a case. Brugioni said that a maximum of 20 prints were made from individual Zapruder frames using NPIC’s state of the art enlarger; when Dino viewed
the photos Peter Janney had taken of the four surviving briefing board panels in the JFK Records Collection, he said: “We didn’t make this many photos,” and furthermore, said: “These are not the briefing boards we made that night.” Dino never wavered in his opinion about this—the four briefing board panels in the Archives today were not created at the event he participated in. Brugioni clearly recalled that at the NPIC event he presided over, at least two photos were made of each Zapruder frame that was enlarged, and only two briefing board sets (not the three sets that apparently resulted from the Homer McMahon event) were created. Dino consistently told Janney that the briefing boards NPIC created for Director John McCone and the Secret Service consisted of two panels each; that each panel was three feet high and three feet wide; and that the two panels in each set were joined together by a vertical hinge in the middle, so that the resulting six-foot long board could be folded in half for easy transportation. Brugioni said that there were two items of information posted underneath each photo on the briefing boards he created, and that one of these two items of information was the individual frame number. The phrases such as “7 frames missing,” for example, and the number of seconds that had elapsed between frames that appear on the 4 panels in the Archives today, were not placed on the
briefing boards he created. Furthermore, he indicated that the graphic design format of the 4 panels in the Archives today is markedly different from those he created the night of the event he was involved in. He also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers. Dino Brugioni said that he placed a strong caveat about the limited, or suspect, usefulness of this timing data in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl. Brugioni’s most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was “...of JFK’s brains flying through the air.” He did not
1233
use the term ‘head explosion,’ but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. Dino had no other specific recollections about content during the 2009 interviews. Dino Brugioni identifies the “Hawkeye Plant:” Peter Janney eventually explained to Dino, well into the interview process, Homer McMahon’s recollections that the film brought to him the weekend of the assassination had come from a CIA lab in Rochester, and gingerly asked Brugioni whether he ever heard of such a place. Dino readily replied that he not only had personal knowledge of such a place, having visited it, but named it for us: he called it the “Hawkeye Plant.” In considerable detail, Dino described how it was a true “clean facility” where all of the technicians had to wear special clothing, special head coverings, and sticky shoes to avoid contaminating photographic products with dust and lint. When Janney asked Dino what this lab’s capabilities were, Brugioni said with wonderment in his voice: “They had the capability to do almost anything” with any film product—except that by implication, they must
not have had a 10 x 20 x 40 state-of-the art enlarger at the “Hawkeye Plant”such as NPIC possessed, and probably were not in the business of making briefing boards, either. Peter asked Brugioni whether they could deal with motion picture film there, and Dino said: “Yes.” Peter Janney then asked the ‘big question,’ which was: Did the “Hawkeye Plant” have an optical printer, specifically an Oxberry printer, installed? Dino’s answer was: “They had everything there.” [Oxberry manufactured the top of the line optical printer in that era, and it was a customized Oxberry optical printer that Moses Weitzman had used to blow up the extant Zapruder film from 8 mm directly to 35 mm in 1968. This response was both encouraging for my developing hypothesis, and also frustratingly vague. I made a mental note when I heard this response to make sure that if a FOIA request was ever filed with the CIA over Zapruder film issues surrounding the NPIC events, that the suit would have to ask whether optical printers used in the duplicating of motion picture films had been installed at the “Hawkeye plant” in 1963.]
Subsequent return of one briefing board: Some undefined amount of time later, Brugioni stated that the CIA returned one of the six foot long, three feet wide briefing boards (with the hinge in the middle) to NPIC, but without the briefing notes that Dino had originally prepared for Lundahl. NPIC Director Art Lundahl told him to keep it wrapped up in paper and secured in a locked cabinet, and to show it to no one without his (Lundahl’s) express, personal permission. [The disposition of the other briefing board was not divulged to Brugioni by Lundahl—but presumably, it was retained by the Secret Service, the customer who had driven the activity that night by requesting NPIC support.]
Meanwhile, Art Lundahl retired in 1973 and was replaced as Director of NPIC by Mr. John J. Hicks, who served as Director from June of 1973-February of 1978. Dino recalled that sometime in 1975, in response to Congressional inquiries (from Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana) about CIA domestic activities, he took the six foot long hinged briefing board to John Hicks, the new Director, and that Hicks became extremely agitated and upset that the CIA had this product. (The only time that Brugioni became agitated and raised his voice during the several hours of interviews with Peter Janney was when he would recall the degree to which Hicks became emotionally upset by the existence of the briefing board Brugioni showed him, and on those occasions, Brugioni would raise his own voice as he vividly recalled Hicks’ exact words and emotional state on that occasion.) Hicks told Brugioni in 1975: “Pack ‘em up right now and get them over to the [CIA] Director’s office,” according to one version; and in another recounting, Brugioni said Hicks shouted: “Get those damn things over to the Director’s office; we’re not supposed to have ‘em!” Dino had the surviving six foot long briefing board wrapped in paper and sent by courier over to the office of CIA Director William Colby. When Peter Janney mailed copies of the 9 pages of documents the Rockefeller Commission obtained from NPIC to Dino, Brugioni expressed both surprise and
1234
irritation that in his internal, handwritten memo of May 13, 1975 forwarding the textual materials up the chain of command, Hicks made no mention of the six foot long briefing board that Dino had sent to the Director’s office. Dino wrote about the NPIC Zapruder event in an NPIC history: In the final telephone interview with Peter Janney, Dino Brugioni revealed that he had written a short synopsis of the Zapruder film event in an official history of the National Photographic Interpretation Center—a several hundred page long, highly classified document—which he had prepared while serving as a paid consultant for the CIA sometime during the decade of the 1980s, following his retirement in 1981. This information angered me, for it meant that the CIA had withheld this information from the Assassination Records Review Board, in violation of the JFK Act, during the period 1994-1998. If the CIA had been an “honest broker,” it would have offered up the pertinent page(s) from the NPIC history related to the Zapruder film for review and release by the ARRB. [Clearly, this excerpt from the highly classified NPIC official history would have to be included in any future FOIA request filed over Zapruder film material.] Dino Brugioni and his colleagues definitely worked on the Zapruder film, and not on a different home movie of the assassination: Peter Janney sent Dino Brugioni photographs he had taken of the four surviving briefing board panels that are in the JFK Records Collection at the National Archives.
While Brugioni definitively stated that his work group did not make those particular briefing boards, he verified that the image content in the four surviving panels was from the same film that his group worked on. Since the prints affixed to the four briefing board panels at NARA are definitely from the Zapruder film, we know that Brugioni also worked on the Zapruder film, and not on a film taken from the opposite side of Dealey Plaza (e.g., the Nix film, Muchmore film, or the film purportedly taken by Beverly Oliver). His recollection of specific image content in individual frames was not sharp, but it was good enough for him to verify that he had worked on the same home movie, with the limousine passing behind, and temporarily obscured by, a road sign. (Any film taken from the other side of Dealey Plaza would not have shown a road sign blocking the view of the limousine.) Like McMahon, Brugioni stated that no one called the home movie “the Zapruder film” the night his group created its two briefing boards, but he was absolutely certain that the film shot by Zapruder was the same film his team had made enlargements from throughout late Saturday night and early Sunday morning, November 23-24, 1963.
The data table below summarizes, in an easy-to-read format, the differences between the two Zapruder film events at NPIC the weekend of the assassination, involving Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon
1235
NPIC Event I: Beginning Saturday Night, November 23rd (and continuing all night long until early AM Sunday)
NPIC Event II: Beginning Sunday Night, November 24th (and
continuing all night long until early AM Monday)
Persons Involved NPIC personnel: Dino Brugioni, Ralph Pearse, and
Bill Banfield; plus some photo and graphics technicians. (Dino was duty officer that weekend and was told to go in by Art Lundahl, the Director of NPIC, who in turn had been alerted by CIA Director John McCone.) Two Secret Service Agents transported a film which Dino believed to be the camera original home movie. Dino categorically stated that neither Captain Sands nor Ben Hunter was present.
NPIC personnel: Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and a “Captain Sands.” One Secret Service Agent who identified himself as “Bill Smith” brought the film from a CIA classified film lab at Kodak headquarters in Rochester; he said it was the original and had been flown directly from Dallas to Rochester, where it had been developed at the classified film lab. Neither McMahon nor Hunter recalled anyone else being present.
Type of Film Viewed Original film—an 8 mm slit film. (An 8 mm projector had
to be purchased to view it.)
Original film—a 16 mm wide, “double 8” film that had not yet been slit. McMahon
recalled other image content on the second half of the film (likely the Z “home movie”).
Viewed on existing 16 mm projection equipment.
Briefing Boards Created Two (2) briefing boards six feet wide, with a hinge in the middle. Lundahl took them both to DCI McCone Sunday AM with briefing notes. One
was later returned to Brugioni, and then given to Hicks in 1975. Hicks was very upset
that it existed, and withheld this info from the Rockefeller Commission. Three (3) briefing board sets consisting of 4 panels each.
The notes associated with the NPIC activity were given to the Rockefeller Commission
in 1975 by the CIA. The notes were released through FOIA in 1978, and the four panels later, in 1993, by the HRG. Dino Brugioni has stated “these are not what I created.”
1236
Implications of the Brugioni interviews: In the final two interviews with Brugioni, Dino came to accept the fact that there had been another event at NPIC that weekend with the Zapruder film involving different personnel, and that knowledge of this had been intentionally kept from him by officials at NPIC. Brugioni had initially been resisted this possibility, since it was his assumption that as duty officer that weekend, he would naturally have known about any and all activity at NPIC during the two days following JFK’s death. [As it turned out, however, the duty officer stayed at home, not at building 213 at the Navy Yard, and only went in to the facility if he was called on the telephone and ordered to “go in” by higher authority; so a compartmentalized operation was entirely possible without Dino knowing about it, providing different employees were involved. This appears to have been what happened that weekend.] But once shown the photos of a different set of briefing boards, and after acknowledging that neither Captain Sands nor Ben Hunter was present at the activity he was involved in, Dino finally faced up to the inevitable conclusion: he had been kept out of the loop — excluded from important additional activity with the Zapruder film that weekend at NPIC. To say that this was something he was not accustomed to would be an understatement. Normally, from 1954 until he retired in 1981, Dino Brugioni would have supervised and approved the creation of all briefing boards, and would have personally prepared the notes used to brief a President, Cabinet official, or Agency director.
Dino seemed a bit nonplused following his March interview, and more than a little miffed at both Mr. Hicks, and his former agency, who together had failed to report the existence of the one surviving large briefing board to the Rockefeller Commission. His frame of mind seemed a bit like a loyal spouse who has just learned that his life partner had been unfaithful, and engaged in a dalliance with someone else.
Analysis: The implications here are unavoidable: the Secret Service had a list of attendees from Event I, commencing late Saturday, November 23rd and ending early Sunday morning, November 24th. They clearly wanted to have NPIC perform additional Zapruder film activity the next night (commencing late on Sunday, November 24th and ending early Monday morning, November 25th), but did not want any of the players who worked on the film Saturday night to know about it, so they ensured that a completely different cast of characters was assembled the second night. Apparently, Captain Sands (an O-6, a senior officer in the Navy), using his authority as NPIC’s Deputy Director, called in Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter to perform the work required by “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service. Then “Bill Smith” forbade both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter from discussing their work with the Zapruder film with any of their NPIC colleagues. Did either John McCone or Art Lundahl know about it? I don’t know. The obvious question is: Why conduct a compartmentalized operation with the Zapruder film at NPIC the weekend of the assassination? The probable answer is right in front of us, if we will only believe what we have been told by Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon. Dino Brugioni likely prepared briefing boards for John McCone and the Secret Service from the true camera original, unaltered 8 mm Zapruder film on Saturday, November 23rd. Homer McMahon likely prepared blowups of Zapruder frames from a 16 mm wide, unslit, altered Zapruder film, which had been created in an optical printer at what Dino Brugioni called the “Hawkeye Plant” at Kodak headquarters in Rochester, New York. After all, this is where the Secret Service agent masquerading as “Bill Smith” told him the film had been developed, and the agent was not likely to be mistaken, since he had personally couriered it from that location. Homer McMahon, the Head of the Color Lab at NPIC, throughout all three of his interviews with me, consistently recalled that he had worked with an original film that was an unslit, 16 mm wide, double 8 home movie—and that it came from Rochester, where it had been developed at the CIA’s Kodak-run photo lab which Dino referred to as the “Hawkeye Plant.”
Dino Brugioni used a code name for that CIA-funded lab in Rochester very, very similar to the term
1237
Homer McMahon had employed in 1997, which I am unable to reveal due to the security oath I took when I went to work for the ARRB. But there is no doubt in my mind, based on the remarkable similarity between the names for the lab employed by both McMahon and Brugioni, that they are describing the same facility.
Consider this: if the Secret Service had returned a Zapruder film to NPIC Sunday night that had the same image content as the film viewed Saturday night, there would have been no need for a compartmentalized operation at NPIC. And since the film brought to NPIC Sunday night (for McMahon and Hunter to work on) was a 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 ‘original,’ and not an 8 mm wide, slit original film as seen the night previously by Brugioni, this constitutes proof — providing McMahon is correct in his recollections—that the Secret Service delivered to him a reconstructed, new ‘original,’an altered version of the Zapruder film masquerading as a camera original film.
I believe that both films were assessed by their handlers as ‘originals’ for good reason—one was a true 8 mm, slit, camera original movie, and the other was a professionally altered film, created in an optical printer to mimic an unslit ‘original’ in every way. It is extremely unlikely that either the Secret Service or the CIA would have countenanced creating individual frame enlargements for briefing boards from a copy film, because blowing up a small 8 mm film frame to 40 times its original size for the making of internegatives would have required the highest quality product available, otherwise the resulting internegatives and prints would have been even further degraded by contrast buildup resulting from generational loss of quality. This was even more true for the altered film from Rochester processed on Sunday night at NPIC: because it was in reality a copy masquerading as an original (and not a true camera original), it was imperative from the standpoint of image resolution that the new ‘master’ created at Rochester be the item whose frames were magnified for the second, sanitized set of briefing boards.
I shall close this section by once again drawing attention to a key paragraph in David Wrone’s book, in which he attempted to discredit the arguments in favor of alteration.
First, I would ask the reader to reexamine the data table above that summarizes the specifics of Zapruder film Event I and Zapruder film Event II at NPIC the weekend of the assassination; then, please read the passage below, quoted verbatim from pages 125-126 of The Zapruder Film—Reframing JFK’s Assassination:
Regarding the CIA, no scrap of paper, legitimate witness, or indirect source of any merit places the agency or any of its surrogates indirectly or directly in connection with the film on November 22 or the following two days. The documents that came out of the Belin-Rockefeller investigation of the CIA show that the agency did not begin its study of the movie until after photographs had appeared in LIFE magazine. This thoroughly documented lack of official interest in the Zapruder film drives a stake in the claims of alterationists that Federal agencies immediately after the investigation stole or borrowed the film to whisk it away to Washington or any other city or country for alteration.
Every significant statement in the above paragraph can now be shown to be incorrect, based upon the Homer McMahon/Ben Hunter interviews in 1997, and the extensive series of Dino Brugioni interviews in 2009. Let’s list the reasons, shall we?
• Homer McMahon (the Head of the NPIC Color Lab) and Dino Brugioni (NPIC’s Chie
1238
Information Officer for over two decades) are definitely “legitimate witnesses;”
• The Brugioni and McMahon interviews place the CIA (through NPIC) in direct contact
with the Zapruder film on the two days immediately following November 22nd;
• The CIA’s surrogate, the “Hawkeye Plant” at Rochester, was placed in direct connection with the Zapruder film by “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service on Sunday, November 24th, before the funeral of President Kennedy;
• Any quick perusal of the Homer McMahon interview of July 14, 1997 (which David
Wrone referenced in his book—via endnote 36 on page 127) reveals that the 9 pages of
documents given to the Rockefeller Commission by the CIA in 1975 are not all
associated with the same event, and that while the shot and timing analysis was not
performed the weekend of the assassination, the making of internegatives and prints
from the film did occur on the weekend of the assassination.
• The scheduling of two compartmentalized film processing operations of the Zapruder
film at NPIC the very weekend of the assassination hardly constitutes “lack of official interest.” In fact, it is evidence of the precise opposite: an extremely high level of official interest. David Wrone was aware of the McMahon/Hunter interviews when he completed his manuscript; we know this because he referred to them with an endnote. Are we to believe that he cited something he did not read? Of course not. Wrone intentionally withheld the contents of the McMahon interviews from his book, and while I earlier inferred a reason, only he can explain why. Did Dino Brugioni also tell David Wrone that he handled the original Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination (just as he told Peter Janney)? We will never know. Wrone only describes what Dino handled as “a roll of 8 mm film, ” without showing the slightest curiosity about whether it was the original or a copy. If Dino did describe what he handled (during his interview with Wrone in May of 2003) as “the original,” Wrone chose not to believe it. That is his prerogative as an author and an analyst, but if so, he also chose not to report it. And that is another matter altogether.
In my view Wrone’s strident tone of dismissal in regard to any and all ideas of the so-called ‘alterationists’ in the JFK research community is an overreach, and a disservice to the scholarly discourse that we should encourage within our ranks. He has now paid the price for having a closed mind that was unwilling to fairly consider new evidence about the Zapruder film, which he clearly indicates in his book that he was aware of. He would have served both his reputation, and the cause of JFK assassination research, much better if he had honestly acknowledged the possible implications of the McMahon and Brugioni recollections, while disagreeing with them because he found the weight of other evidence more persuasive. But that’s not what he did.
1239
What the Two NPIC Events the Weekend of the Assassination Tell Us About the True Provenance of the Zapruder Film
The obvious implications of the two NPIC Zapruder film events prior to the President’s funeral are noted below, in what I shall call a working hypothesis, explaining what I believe likely transpired with the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination:
• First, the camera original Zapruder film really was slit in Dallas at the Kodak
processing plant after the three ‘first day copies’ were developed the evening of the
assassination, just as the Kodak employees told Rollie Zavada when he interviewed
them for his authenticity study. On Saturday morning, November 23rd, after the Secret
Service in Washington, D.C. viewed the first day copy (that had been placed on a
commercial airplane in Dallas and sent to Washington, D.C. by Max Phillips late on
Friday evening), they no doubt realized an immediate need for the original film, so that briefing boards could be made from the clearest possible image frames. [No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.]
• Second, Richard Stolley’s recollection that the original film went to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously requires reexamination. That is to say, the film may indeed have been flown to Chicago, but instead of processing it immediately for use in its November 29th edition, LIFE officials in Chicago may have willingly (or unwillingly) cooperated with Federal officials (of either the CIA or the Secret Service) by diverting the original film on to Washington, D.C., based upon a firm promise that they would get their property back as soon as possible, within one or two days. In my view, if “national security” had been invoked with someone like C.D. Jackson, along with a firm promise that LIFE would get its property back in short order (after it was used to help make enlargements for briefing boards), LIFE would have readily agreed. (Secret Service officials involved in the assassination plot, and their CIA allies in the nation’s capital, would have had all day to view the first day copy of the film they had received early Saturday morning, to discuss what had to be done to sanitize the film, and would have had ample time to grease the skids with C. D. Jackson, probably using the CIA as an intermediary.) Clearly, the original film was either: (1) diverted after it arrived in Chicago (unbeknownst to Stolley) and sent on to Washington, D.C., arriving at NPIC at about 10 PM per Dino Brugioni’s best recollection; or (2) it was simply seized in Dallas late Saturday afternoon (with LIFE’s quiet cooperation) after Zapruder sold it the first time (for the initial sum of $ 50,000.00), and then sent directly to Washington from Dallas, arriving at NPIC at 10 PM, with Stolley’s quiet complicity. (If the second possibility above occurred, it means that Stolley was fibbing in 1973 when he wrote that he put the
film on a plane to Chicago on Saturday afternoon.) My own sense is that the film was
probably diverted after arrival in Chicago, and flown immediately to Washington. After all, there are no written receipts indicating the film actually arrived at LIFE’s Chicago printing plant on Saturday—all we have is Stolley’s personal recollection that he put it on a plane to Chicago. Furthermore, the film could have been intercepted at the airport
1240
in Chicago, and flown directly to Washington, without ever going to the printing plant on Saturday—all without Stolley’s knowledge. This is most likely what happened.
• Third, the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the “Hawkeye
Plant” in Rochester by air, immediately after Bill Banfield’s photo technicians had run off the last enlargement prints for the McCone briefing boards, just prior to dawn on Sunday morning. The CIA’s Kodak-staffed lab in Rochester would have had most of the day (probably about 9 or 10 hours), using an optical printer such as the Oxberry commonly used by Hollywood’s special effects wizards, to remove whatever was
objectionable in the film—most likely, the car stop seen by over 50 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, and the exit debris which would inevitably have been seen in the film leaving the rear of President Kennedy’s head—and to add to the film whatever was desired, such as a large, painted-on exit wound generally consistent with the enlarged, altered head wound depicted in the autopsy photos which were developed the day before on Saturday, November 23rd by Robert Knudsen at NPC Anacostia. Captain Sands, a Naval Officer who was the Deputy Director at NPIC, was apparently instrumental to those altering the film in setting up a compartmentalized operation at NPIC, in which workers who had not participated in the events which commenced Saturday night (with the unaltered, true camera original film) would be used to create briefing boards from the now-sanitized, altered film. The delivery of an unslit, 16 mm wide double 8 film to Homer McMahon, well after dark on Sunday night, is proof that he received an alteration, and not the same film processed the night before (which was a slit 8 mm film). Furthermore, if the film worked on by McMahon and Hunter had been the same film worked on the night before, there would have been no need for a compartmentalized operation, and the same duty crew that worked on Saturday night could have been called in again. The fact that the same work crew was not used on Sunday night reveals that a covert operation was afoot.
• Fourth, the three black-and-white, 16 mm unslit versions of the Zapruder film
discovered in 2000 after the LMH Company’s film holdings were transferred to the
Sixth Floor Museum, and which both David Wrone and Richard Trask have written
about in their books on the Zapruder film, were almost certainly made from the altered film after it was manufactured at the “Hawkeye Plant” in Rochester. They would have been run off from the new ‘master’ that Homer McMahon worked with from Sunday night into Monday morning in Washington, but would have been duplicated before the altered film left Rochester for Washington, D.C. In this way, the three black and white dupes could have been sent to the Chicago plant for use in its November 29th issue Sunday evening, at the same time the new 16 mm unslit ‘master’ which was masquerading as ‘the original film’ was being flown to Washington. In this scenario, the three black-and-white copies would precisely match the film in the Archives today, but would not constitute proof of its authenticity.
• Fifth, three newly minted ‘first generation’ copies must have been struck from the new ‘original’ in Rochester before the altered ‘original’ was flown to Washington, D.C. Sunday evening for the preparation of the sanitized briefing boards at NPIC. Quite
1241
simply stated, if you are going to alter the original film, you have to manufacture altered copies as well. [We shall examine the qualities of the three extant ‘first generation’ copies later in this chapter to see whether this part of the hypothesis holds up.]
• Sixth, switches obviously must have been made, as soon as possible, with all three ‘first day copies’ (which had been made on Friday in Dallas). The FBI, as well, must have been complicit in this early switchout, since it supposedly made all of its subsequent second generation copies from the ‘first day copy’ loaned to it by the Secret Service on Saturday, November 23rd. Although the FBI may have viewed a first day copy of the true original film following its arrival in Washington, all second generation FBI copies in existence today would have been struck after the first day copy was switched out with its replacement. A Secret Service ‘first generation’ copy was returned to Dallas by the FBI on Tuesday, November 26th, so the switch could have been made early Monday morning at FBI headquarters, and the FBI’s extant second generation film copies could all have been duplicated from the newly manufactured (altered) ‘first generation’ copy on Monday, November 25th, during the day. [We shall examine the record of what the FBI viewed the weekend of the assassination later in this chapter, and will see whether this part of the hypothesis holds up.] Switching out the first day copy held by the Secret
Service in Washington would not have presented any problems, since under this
hypothesis the Secret Service and CIA were obviously partners in the forgery exercise. Abraham Zapruder’s authentic first day copy could easily have been switched out after it was sent to LIFE late on Monday, after Zapruder’s contract had been renegotiated.
• Seventh, it is highly likely—a virtual certainty, in my view—that the additional sum of $ 100,000.00 that LIFE agreed to pay to Abraham Zapruder on Monday, November 25th in a new contract was in reality “hush money,” doled out to him, rather revealingly, piecemeal—in amounts of only $ 25,000.00 at the beginning of each year, through the end of LBJ’s first term in office—in exchange for his silence about the fact that the government had altered the image content of his film. Even though LIFE obtained legal ownership of the original and all three first generation copies in its new contract on Monday, if the magazine (or the government, during an investigation or inquest) was ever to display the film as a motion picture, then Zapruder would undoubtedly notice that the image content had changed, so in my view his silence had to be purchased, and that was accomplished with the new contract.
• Eighth, and finally, only so much in a film can be altered—there are also things that cannot be altered. It is my belief that the most damaging information in the film to the lone assassin hypothesis—the brief car stop on Elm Street in which the President was clearly killed by a crossfire, by multiple hits to the head from both the front and the rear, and the frames of exit debris leaving the rear of his skull—were removed at Rochester when the new ‘master’ was created. In addition, wounds were painted onto his head with special effects work which somewhat (but not precisely) resembled the damage recorded in the autopsy photos after the clandestine surgery at Bethesda Naval hospital.
However, it is my contention that while the technicians at Rochester could remove the
violent forward motion of the President’s head (seen in the unaltered film by both Dan
1242
Rather and the FBI’s Cartha DeLoach), which occurred during the brief car stop, and
could remove the car stop itself, they could not remove the violent backward motion of the President’s head and body, to the left rear, which was caused by the two nearsimultaneous shots to his head from the right front. Because the infamous ‘headsnap’ back-and-to-the-left could not be removed from the film, the film had to be suppressed as a motion picture, and not shown to the public. This was surely known by everyone at Rochester by late Sunday afternoon or early Sunday evening, which explains why the CIA’s media asset, C.D. Jackson, instructed Richard Stolley on Sunday to begin renegotiating the contract with Zapruder. (The official approval of LIFE’s board the next day would have been a mere formality.) The reader will recall that the new contract gave Time, Inc. the motion picture rights which it did not acquire in the first contract on Saturday, and that even after paying the considerable additional monetary amount of $ 100,000.00 for the motion picture rights, that Time, Inc. never commercially exhibited the Zapruder film as a motion picture. Suppression was therefore surely its true motive.
I ask the reader to keep this working hypothesis in mind throughout the remainder of this chapter as we:
(1) explore what various witnesses recall seeing in the film projected for them the weekend of the assassination; (2) explore what appear to be discrepancies between characteristics of the extant film in the Archives today and test film shot by Rollie Zavada; (3) compare the anticipated appearance vs. the actual appearance today of the 3 ‘first generation’ copies; and (4) compare what is shown in the extant Zapruder film with the condition of President Kennedy’s head as observed at Parkland hospital, and with what people actually saw happen on Elm Street as the motorcade drove through Dealey Plaza.
ARRB Interview with Homer McMahon
Satellite View of Building 213 (NPIC) at the Washington Navy Yard
THE ZAPRUDER FILM AT LUNDAHL'S PALACE
COPY A4 Updated 02/18/10
ARRB Interview with NPIC Employee Homer McMahon
Hearing Date July 14, 1997
Interviewed by Douglas P. Horne Chief of Military Records of ARRB
Total Time 1:41:19
DH = Douglas Horne
HM = Homer McMahon
JG = Jeremy Gunn
MC = Michelle Combs
Douglas Horne: Okay, it's Monday, July 14th, 1997, my name is Doug Horne. I'm with the AARB. I am here with Mr. Homer McMahon, former NPIC employee – National Photo Interpretation Center. And I am also here with Michelle Combs of the AARB. And before we begin I'd like to confirm with you on the record, Mr. McMahon, is it okay, do we have your permission to tape this interview?
Homer McMahon: Yes, my name is Homer McMahon, not NPIC, I was CIA. That was my cover.
DH: Oh, okay...
HM: ...at the time, and you have my permission to... At that time NPIC was classified top secret.
DH. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. We may be joined later; this is for the record, by Mr. Jeremy Gunn of the Review Board staff and also by a new employee (Marie B. Fagnant) who is in the building today also. Could you summarize for us sir, your professional experience - training in photography prior to and up to 1963
HM: I started in photography in 1938.
D.H.: Okay.
HM: I worked one summer at the FBI lab. I’m not sure of that summer. [Possible Redaction] My boss was [Jimmy?] Dunlap, who later became, left and went into business for himself and I worked for him part time, at different times.
I was in photography when I was in high school when I worked oh, as a photographer on the yearbook committee. I used to work at...for Pop Baker, and that was Eastman Kodak Photofinishing Georgetown, also a summer...school. I was in photography on the GI bill, I went to the National School of Photography and I went to the Washington School of Photography, and I took several extension courses at the US GS Graduate School at the Law Enforcement Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed.
DH: I see.
HM: I took several courses up at Rochester in Binghamton, under...Ansco in Binghamton Kodak, at Rochester. Other than that, I never had a degree in photography. In those days it was strictly vocational. There was no, you could get a masters degree up there...,the PPA...zip work but I never did or worked on that level,...to make presentations. I was a member of the Professional Photographers of America.
I went to college on the GI Bill at the end of the Second World War. And then I went to work for the CIA. My mentor Mel Fromme (sp. phonetic) was an old OSS operative during the Second World War. His dad ran the National School of Photography; I spent two years there, and he got me a job interview with the CIA. I went out .....? ...Street. That was Printing Services Division,...That was Austin Young (?). I worked there for a year and a half to two years. Then I went into business for myself for five years, and then went back for I think ten years...
DH: Went back to the Agency?
HM: Yeah, but I didn’t go back to the printing service division, I went to the Science Division. When Steuart’s Garage closed down, ah,...Kennedy’s brother Bob got that built. And - it was a special building, it was behind the barrier, you now you had the barrier walls, it couldn’t be penetrated. It was in the Navy Yard and I worked there for I guess close to ten years. And that’s when I was chief of the color lab,
DH: I see...
HM: GS 11 – step 7, was my grade when I worked there.
DH: What. Do you recall what year it was that you returned to the CIA and worked for about ten years, what year it was, more or less?
HM: No, I don’t have an accurate recollection.
DH: Okay. It would be, certainly before 1963,...
HM: Oh, yea. Yes.
DH: It would be in the 50s perhaps?
HM: Yes.
DH: Okay. When you went back to the CIA for the second time, were you working at the Stewarts Motors building with...ah?
HM: No. I didn’t work in the Steuart Garage; I’m not going to name names of people that I worked with...
DH: Okay, that's fine.
HM: I could give you Harry Vicard [or Vickert?]...he’s retired, he worked at the Steuart but he retired, and I talked to him, and he said he could get me an interview, and I went over, or they come over, I was working for Austin Young on...[ in Alexander?]...right there at [Duke Street?]... or King Street, I've forgotten which.
DH: That's okay...
HM: ... he came over and interviewed me and I transferred. I was LV16, I was under the GPA scale, I was in the Printing Services Division.
DH: Okay. Let me go off the record and introduce you to some people who just arrived.
DH: Okay back on the record. Mr. Jeremy Gunn, Marie Fagnant and Steve Tilley have joined us.
Mr. McMahon do you remember when you became head of the Color Lab?
HM: When I went over I was hired for that position and I transferred from a LV19 to a GS 11 step 7.
DH: Approximately what year was that?
HM: Late 50s.
DH: Okay, late 50s. Were you working at the National Photo Interpretation Center in November, 1963?
HM: Yes.
DH: Okay. We spoke previously on the telephone on June 9, Mr. Dave Montahue and I called you. I think you may recall that....
HM: Yes.
DH: ...You mentioned to us during that telephone call that you were involved in analysis and other events involving a home movie of the assassination. Can you tell us how you first head about this and who told you to come into work?
HM: Okay, I wasn’t an analyst. That was a technical term for somebody who did photo interpretation in my branch. And I was a photo-technologist. And what I did I timed...I - to my best recollection, I was - I worked in a vaulted area behind the barrier on extremely sensitive material. And my classification allowed me to work on anything and everything that I had need to know, and I won’t tell you what those were...but...
DH: And I won’t ask.
HM: We had...it was...a world beyond. We had unlimited budget...we had anything we wanted to buy, unlimited money, and it was a palace, it was Lundahl's Palace. I think they said 90% of intelligence came from our operation. And that was, that was what the analysists and photo interpreters did. And they knew along with,...I was in the science division now, but they also had accessed and used other information.
But the best I can remember of how I came to work on this project...and...Of course, we all heard of, you known that motorcade where Kennedy got killed, and I think we shut up shop and went home early after that. And it was within the next two days a chap was introduced to me, and I was sworn to his secrecy. It had nothing to do with the agency’s secrecy. And he was, to the best of my knowledge, he was introduced as Bill Smith,...
DH: Bill Smith, of ...what...what was...?
HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. And hh had, he had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it, who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had that on film, and he shot it with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. And we had a division up there - I won’t get into that, but they processed the film, it was Ek...it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever it was, and it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there,(ha ha) of the entire event, and, and make the best possible quality reproductions.
DH: When you say they told him, who do you mean?
HM: Well. (Ha, ha,)...Well, Eastman Kodak had contracts with the US government, and if you want to know, you can go to the CIA - they's tell you who told him, okay? But he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he and three other people timed the film, for - the - through observation you can tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and the slumps. We didn’t know anything about any audio, it was just visual, and we timed it, and determined where the time between the - physically timed it with a stop watch, where the gunshot hits - hit. And 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. I couldn’t tell I think, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when - when he got hit the first time, and then the second time he was hit, going off into...the angle up, and...
DH: Could I break in and ask you a question? When you say he and three others timed the film, does this mean that you people viewed it as a motion picture?
HM: Yes, we were in a briefing room, with a camera and a large screen - you said I could use Ben Hunter’s name?
DH: Yes sir.
HM: I worked with Ben Hunter, and I think he was a GS 7 and he was working with me as a trainee at the time in the color lab, and Bill Smith, ah,...excuse me, there were three of us, including myself (ha, ha), that’s it.
DH: That's it?...
HM: To the best of my knowledge.
DH: So the total number of people you can recall are yourself, Ben Hunter and Bill Smith?
HM: Yes. That’s all that were involved to my knowledge.
DH: How were you first notified to go in? Did this happen during the work day or after hours? How did you first get notified?
HM: I haven’t the faintest idea,
DH: Do you recall...?
HM: ....because I didn't - I didn't - I’ve been called in so many times...ah...
DH: For other jobs, right? Do you recall whether you did the job during the day or did...?
Jeremy Gunn: Excuse me, I'm sorry - I just want to make sure we're clear on the record. When you say you were called in many other times, was that for other jobs?...or...did you mean you were called many times on...
HM: When the goose laid the egg, we went on 12 to 12, these split shifts until we worked out the mission. Or...I don’t think that’s important. The other work I did had nothing to do with this.
JG:...that's fine.
DH: That’s all we're trying to do for the record, is to clairfy that when you said that statement, were you referring to this particular film or other jobs?
HM: Okay,...I had other clearances,... but none of these clearances that were given to me under the CIA or other clearances that I held for other government agencies, this was under strictly a, I was told that none of this was to be divulged to anyone. That we had it, that we did it, and I know that it was being used for a briefing but I don’t know who they briefed on it. My only guess, okay, we normally briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Reconnaissance Committee, and the President of the United States, with the work that I did. And I didn’t do any of the analysis. I just did the color part that was used in the briefing boards, and the Teleprompters and that kind of work, and it was also distributed under different Top Secret classifications...to the community.
JG: We just want to be clear on when you said you were called in several times, you were only called in once for the film related to the assassination.
HM: I worked on that one, and I worked on it until it was completed and I think it was probably more than a work day.
HM: When we spoke on June 9th, sir, it was your recollection at that time that you went in after hours and you worked basically all night long. Does that refresh your recollection?
HM: Yes,...but it was not during my normal...I don’t think it was during my normal - I don't think it was...I was called in but I wasn't told what I was called in for
DH: I see...
HM: I didn’t have the faintest idea what I was going to do there.
DH: Okay. Would you allow me to test your recollection on something that you said a moment ago that you thought this was within two days of the assassination. Is there any particular reason why you associate it as being that close to the assassinatin, any particular other events?
HM: I think, I think I was told that to get the film from the individual, take it and get it processed, and come back, was a couple of days. I’m not sure. I'm not...I don't really recall that.
DH: Do you recall whether this work that you did was before the funeral or after the funeral of the president?
HM: I’m pretty sure it was before.
DH: Before we get into some details of what you did, how would you best summarize the tasking that your agency received from Mr. Smith? Or could you revisit that topic again? Try to...
HM: Okay. I don’t know how it came through channels to us. I wasn’t told that. What I’m reflecting is what I think happened. I know it wasn’t under any clearances that I held, do I know it was being done for analysis and briefing, but I’m not sure who that was for.
DH: Okay. And what is it that he wanted you to do again, one more time?
HM: Okay, what he wanted us to do, after we came to the decision after we had timed it, was to take a frame by frame presentation of that sequence, and make a...best recollection five by seven internegs not printed two up on an eight by ten...Ben Hunter and myself, exposed them and processed them. Then we had a period of time were you have to wait for the drying of the material, and then we went back and viewed all of the negatives, and we had them marked and identified as to the sequence, and we made three each color contact prints, and again went back and processed those and had to wait for the drying. Ah…
DH: So the color prints were the same size then as the inter negative?
HM: I’m pretty sure we...
DH: Contact? Without an enlarger?
HM: ...we contacted the 8 x 10 negatives that were exposed two up. And then they were cut apart and identified on the back, and I did not do that, the identification, I don’t think I did that, I might have.
DH: Okay.
JG: I'm sorry can I interrupt you for a second, I apologize. He wasn’t clear to me about the negatives and the internegatives. You refer to there being five by seven internegatives and eight by ten negatives and I didn't know whether those were two entirely separate things or whether you were referring to the same thing?
HM: It’s called a work in turn (?)...You take an eight by ten negative, print a five by seven on five by eight,...then you turn it...move the frame, set up the liquid gate, and make the other one, and then put it in the box. So you finish say the first two, then you move the frame to the third frame. These were, this was precision equipment to make a one stage enlargement, and my best guess is 40 X, is what we made the little image to.
DH: By that you mean 40 times the original size?
HM: 40 times the original half frame super double eight...or whatever it was,...
DH: Just for the sake of the...
HM: ....We had three different, okay, we had a ten twenty forty...
DH: Is that the enlarging machine?
HM: Yes, that’s the enlarging machine. And you set up with – this is a coherent light source enlarger...and we set it up with a specific optical lens, and a specific condenser, and a color pack CC filters, so that we could expose all three layers of the Kodachrome on these negatives.
DH: You mentioned wet gate a moment ago?
HM: Yeah, it’s a liquid gate, a liquid gate, it's a...[new, no?]...today because, it was two parts of a...okay, we made our own liquid. And what the purpose of the liquid was, - it has a refraction index to eliminate the surfaces of the film which degrade the image, the front and back surface. It was called 10-20-40 fluid, and to my knowledge it was two parts of...(pause)...I don’t have...I can’t remember the...
DH: It’s alright. Was this applied by hand or full immersion wet gate?
HM: Oh no, you had little injection, and what happened your front lens came down...okay...it was precision equipment, and the excessive fluid went out, so it was full gate, almost like a microscope. Alright?
DH: Okay.
HM: And if you got air bubbles in it, you had to go back to start again and reinject it and bring it back down.
DH: Alright. May I ask another question before we move along? You mentioned Double 8 film a few times.
HM: Yes.
DH: Do you recall the condition of this movie when you saw it, had it been slit or unslit?
HM: I think it was unslit...the reason I...said that, and we might have slit it, but before we used it, but they were - I thought they were told that they didn’t want to slit the film,...and I don’t, I don’t think we slit it, I think we used it unslit in a 16 mm projector...
DH: That was going to be my next question, how did you project it? You think it was...
HM: I think it was unslit...This was the original film. It had been - I think they ran dupes of it, but we actually worked from the - the acquisition material of the original film.
DH: Is this something you observed yourself or something you were told by Mr. Smith? How do you come to the conclusion today that you had the original film?
HM: Alright, I think it was a combination of everything you said, along with, ah, the quality of the film. Normally when you dupe it, you loose a lot of resolution and when we made them you could ah...Kodachrome is an additive process. It’s black and white film with filers that give you color separation negatives, and then you use...dyes...After you flash them and redevelop them selectively onto the original film, and it has a Yellow coupler, a Magenta coupler, and Cyan coupler that give you the three subtractive primary colors that give you the illusion of image and color and there was very little dye that changes,...it was excellent imagery, and I don’t know if that still exists or not, but I’m pretty sure that’s what I used.
DH: Okay. One more follow up on the first part of the interview, and then we’ll move along. How certain are you that Mr. Smith said he went down to pick up the film from the person who took it and then took it to Rochester? Are you...
HM: I know he took it to Rochester, and I’m not certain other than I think he said he got it from the original person himself, but I am not positive of that. I am positive that he said that he took it to Rochester, hand carried it, got it processed, and then they guided him back to us to do the...
DH: So, Rochester wasn’t set up to do that stuff? In the sense that you had the big enlarger and they did not?
HM: We had a complete world beyond facility...(ha ha) - a multi-billion dollar photo lab, that Kennedy brothers got built for us in what? Three months I thik. They moved out of the Steuart, right in.
DH: Did the NPIC relocate, was it after the Missile Crisis? After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 that you moved?
HM: ....[Long pause] When did Kennedy's inauguration take place?
DH: January 1961.
HM: 61. It was shortly after that.
DH: Do you remember the approximate number of internegatives that you made?
HM: It was before the Cuban Missile Crisis, because I did alot - but I’m not going to talk about that. Now what was that question again?
DH: Do you remember the approximate number of frames on the original film of what you made internegatives?
HM: The best recollection is 40
DH: Okay.
HM: (pause)... and it might have been 20, between 20 and 40
DH: Between 20 and 40 - Okay. And which person in the room decided which, who decided which frames would…?
HM: We all did...
DH: It was a joint thing?...
HM: Yea.
DH: This, was this subsequent to viewing it as a motion picture, after that, or?
HM: Yeah. Oh after hindsight is, you know retrospect. Smith said afterward that he wished he had done the whole damn role.
DH: When did he say that?
HM: After we were finished (ha ha).
DH: Oh, during the same event? Okay. After you viewed this as a motion picture, did you, how did you, did you lay it out on a light table and use a loop, what did you do for further study? Before...I’m trying to ask you to recall the...process?
HM: Okay. After it was viewed, and I’m not sure we used a dupe to view it with, or we used the acquisition. We might have used a dupe roll to view it...
DH: Okay, for the projection?
HM: ...for the projection, I'm not sure. My recollectino isn't real good. I know that...I know he had dupes made of it, and yes, we could use loops and we could visually look at that, but when you put it in the type of equipment we had, you can actually physically see it...
DH: I see.
HM: ....on the vacuum board where the film goes.
DH: That would be superior to the loops viewing?
HM: Yes,
DH: Did...you gentlmen...?
HM: ....and we also used a ten-X magnifier to grain focus the image, each image, before we exposed it on the internegative, so we actually were getting the acquisition, the grain on the acquisition material into sharp focus, 'cause you couldn’t see the image of that - ten times forty is four hundred...
DH: So you were focusing on the actual grain?
HM: The actual. Well, it’s not grain, see it...Kodahcrome, the grain is in the negative, and you develop three black and white negatives and then you selectively expose them with the red, green and blue light and develop the complementary, added the primary color, which is Yellow, Magenta and Cyan couplers. So when these are all developed on the tri-pack of film you have, you have a positive dye image. The negative had the grain; the positive had a reciprocal dye image, which would have been a very much finer grain of silver that...Okay the chemical reaction is to replace the fine grain silver positive image with dye, and then you bleach out the sliver and are left with just the dye image, so it’s not technically grainy, it’s perception of what used to be grain.
DH: Okay. Thank you for that technical explanation. Is this process which you have described, is it proprietary to Kodak?
HM: Yes. They had a proprietary...Well no, at the time they passed a law that they had to relinquish the processing of Kodachrome, and there were two or three other...and one branch of Kodak went out and opened another company, so it was not proprietary.
DH: Did it, at any time during this work was the motion picture copied as a motion picture?
HM: No. Not in our operation.
DH: So you only made inter negatives and color prints, is that correct?
HM: Yes.
DH: And the size of the prints again?
HM: I’m pretty sure they were five by seven, by the best of...if they were the same ones I made.
DH: After the prints were made, I assume they had to dry. What happened next? Who were they given to?
HM: Ah, now the mounting on the briefing boards and the photo interpretation, so to speak, I was not involved in. And I think I went home (ha, ha). But Smith probably went to another area, it’s not even a vaulted area, it’s a finishing room upstairs.
DH: Did you and Mr. Hunter stop work at about the same time?
HM: He might have stayed on and helped. There was another chap who was probably involved in that work. And it was probably was done by the other chap,... and I’m sure Bill Smith. And I think you mentioned that Ben Hunter said he didn’t recall Bill Smith as the name of the agent that brought the film in?
DH: He did not independently recall that name.
HM: I remember Snuffy Smith, he was a Senator from Texas, and I think I asked the guy, 'cause I met him when I was overseas, and I asked him if he was any relation? (ha ha)... I knew he had been in Texas, where he got the film.
DH: So you remember asking him this question?
HM: I remember that, and he said no.
DH: Okay, that’s interesting. You just mentioned another chap who may have been involved with the briefing boards and photo analysis...,
HM: I can’t recall the name.
DH: ...and you can't recall their name?
HM: I don’t recall, and even if I did I wouldn’t tell you...because he was young...
DH: Let me ask you this question about names. Do you recall a person named Sands? S-A-N-D-S, at this point?
HM: Nope. Absolutly no recollection of that name.
DH: If I was to call this person Captain Sands, would that help anyway?
HM: Okay. We might have had an intermediate, naval officer that brought the chap in. Someone had to bring him in because they wouldn’t have had clearance and to get behind the barrier was pretty tough to do (ha ha) without presidential or above Top Secret clearance (ha ha).
DH: I see.
HM: ...and your...I had a CIA badge that would get me past the guard, and to get behind the barrier I had to have another special badge and that had to be picked up and turned in when I went in and then we were in a vaulted area that had crypto code you had to run to get in the door. So it was virtually not penetrable.
DH: Okay.
HM: ...And then after you got in the door you had to have a procedure to disarm the vaulted area or security would be on you...
DH: Extensive security
HM: Yes.
DH: It's good to hear that...Do you remember a Captain Sands was on the staff at NPIC? Was he...
HM: Even if I am I couldn't talk about that with you. We - we did have security officers. It was a geo-military operation...I shouldn't probably tell you that...
DH: I should explain to you the reason why we're asking you this. Ben Hunter independently recalled that a Captain Sands brought in the film and he could not remember anyone being with him. Subsequently he said there might have been a Secret Service fellow, but he remembered a Captain Sands. But he was unclear...what the person's job...
HM: Okay, most of the geo-military who were there were undercover, and I can’t mention them.
DH: Okay. Did you create or do you recall anyone taking any records or notes during your work?
HM: I think Hunter and I did the only records of the work, and I think there was on either a yellow...yellow...(a ha)
DH: You just put your hand on a yellow legal pad.
HM: Yes...it was a legal type pad. Unless it was recorded on, we made our marks on some of the...to keep the, but I did not put any classification or any of that nature, I didn’t put any control, no classification or control, on any of the documents. Normally that's required before it cold leave the vault, it has to be controlled with a Top Secret Cover sheet, but I did not do that. Now after the briefing board is made from the material, and that classification precedes the classification then needs...a cover sheet. We made briefing boards, Teleprompters and graphs for... dissemination to the intelligence community.
DH: For other types of work routinely, but for this job you may have made notes on a yellow legal pad?
HM: Now I’m sure this did not go to the intelligence community, it was not part of the CIA. It was not...This was a Need To Know basis and it was used by whoever brought it in, (ha ha) either for the Warren Commission or to brief somebody else. It wasn’t for history,...I think it was to...I don’t know what it was for...I didn't even exercise a thought.
DH: Before we move along and before I show you the notes that the Archives has, let me revisit with you, what exactly did Mr. Smith say in regards to secrecy or non-disclosure regarding this event? Could you tell me that story again?
HM: I knew that my immediate supervisor was not allowed in the vault, that it was so sensitive, and he had all the tickets, and he was not allowed in the room. It was strictly on a need to know, do the job and get it out, and no one knew about it, there was no records...
JG: Just so the record is clear, when you say he had all the tickets, you mean all the clearances that he ha, he had a lot of security clearances?
HM: He had all the clearance equal to or the same that I had, but was not allowed, it was not, it was not the CIA or, a - I had all the clearances – the Atomic Energy, the National Security Agency, and it was not under any of these.
JG: Was there any other compartment, or was it just with a name which is...?
HM: There was no code name on it that I know of and if there was I couldn’t tell you. (ha, ha)
DH: Did Mr. Smith tell you it was classified at a certain level?
HM: Yes, he said it was defiantly classified on a Need to Know Basis...and he didn’t give me anything other than it that I was sworn to secrecy and I had - I don’t know whether I had to sign a document, I don’t recall any of that, but I know it couldn’t be divulged.
DH: Did he give you a level of classification, like Confidential or Secret?
HM: I have no...No, it did not have...He said it was Above Top Secret, and
DH: Okay
HM: Okay and that meant it had to have a code name. Now I don’t know what turned up on the briefing boards, I never saw'em.
DH: Before we examine the notes that the Archives has, Jeremy did you want to ask a follow up question?
Jeremy Gunn: Yes, I’d like to go back to something you said eary on in the interview where ah, a couple of things, where you said, “If I recall...he took three hits, possibly four,” and it wasn’t clear to me whether that he was, Kennedy or ... Connally. Did you reach a conclusion as to the number of hits on President Kennedy?
HM: My guess, I thought six or eight, but the consensus was two or three.
JG: Hits on Kennedy?
HM:: Yeah, Connally - They said it hit Kennedy and then went into Connally, ricochet....
DH: Did they say that that night?
HM: That was a - We were just trying to get were all the shots of action...and covered frames from both ends of it....and I knew that later they found some sound audio tapes and could get voice prints on sound and could tell how many separate weapons were fired because of the Dopler front and back and from directions it came from - and it showed up on a police tape that was recorded, one of the motorcycles had it on...I don’t know.
JG: Ah...How is you and the others came to reach the observation to the number of hits? Was that while the film was rolling, or was that a frame by frame analysis?
HM: Well the person who brought the film in had already seen it, and he knew where - he had already reviewed it - he already had pre-knowledge before we had it, so maybe we were swayed to go along with his ah, first impression. I don’t know.
JG: Did he say anything? Could you sort of recount the events as they occurred in terms of what, ah, is this Bill Smith,
HM: Yes
JG: ...Okay, what Bill Smith said about what he already knew about the film and what it showed?
HM: He viewed it, he viewed it after it was processed at Eastman Kodak –
TAPE RUNS OUT 51:08
DH: We’re back on record. Turned the tape over.
HM: Okay. I was just selected to do the job that I covered, and I really don’t think I should talk about what happened before, because I don't have, - it is hearsay information that I have no real knowledge of it.
JG: ...Just so it’s clear...The only things that we want to ask questions about are related to the film of the assassination
HM: Yes.
JG: That's all we are asking about. But it’s important for us to get as much information as we can about the processing and analysis of the film of the assassination, and the other work we’re not asking about, but this is something we want to get as much information as we can. If Bill Smith told you something about the film, that's very important for us to be able to know and document what happened, so if you could you just tell us what he said happened?
HM: Okay, to the best of my recollection he said, that he was contacted through his organization of a film, a person called up and they said they had it, and they felt that, they thought they had it, and they felt they didn’t want to give to anyone, or to sell it, or make a profit on it, and they wanted it to go to the Secret Service, and let them have that, and he gave the original film - the person who did the photography, to the Secret Service, and I don’t think anyone else knew about it until much later....alright...
JG: Let me try a question?...You are acquainted with the Zapruder film, the film called the Zapruder film? Is this the Zapruder film or a different film?
HM: I haven’t seen it for 35 years. Ah, I never heard Dalcruder at the time. I heard that much, much later.
DH: Do you mean Dalcruder? Did you say Dalcruder?
HM: He did. The man who took the most famous film was Abraham Zapruder.
HM: Abraham Zapruder. I never heard that name, or if I did I don’t remember it.
JG: But right now, you’re not certain whether the film you processed or that you were involved in working with was the Zapruder film...?
HM: Well, I'm told it was the only coverage they had. That that was it. No one else photographed it. They said it was the only film, and I don’t know if it was or if it was the historic film.
JG: What did Mr. Smith say had happened to the film prior to the time when you got it, regarding processing?
HM: Okay. Because of expedite, and the expedite part is they wanted to find out what happened, and they had film that was generously turned in by a very patriotic person, who told it was given to them because it might help in the investigation. This is what he was told, what I was told, and that it was of the utmost urgency, so he hand-carried it and flew to Rochester, and got it processed at the processing division there. And they were made aware that he was coming, and did it immediately for him, and I also think they made duplications of that, which I was told, and then he came back. Because they told him they couldn’t do what he wanted to get done, and that NPIC could do it, it fell on our laps and we did it.
JG: When you say they couldn’t get done what needed to be done, did you mean enlargements or was there some other?
HM: They didn’t have a laboratory that could do the quality of work that he wanted. He wanted maximum sharpness, the most see-ability, that - that you can get of the imagery and that we were set up to do and we were way beyond the state of the art and the quality that was turned out.
JG: For the film of the assassination, was it your understanding that anything more that could be done to it other than developing the original film and making some films of the original film...?
HM: The prints were duplications of the original film.
DH: Was anything else done to the film besides...?
HM: No, no one else had got...to my knowledge.
DH: Was it your understanding that Mr. Smith had come directly to Washington from Rochester?
HM: Yes, yes, he got off the airplane at the National Airport and came directly to us, to our building.
JG: Just so we are clear on something. It was our understanding that the film had been processed by Kodak. When you said it was done in Rochester, was that an inference that you drew when they said it had been processed by Kodak or did they specifically mention Rochester?
HM: Okay,....you’re getting on classified grounds there, that I can’t answer that question. I know but I can’t talk to you about that. There was another top secret lab that the government used.
JG: If you are uncomfortable talking about it, we can stop that here and that's fine, but this is something that is important for us to be able to do, and we can go back to the agency and talk to them....
HM: No. You can do that back through the agency, and I know that hasn’t been done, (ha ha) or it is in the public domain….
DH: I think there is a way to rephrase the question so that it is not a classified...so that you don't perceive a classified intent – I think the way to rephrase the question might be - Did Mr. Smith say this was done at Kodak or did he say this was developed at Rochester?
HM: Okay, again, I know where it was done, and I know who did it, and I’m (ha ha) not going to answer.
DH: Okay, is there any chance that where it was done was a Kodak lab in Dallas?
HM: To my knowledge no. (Pause) When you are in bed with the other (?) guy, we had their top scientists and photo chemists and optical people working in the world beyond. We had their people - I shouldn’t even be talking about it, sorry, and there was a definite link on the national level, where we had the best there was working with us...
JG: Would it be fair to say that there was another facility
HM: Yes...
JG: ...where you're understanding that is where it was processed...
HM: Yes.
JG:...and that facility was mentioned to you by name so that you knew where it was?
HM: Yes.
JG: ...In terms of the name of it, we don't need that...but just,...there...There was a reference to a specific place...?
HM: ...I don’t know if there's been any downgrading...National Photo Interpretation Center was Top Secret, you could not say it. You could say NPIC, and that was secret.
JG: I see, that's....
HM: ...and my cover was that I worked for the CIA. I did not work for NPIC. The military that worked there worked for the military, whether it was Navy, Army, Air Force, whatever. They did not work...for the CIA.
DH: I’d like to ask a follow on question if I can on the opinions in the room while you were discussing the hits, the shots that hit the people in the limousie - the governor and the president. Did Mr. Smith tell you the directions the shots came from, or did you people try to determine that on your own from your study?
HM:...Let me not answer that question, let me take a detour. I’m an army brat. My dad was in the first and second world war. And he was an officer. And when I was four years old, I was taught to shoot tricks. I was one of the greatest trick shot artists. When I was sixteen I used to fire at Perry, at Camp Perry, Ohio, I was in the NRA national championships. I’m talking about target shooting, not tricks. I was what they called a sight shooter. I could hit without aiming. In other words I was a trick shot artist. My dad would hold a dime between his fingers and at fifty foot I could shoot it out (ha ha) with a little trick gun. I’d pump three balls, golf balls and could pump and hit the three of them before they hit the ground. I used to have a rifle range in my basement and I would shoot every day and I became….it was like driving a car and after you’ve done it for so long you’re reflexes do it automatically. I could shoot without looking. I didn’t close one eye and look through a sight. I could actually shoot and hit what I wanted to hit. And I think I could really see the bullets hitting the object, and their trajectory, I could see the path of the bullet, and I could compensate for that if I missed. It was a feedback mechanism. And I was very good at what I did. In fact I’d make money in the money matches with the larger rifles, and I could make four or five hundred dollars in prize money firing, so I was a professional shooter, and yes, I could look at the pictures and tell you how many shots and possibly where they came from up, down, right, left, and this is intuition, and I couldn’t explain how I know that.
DH: What was it, how many shots were there in the assassination? What is your opinion?
HM: About eight shots.
DH: Where did they come from?
HM: From three different directions, at least.
DH: Could you remember what the directions were?
HM: No, but if you have the film, you can plot vectors. Because you can go out, I’m a photogramist as well. (ha ha) You can go out. Okay there’s a way to do it, believe me.
DH: Were you asked to do that?
HM: No.
DH: Did you say that you were looking at the film with the others...
HM: I wasn’t a photogramacist at the time...
DH: I understand. I didn't...
HM: ...I later worked for photo science, this was a photogram. I was a, a aerial photographer and I did aerial photography for whatever you want to call it, for mapping, first, second and third order surveying. I did that for ten or twelve years...and...Now I was a shooter, and that is the only reason I can tell you what I saw and thought I saw, and it wasn’t superior vision, it was just intuition. And no I did not agree with their analysis at the time I was doing the work, and I didn’t have to because I wasn’t a photo analysist, (ha ha) I wasn't asked to do that.
DH: Yeah. Do you remember what Mr. Smith's analysis was, or what his...?
HM: He thought there were three shots.
JG: From what direction he opined...?
HM: Well, he went with the standard concept, that Oswald a shooter out of the second story...now you have psychological profiles on Oswald...you've got tons of it, you ought to be able to figure out...(ha ha)
JG: Was there a selection made of the photographs to be enlarged – frames to be enlarged?
HM: I didn’t make any selection. It just went sequential, for that one group, everything was sequential, nothing was left out.
JG: Would that be from the first time you first identified there having been a shot until...?
HM: Up to what they thought were three shots...
JG: Approximately how many frames were there between...the sign...shots...
DH: ...Well the limo occupants disappear behind the sign at about frame 190 and the fatal head shot according to the Warren Commission was 313, so that’s quite a few frames.
JG: That's more than a hundred frames...So the question I have is how many frames were actually made?
HM: Maybe then for each of what they thought were the three shots, we, we did before and after, I’m not clear on that. But I know we covered three shots but I thought that, okay, I thought that they were sequential, one frame after the other, when I did it, and again, I’m only talking about forty shots that I was involved in making...
DH: 40 frames?
HM: 40 frames...so then it might have been, that it was befoer each hit that they thought was detectable, but I thought there were others in there, and that, that's another opinion, so...
DH: Did they ask you...
HM: No. (ha)
DH: ...for your opinion?
HM: Hah, well I couldn't convince anyone.
DH: Did you try?
HM: Yes.
DH: You did express your opinion that night?
HM: Oh, yes, I expressed my opinion, but (ha ha) you know, it was preconceived. That’s the way I thought about it. It was preconceived, so you don’t fight city hall and I wasn’t there to fight them. I was there to do the work. (ha ha)
JG: When you say preconceived, you mean the Secret Service agent already had notion in mind that he was ....and others...?
HM: Yes, and I didn’t care. I had no vested interest in what was happening.
JG: One time in the course of the discussion you were talking about the viewing of the film. If I recall correctly you said that - you referred to there wre people in the room and a camera, and I just wondered if you meant a motion picture...
HM: Motion picture, yea. And I am sure it was a...
JG: Projector.
JG: Motion picture?
HM: It was a projector.
JG: A projector. Was there a camera or was it just a projector?
HM: It was a projector. And we had the still frames filters that we could put in and stop it and run it forwards and back. It was a unique one, not a cheap one. (ha)
JG: Was it 16 mm projector?
HM: I seem to recall it as being a 16 mm, but that again, we had every kind of projector. It was in a briefing room, we went up to one of our briefing rooms and they have all that equipment up there.
JG: When you say Double 8 film I assume you refer to a type of film where there would be one series of images that go down on one side and another series that comes up the other side? Is that right?
HM: Correct, absolutly.
JG: Mpw. when that's - If that were projected as a 16 mm film you would be seeing two series of action, one in reverse and one going forward, one upside down, do have a recollection of whether that happened?
HM: I think that happened from the original film when I put it on the optical precision enlarger, okay, because, but we would center, you can center that film in the liquid gate, the frame, right in the center of it, and you don’t see it.
JG: That was my next question. I had assumed that when you made the negatives you were focusing just on the single frames that would be in the assassination seqiemce; do you have any recollection now if there was anything in the other part of the picture..., that wasn’t part of the assassination sequence?
HM: I have senile dementia...I can’t remember really anything. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? Well, you’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have accurate recall. I don’t have absolute recall.
JG: With regards to the other events that you talked about, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?
HM: I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (ha) I figured I am presenting anything here. This is not...at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up for you to decide. (ha)
DH: Shall we move on to the notes? I’m going to go off the record to get notes that the Archives.
DH: Back on record. Notes: From Record Group 233 – 90A Doc. ID# 1993.07.22.08:41:07-620600 Titled Analysis of the Zapruder Film Date 5-22-1975
I’m now going to hand these notes to Mr. McMahon and to let him read them and to see if he’s seen them before. Look at them and take your time.
01:16:00 - 01:17:09
[http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=31994&relPageId=1]
HM: Some of the writing is mine.
DH: And by this ah, this page here, sir?
HM: I don’t know whose that is.
DH: Okay. And the page you are not sure about is the page with three shot scenarios. One is labeled Life Magazine, and then two other possiblities...
HM: Okay...This is my writing.
DH: What Mahon has identified as his writing is on the backside of the half page: which reads: "shoot internegatives, one and a half hours,...process and dry internegatives, two hours, print test, one hour, make three prints, looks like they each signed one hour, process and dried prints, one and a half hours, a total of seven hours.”
HM: Yeah.
DH: Below that there is some - That’s in pencil. Below that is some blue ink...long divisions, and additions
HM: This is my writing.
DH: Those are also your writing?
HM: Yes.
DH: Also the pencil?
HM: Yes
DH: Okay, could you explain what that - well? What are the long divisions and additions? Do you recall what they are?
HM: ...marks. I don't know what...? It’s my writing; I think, no wait, I think it's my writing. It's either mine or Ben’s.
DH: Okay
HM: Do you have Ben’s handwriting?
DH: I can show you I have one section of the notes that he recalled was his handwriting, if you like and I can ask you if that...
HM: This looks like Ben’s writing up here.
DH: Okay and now you are looking at the other side of the half sheet...
HM: This looks like my writing here...
DH: Okay, the other side of the half sheet, which is a description of four briefing board panels... and when you said it looked like Ben's writing you were pointing at the, that penciled panel one, panel two, panel three, panel four...
HM: Yeah...
DH: Ben identified for us right below that the printing, print number frame number...These two marks here are the only two that he thought were his writing. Right here and here, underneath the column labeled Panel One.
HM: This is...this looks like Ben’s writing to what I, and this looks like my writing.
DH: And your writing it would be at the bottom of the half page where it talks about time between shots.
HM: I’m not sure about this. This looks like mine and this looks like...
DH: So the ah....Just for the records, the descriptions of the time it took to make internegatives and prints are Mr. McMahon’s writing.
HM: This is not my writing.
DH: Okay, Mr. McMahon is now looking at the page of - the top half says at 18 frames per second, the bottom half at sixteen frames per second and he has just said that...
HM: This is not my writing.
DH:...that is not his writing.
HM: This is not my writing. That might have been Ben Hunter’s.
DH: This next page that is not Mr. McMahon's writing is a page which on the uppe right hand corner which reads: "Questions from the 8mm film, how do they know exact frames of first and second shot, queston."
HM: Okay, we didn’t have...we were told what they thought they were, and this is what we we were told they thought they were, and this is what we concluded they were, and this is what we set the photography to...that’s the best I can do...
JG: Do you remember when you prepared the notes that you just looked at?
HM: Yeah, we were in the briefing room, in Building 213 in the Navy Yard, and it was, we were viewing it there because of the equipment.
JG: So that these were made on the day that you processed...?
HM: Yes, this was when we...these are fairly accurate timing shots, time, the way that it could be timed...The 16 frames per second, I don’t know whether I agree on the 18...This might have been ...frames pers second. This might have been a further analysis.
JG: Do you know if somebody else comparing the other notes that you don't recognize at the time or was there a...later...you have any idea...?
HM: They conformed, my best recollection, to what we wrote on that's all I know...I don’t know why I remembered that.
DH: You mean the yellow legal size paper?
HM: Yea.
DH: Okay, we would like to show you four briefing board panels that survived to see if you recognize the prints.
DH: Let me off The Record While we figure out how to move the briefing board in.
Back on Record:
01:23:51
DH: Okay back on the record and from the same ....90-A. We are looking at the Riff which reads as follows: Document is 90 – A RIF# 1993.07.21 15:48:04.930600 This is titled, quote:
Briefing Panels containing Zapruder Photos of Kennedy's Assassination enquote
Dated 11, 23, 1963. I am handing Mr. McMahon Panel one of four for his examination.
HM: They’ve been trimmed out, but that’s what we shot.
DH: You say it’s been trimmed?
HM: Yes.
DH: But you recognize it as prints you have made?
HM: Yes. To the best of my knowledge.
DH: We'll show you the four panels, and ask you if you recognize - the same question for each. This is labeled Panel 2.
HM: Yes.
DH: You also recognize these, for the record, as photographs, prints that you made. If at any time you see something that is not prints you made, please say so. This is Panel 3.
HM: There’s some missing.
DH: This is the final panel, Panel 4.
HM: Yes. I did all those.
DH: Okay. Now that you’ve seen all four panels do you feel like this represents all of the views that you created or do you still feel there is some missing?
HM: No, there are some more...
DH: The notes say, 28, you said earlier there were between 20 and 40.
HM: As a matter of interest I might point out that in the working notes on the page labeled "Briefing Panel," it lists 28 different prints. A total of 28, and earlier you had said that it was somewhere between 20 and 40.
HM: Yes.
DH: And your opinion now is that you still think some that you made are not present?
HM: Yes, I think there's some missing.
DH: I know it's a long time ago...
HM: No I'm not....(ha ha)
DH: ...Do you recall the image content that might be missing what it might have showed?
HM: You mention they went behind the sign and came out again. I don’t think they had all that sequence there...And then there was one of the FBI agent jumping up,...not the FBI, the body guard, jumping on the back...and then there was one where his head fell down on her lap - so I don't see that.
DH: When you say his head you mean the president?
HM: The President's head - after the one that you showed, the last brefing board that you showed, not this one.
DH: Yes.
HM: Then again that might have been not used.
DH: Here's the last one, Panel 4, and the last print on the board shows Secret Service Agent Clint Hill on the rear of the limousine, it's the only frame that shows him.
HM: I think there ultimately were two agents no the back of the limousine, but that was after the barn door was...has since closed at that point...maybe that was there...
DH: Let’s look at Panel 1...Panel one shows the limousine half behind this road sign and there are several road sign shots. At the end of Panel one the car is coming form behind the road sign. Does this sequence look like it represents...?
HM: Yes, that looks fairly en...tire...but I think there were more before the road sign, before...
DH: This frame or the frame...
HM: ....maybe they determined that....
DH: This first frame on Panel 1 – although it is not labeled on the panel, in the working notes it's labeled "this frame 188." It's your recollection that there may have been other frames prior to 188?
HM: Yes... where there was some action of some sort.
DH: I’d like to clarify for the record. I think we've covered it already but just for the sake of those who listen to thist tape later...Did you see the actual briefing boards that night?
HM: No. I saw the pictures, the actual pictures. I made the pictures, and I made three each of everything.
DH: Okay, and did you give them to Mr. Smith when you were finished or do you recall?
HM: I know that Ben Hunter, and if it was - Smith, or whoever he was (ha ha), took them and had the briefing boards made upstairs, and I might have gone up but then I didn't stay to, ah, to see the finished product, or they had to take - make what they call headliners and text and they might have put classifications on them, I think there was a classification that had to be put on, but I’m not positive.
DH: Do you...In relation to the discussions that were held that night by the workers, between yourself and Mr. Smith and Mr. Hunter, do you have any opinion on what these triangles might mean on the briefing boards, Panel one there's a red triangle, on the first row, on the second row there's a blue triangle, there's a blue triangle on the second row on Panel 2?
HM: I haven’t the faintest idea.
DH: Okay...Okay...Do you recall what happened to the internegatives?
HM: Yeah, they were given...all of the information, including the scraps, were given to Bill Smith. (ha ha). Everything we did, including scraps, waste, test sheets, was all given back and nothing, no parts were saved, we didn’t even put it in the classified trash, we gave the trash back.
DH: Okay. Is there anything about this event that we have not covered yet, that we should cover? Anything that comes to mind that we have been discussing now and go...that maybe there’s something important that we feel should be covered that we haven’t asked you about?
HM: Yes. You know what opinions are? Opinions, everybody has an opinion, and yes, I am very opinionated, and I have a lot of opinions, we all have opinions, and I'd just as soon not...I was trying to reflect, this is for history,...and I don’t want to interject anything into this that shouldn’t be. I’m trying to be as open and honest, and telling what I remember, and I don’t have good remembrance. I’m almost 70 years old, I’m almost 80 years old, I’m almost 90 years old, I don’t know, but that’s the best of my knowledge.
DH: Okay,...Welll, I want to thank you very much for your time, and I'm sorry, Michelle, before I close, is there anything you wanted to ask? You've been taking notes here today.
K. Michelle Combs: I have one very quick question. Who called you in?
HM: I was not contacted.
MC: Were you in the building...or did you come in?
HM: Okay, I think that I was, okay when I’m contacted from home, it’s by a security officer,
MC: Or by the duty officer?
HM: A duty officer, because they probably had to open the lab, turn on the electricity, lights, and I know it was an all night affair
MC: Do you think the duty officer called your house?
HM: I'm pretty sure it was recorded somewhere in the security, and the opening of the vault would be recorded - if they kept those records.
HM: These had deteriated rather badly. There’s dye, tremendous dye loss...you could see the pictures, the faces and everything else much clearer when I originally made them, so there’s been a tremendous loss of image and quality. You’ve lost about 60% of the...magenta resin core coupler, and about 80 percent of the yellow resin core, and maybe 10 percent of the cyan... so there’s a lot of information that’s not there. That was a problem with the old resin core couplers, they were not stable, buffing solutions couldn’t stabilize the dies for 35 years.
DH: Thank you very much for sharing your recollections and opinions with us. There have been many things about these notes that were actually either not understood or I think misunderstood by many people, including myself. This has been very helpful for the record. Thank you very much.
HM: Okay.
DH: We’re back on the record. This is Doug Horne with Mr. McMahon and I just found one more photographic print, it's separate from the briefing boards, it looks to me like its eight by ten or very close to eight by ten. It's bigger than the photos on the briefing boards. It's Document ID # 1993.07.22.08:33:27:250600 Dated 11-23-63. It's an eight by ten color print of a frame from the Zapruder film, in between the road sign and the head shot, and on the back there's a color crayon marking 80X. I'd like to ask Mr. McMahon to explain what this is?
HM: This was made from the 40X internegative and it was a 2X enlargement done on a DeVere, not a precision enlarger, and it shows...I'm not sure in the sequence where it is...but it was made to show what the enlargement would look like compared - The contact print was of a better quality. Because we didn't have a 2X briefing board enlarger set up to do it. We had to do it on a cheaper Italian DeVere enlarger...If we put on our briefing board enlarger with the liquid gate, we could have gotten equal quality to resolution and sharpness, but it wasn't available for some reason, so we couldn't use that equipment and we had to use a lesser, and they would rather go - it was big enough and they wpi;d rather go with the sharpness and the resolution so that....There was too much loss.
DH: Too much loss with reproducing the image in the manner it is in this one print...
HM: Well it was not a liquid gate, it was a 2X conventional enlarger.
DH: Okay, from the internegative...
HM: Okay....from the original 40x interneg, so we elected not to go that way.
DH: So this would have been made a test prior to the prints made for the briefing board, perhaps?
HM: Well we made a contact print, and we made a 2X enlargement.
DH: I see, I see...
HM: And the contact print was far better in quality...
DH: Okay.
HM: But it wouldn't have been if we had one of the briefing board enlargers to make the 2X.
DH:I see. But you didn't?
HM: It was, for some reason, it was down, it wasn't operative.
DH: So this 80X on the back it looks like colored pencil. Is that your writing?
HM: Yes. that's my writing.
DH: Okay, and there's a number in the corner, a blue number. It's either a nine or a six upside down. I think it's a nine, looks like a nine, do you recognize that number?
HM: It looks like a nine...do you recognize that number...?
Tape Ends....
Over at 1:41:19
[Bill Kelly Notes: Many thanks to Jones Harris for calling attention to the signifiance of this interview, Peter Janney for providing the recording and Jerry Ellis for correcting and filling in the gaps in the transcript.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


