There were
over 75 cameras operating in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.
Most were snapshot cameras and Polaroid.
About a dozen of those cameras were 8mm home movie cameras.
One of which
was Abraham Zapruder with his Bell & Howell 8 mm movie camera.
So far the Zapruder film is the clearest and, most popular of all the
movie film taken of the Assassination.
Friday afternoon the Secret Service took Mr. Abraham Zapruder to
a local Dallas laboratory to have his film developed.
Zapruder had the Original and, 3 copies (only) made for a total
of four.
Zapruder immediately gave two copies to the Secret Service
leaving the Original and, one copy.
Zapruder then arranged two showings of the film for Saturday
morning.
One showing at 8:00 a.m. for the Local Authorities.
One showing at 9:00 a.m. for the Media.
By Saturday morning there were media people in Dallas from all
over the world.
Richard Stolley of Life Magazine showed up at Zapruder's office
before 8:00 a.m. and, reluctantly Zapruder allowed Stolley to view the film with
the authorities at 8:00 a.m. Stolley immediately negotiated a price for
the film and left through the back door with the Original AND Last remaining
Copy. All of this took place while the Media was screaming and banging on
the doors and windows pleading for an opportunity to bid on the film.
Since when can a private business BUY evidence in a major
crime?
There was NO showing at 9:00 a.m. for the Media.
The film was Never shown publicly ever since by Government or,
Time/Life.
Since then the Government and Media both have Lied about what
that Zapruder film shows of the Assassination.
Dan Rather of CBS News went on National TV that Saturday and
explained that the fatal shot at frame 313 sent the President's head
"Forward with considerable violence". Leading us to believe that the
fatal shot came from behind.
The exact opposite is what the Zapruder film shows.
See Rather Lies page.
Kennedy's whole body is driven violently backwards and to the
left, because he was shot from the right front.
In volume 18 of the Warren Commission's volumes they printed 2
frames per page in black and white.
The fatal shot was at frame 313.
They "accidentally" transposed frames 314-315 giving
the impression that the head went "Forward".
Life magazine also Lied in their issue dated December 9,
1963. (page 52F) see Media page.
Two weeks after buying the film for $150,000.00 Life said
that the ENTRY wound to the President's throat occurred when the film
shows the President turns far to his right waving to someone in the crowd behind
him.
The ONLY way you could see the film is to go to the National
Archives in Washington D. C.
The Government Refused to show it
publicly and, Time/Life Refused to show it publicly.
In March of 1975 Geraldo Rivera had a TV show called
"Goodnight America".
Geraldo had 2 guests on one night named Robert Groden and Dick
Gregory.
Groden and Gregory Showed the Zapruder Film on National TV for
the First time.
Shortly after that National TV showing of the Zapruder film,
Time/Life sold it back to the Zapruder Family for $1.00 after paying $150,000.00
for the film.
Because "The Cat was Out of the Bag" there was no
sense holding on to it secretly.
That TV showing along with thousands of Americans working on
Petition Drives to re-open the Investigation resulted in the formation of the
HSCA.
Back in 1967 the world was enthralled when they discovered that
a District Attorney from New Orleans LA named Jim Garrison was Investigating the
Assassination again.
Garrison had subpoena power and quickly subpoenaed the Zapruder
film from Time/Life. Once Garrison had the film, bootleg copies showed up
all over the Country in the research community.
Because I had read Zapruder's testimony that he set his camera
on full telephoto (zoom) and never changed it I was puzzled when I got my copy
of the Zapruder film and saw that the frames went to full zoom after the limo
came out from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and passed the first light pole.
Someone (anonymous) sent me a video showing a black bar across
Governor Connally's chest blocking any view between his chin and navel. I
could see above AND below the black bar so, it was clear that they were blocking
out something.
I then remembered Dan Rather's narration of the contents of the
film we were never going to see and recalled him describing a shot to JBC's
chest.
I then went to my copies of the Dallas newspapers to confirm
that indeed the original reports stated that JBC was shot in the chest.
Finally, I looked in Volume 1 of the HSCA volumes.
Here's what I found there.
The relevant pages run from pages 68 through page 97.
Pages 68 through 88 have NO black bar on them.
Pages 89 through 94 DO have the black bar on them.
Pages 95 through 97 have NO black bar on them.
Last Normal size frame below. (F-247) Without black bar.
First frame of Blow Up AND Black Bar below (F-249)
black bar still evident (F-260)
black bar gone (F-262) No longer Zoom
See JFK slammed "Backwards" below
What "great deal of the action" is missing???
Look at Your copy of the "Z" film.
Do you see any black bar?
Or, do you see the frames Blown Up blocking out what happens in
the bottom of the frames?
were
police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess,
where the shot came from--that it came from that height.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you were standing on this abutment facing
Elm street
, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down
the railroad track behind that, is that right?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. After the shots?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle
cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right
behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came
from right behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which
these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me.
Of course, you
can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I
was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it
right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from
there.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
down into
Elm Street
, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought
perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment,
where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and
I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that
they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it
looked like it came from the back of me.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
Transcribed
by William Kelly - January, 2010
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
Douglas Horne:
D.H.: Okay, it is Monday, July 14th,
1997, my name is Doug Horne. I am 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 (sp?) of the AARB. And we before
we begin I would like to confirm with you on the record, is it okay, do we
have your permission to tape this interview?
Homer McMahon: Yes, I am Homer McMahon,
I wasn't NPIC, I was with the CIA. That was my cover at the time, and you
have my permission. At the time NPIC was a classified topic.
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.?) who is in
the building today also. Could you summarize for us sir, your professional
experience and 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 edit] My boss
was 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 as the photographer on the yearbook committee. I used
to work at…for Pop Baker, and that was at the Kodak photo finishing
at
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.
I took several courses up at
Rochester
in
Binghamton
, under…..and 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…MBA, but I never….. or worked on that level,….to make national
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 Fromm (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 two or three 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: Yea, but I didn't go back to the
printing service division, I went to the Science Division. When Stewart's
Garage closed down, ah,…Kennedy's brother Bob got that built. It was
a special building, it was behind the barrier, 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, 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, it would be in the 50s perhaps?
HM: Oh, yea. Yes.
DH: Okay. When you went back to the CIA
for the second time, were you working at the Stewarts Motors building
with…?
HM: No. I didn't work in the Stewart
Garage; I'm not going to name names of people that I worked with…
DH: Okay.
HM: I could give you Mike…..he's
retired, he worked at the Stewarts but he retired, and I talked to him,
and he said he could get me an interview, and I was working for Austin
Young, ….right there at Kingston, or….King Street, I forget which, -
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 (B.?) 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. You mentioned to
us during that telephone call that you were involved in analysis and other
events with 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 someone who did photo interpretation in my branch. I
was a photo-technologist. What I did I timed…to my best recollection, I
was I worked in the vaulted area behind the barrier with pretty sensitive
material. 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. 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. They knew along with,…I was
in the science area, but they also had access and used other information.
But the best I can remember how I came
to work on this project. 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….?
HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. 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 on film he shot with a
little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to
Rochester
. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed
the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version,
whichever that is, 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, of the
entire event, 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 and they will tell you who told him, but he got the film
processed, and he brought it to us, and he and three other people timed
the film, for through observation you can tell where the gunshots actually
caused the hits and slumps. We didn't know anything about any audio, it
was just visual, and we timed it, and determined the time - physically
timed it with a stop watch, where the gunshots hits hit. And we went from
I think maybe two frames before the first hit and then we hit every single
frame thru….He only counted three hits, possibly four. I couldn't tell I
think, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when he got hit the first
time, and then the second time he got hit, going off into an 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?
I worked with Ben Hunter, Ben Hunter 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. To the best of my knowledge.
DH: So the total number of people 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? Or how did they
first notify you?
HM: I haven't the faintest idea,
because 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? Jeremy Gunn: I just want to make sure
for the record. When you say you were called in many times, you mean for
other jobs?
HM: When the goose laid the egg, we
went on 12 to12, 12 hour shifts until we worked out the mission. I don't
think that's important. The other work I did had nothing to do with this.
DH: That's what the question
was….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. We
had it, we did it, but I didn't know who was going to be briefed…..My
guess, 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. 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 Top Secret
classifications to the community.
JG: We were only trying to clarify if
you were called in several times, you were only called once for the film
of 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,
you indicated that you were called in and you worked basically all night
long. Does that refresh your recollection?
HM: Yes, …I don't think it was during my normal….I didn't know what I
was being called in for. I didn't have the faintest idea.
HM: Would you allow me to test your
recollection on something else? You said it was within two days of the
assassination. Is there any particular reason why you associated it with
other events within a few days?
HM: I think I was told that to get the
film from the individual, to get it processed, and get it back, it was a
couple of days. I'm not sure.
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? Could you revisit that topic again?
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 of the clearances I held, and 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 a 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 interlays and I printed up eight by ten…Ben Hunter and myself,
exposed them and processed them. Then we had a period of time we had 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 then we
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 contacted the 8
x 10 negatives that were exposed…. 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.
JG: It wasn't clear to me about the
negatives and the internegatives. You refer to there being five by seven
and eight by ten…. I don't know whether they were separate things or
were you were referring….
HM: It's called a working…..You take
an 8 by 10 negative and print a five by seven on a five by eight, you
print a ……then turn it…set up the liquid gate, and make the other
one, and then put it in the box. So you finish say the first two and move
the frame to the third frame. 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 half frame super
double eight…or whatever it was, we had three different, we had a ten
twenty forty….
DH: Is that the enlarging machine?
HM: Yes, that's the enlarging machine. You set it up with – this is a
coherent light source enlarger…We set it up with a specific optical
lens, and a specific condenser, and a color pack CC filters, so we could
expose all three layers of the Kodacrome on these negatives.
DH: You mentioned wet gate a moment
ago?
HM: Yea, it's a liquid gate, a liquid gate, 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: You had ….injection….you had
front lens come down…it was precision equipment, with the excessive
fluid went out, so it was full gate, almost like a microscope. And if you
have air bubbles in it, you have to go back and 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. Do you
recall the condition of this movie when you saw it, had it been slit or
unslit?
HM: I think it was unslit and I might have said that, and we might have
slit it before we used it, but 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?
HM: I think it was unslit. This was the
original film. I think they ran dupes of it, but we actually ran the
acquisition material of the original film.
DH: Is this something you observed
yourself or something that you were told by Mr. Smith? How do you come to
the conclusion today that you had the original film?
HM: 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 actually….Kodacrome is an additive process. It's black and white
film with filers that give you color separation negatives, you use
….dies….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 die 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. I am positive that he said
that he took it to
Rochester
, and got it processed, and then brought it to us to dupe it.
Rochester
wasn't set up to do that stuff.
DH: 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 the Kennedy
brothers got built for us in what, three months I think. They moved out of
the Stewart right in.
DH: Did the NPIC relocate after the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Was it after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October
1962 that you moved?
HM: When was Kennedy's inauguration
take place?
DH: January 1961
HM: 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….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 film that you made internegatives?
HM: The best recollection is 40
(pause), and it might have been 20, between 20 and 40.
DH: 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, but in hindsight, 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: After you viewed it as a motion
picture, how did you, did you lay it out on a light table and use a loop,
what did you do for further study? 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 or we used or… acquisition. We might have used a
dupe role to project it. 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 on the vacuum
board where the film goes.
DH: That would be superior to the loops
viewing?
HM: Yes, and we also used a Tin-x
magnifier to grain focus the image, each image, before we exposed it on
the inter-negative, so we actually were getting the acquisition, the grain
on the acquisition material into sharp focus, because you couldn't see the
image so ten times forty is four hundred…
DH: So you were focusing on the actual
grain?
HM: Well, it's not actually grain; Kodacrome, 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 colors, which are the primary colors,
magenta, yellow and cyan couplers, so when these are all developed on the
tri pack of film you have, you have a positive die image. The negative had
the grain; the positive had a reciprocal die image, which would have been
a much finer grain of silver. Okay the chemical reaction is to replace the
fine grain silver positive image with die, and then you bleach out the
sliver and are left with just the die, so it's not technically grainy,
it's perception of what used to be grainy.
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 where they had to relinquish the
processing of Kodacrome, 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, if they were the 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.....
END PART I
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Jan 31 2010, 08:02 PM
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Jan 31 2010,
09:57 PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Jan 31 2010, 08:57 PM)
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.
QUOTE
HM: I think it was unslit and I might have said that,
and we might have slit it before we used it,
but 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 one thing is certain, we either slit the film, or else we didn't
slit the film. It was DEFINITELY one or the other.
Absolutly. One way or the other.
And you are only dealing with one visit of the Z-film to NPIC, as Dino
Brugioni also says he worked on the Z-film that weekend in a completely
different session that also made enlargements of the z-film frames for
briefing boards that were used to brief CIA director John McCone, who
after the briefing, informed RFK that there was evidence of a second
shooter, and thus a conspiracy.
Why was the "original" Z-film taken to the NPIC twice, for the
same project - making enlargements of the individual frame for briefing
boards?
Neither Homer McMahon nor Dino Brugioni, both CIA employees of the NPIC
are making any allegations about the film being altered at all, but merely
describing the film that they had in their possession that weekend.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
McMahon
interview Part II. 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, because I had met him overseas, and I
asked him if he was any relation? (ha ha)…. I knew he had been in
Texas
, where he got the film. And I asked him and he said no.
DH: That's interesting. You just
mentioned another chap who may have been involved with the briefing boards
and analysis…, do you recall their name?
HM: I can't recall the name. I don't
recall, and even if I did I wouldn't tell you…because he was young…
DH: Let me ask you a question about
names. Do you recall a person named Sands? S-A-N-D-S?
HM: No. No recollection of that name.
DH: If I would call this person Captain
Sands, would that help anyway?
HM: Okay. Well, we had an intermediate,
a naval officer. They would have had to have someone bring him in because
they wouldn't have had clearance. To get behind the barrier was pretty
hard to do without presidential or above Top Secret clearance (ha ha). I
had a CIA badge and that would get me past the guards, and to get behind
the barrier I had 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
penetrateable. And 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….Do you
remember a Captain Sands was on the staff at NPIC?
HM: Even if I knew I couldn't tell you.
It was a geo-military operation.
DH: Ben Hunter recalled that a Captain
Sands who brought in the film. Subsequently he said there might have been
a Secret Service Agent, but he remembered a Captain Sands.
HM: 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 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…..(ha 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, but I did not put any classification or anything of that nature, I
didn't put any classification or control, on any of the documents.
Normally that is required before it could 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, that would have also had classifications. We made briefing
boards, Teleprompters and graphs for dissemination to the intelligence
community.
DH: For other types of work, 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… I don't know what it was for…
DH: Before we move along and before I
show you the notes that the Archives have, let me revisit with you, what
exactly Mr. Smith said about secrecy or non-disclosure regarding this
event? Could you tell me that story again?
HM: I know 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 needs to know about it, there was no records….
JG: When you say he had all the
tickets, you mean he had had clearances?
HM: He had all the clearances I had, but was not allowed, it was not the
CIA or, 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
a name?
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 on a Need to Know Basis….and he didn't
give me anything other than I was sworn to secrecy. I don't know if I
signed a document, I don't recall, but I know it couldn't be divulged.
DH: Did it have a level of
classification, like Confidential or Secret?
HM: No, it did not have…He said it was Above Top Secret, 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 them.
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 earlier in the interview where you said, "When I
recall…he took three hits, possibly four," and it wasn't clear to
me if he was, were you were talking about 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.
They said it hit Kennedy and hit Connally, ricochet…
DH: Did they say that that night?
HM: We were just trying to get were all
the shots of action….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 and directions it showed up on one of the police tapes that was
recorded, one of the motorcycles had it on…..I don't know.
JG: How is you and the others, how did
you come to conclude the number of hits? Was it from the film while it was
rolling, or was that a frame by frame analysis?
HM: Well the person who brought the
film in, he had already saw it, he had pre-knowledge before we had it, so
maybe we were swayed to go along with his first impression. I don't know.
JG: Did he say anything? Could you sort
of recount what happened, was it Bill Smith, what Bill Smith said what he
already knew about the film and what it showed.?
HM: 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: I was just selected to do the job
that I covered, and I don't think I should talk about what happened
before, because it is hearsay knowledge that I have no real knowledge of
it.
JG: …Just so it's clear…..That's
what we're asking about. 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, it's important to us, 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 by
his organization about a film, a person called up and they said they had
it, and they felt they didn't want to give to anyone, 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.
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, or if I did I don't remember it.
JG: Right now, you're not certain if
the film you worked with was the Zapruder film or another film?
HM: I was told it was the only coverage they had. 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 do what
they wanted done, was that 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, and that's what we could do and we were way beyond
the state of the art and the quality that was turned out.
JG: Before the film of the
assassination, was it your understanding that anything more that could be
done besides….?
HM: The prints were duplications of the
original film.
DH: Was anything else done to the film? HM: No, not 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: Now you're getting into classified
grounds, that I can't answer that question. I know but I can't talk about
it. 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 would be fine, but this is
something that is important for us to do, and we can go back to the agency
and talk to them.
HM: 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 without you perceiving a classified intent – 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 not going to answer.
DH: Okay, is there any chance that
where it was done could that be in 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 where it is your understanding that is where it was
processed….in terms of the name of it
HM: Yes.
JG: …..where it was your
understanding it was processed….In terms of the name of it, we don't
need that..
HM: Yes…but I don't know if there
was…..You couldn't say
National
Photo
Interpretation
Center
…..You could say NPIC, and that was secret. 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 on the opinions in the room on the discussion of the hits on 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: I may not answer that question, let me take a detour. I'm an army
brat. My dad was in the first and second world war. He was an officer.
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.
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….I later worked as aerial photographer and I did aerial photography
for what do you 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 was not paid
to do that.
DH: What did Mr. Smith think?
HM: He thought there were three shots.
JG: From what direction.
HM: He held to the standard concept,
that Oswald fired out of the second story…you have psychological
profiles of Oswald…you have tons of it, you ought to be able to figure
out…(ha ha)
JG: Was there a selection made of the
photos – frames to be enlarged?
HM: I didn't make any selection. It was
all sequential, from that group, everything was sequential, nothing was
left out.
JG: Would that be from the first time
you could identify there was a shot?
HM: Up to what they thought were the
shots.
JG: Approximately how many frames were
there between….
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: So the question I have is how many
frames were actually made?
HM: Well, maybe what they thought were
three shots, so maybe we we did before and after, I'm not clear on that. I
thought 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 maybe it might have
been they did it before each hit they thought was detectable, but I
thought there were others…
DH: Did you express your opinion?
HM: Yes, I expressed my opinion, (ha
ha) but you know, it was preconceived. That's the way I thought about it.
You don't fight city hall and I wasn't there to fight them. I was there to
do the work.
JG: When you say preconceived, you mean
the Secret Service man had preconceived notion?
HM: Yes, and I didn't care. I had no
vested interest in what was happening.
JG: Secret Service agent
HM: I didn't care…..
JG: Motion picture?
HM: It was a projector. And we had the
still frames that we could put in and stop it and run it backwards. It was
a unique one, not a cheap one.
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 film that had one series of images on one side and one
series on the other? HM: Yes.
JG: If it was 16 mm you would see one
going up and the other upside down, do have a recollection of that
happening.
HM: I think that happened from the
original film when I put it on the optical precision enlarger, because,
but we, you could center the film in the liquid gate, the frame, right in
the center of it, and you don't see it.
JG: I assume that when you made the
negative you would focus on the single frames of the assassination; do you
have any recollection now if there was anything in the other part, that
wasn't the assassination part?
HM: …..I can't really answer that. 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.......
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 1 2010, 01:00 AM
Group: Members Posts: 1793 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672
QUOTE
HM: We were just trying to get were all the shots of
action….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
and directions it showed up on one of the police tapes that was recorded,
one of the motorcycles had it on…..I don’t know.
Wow! THis guy's really up to date. He remembers something about the HSCA.
QUOTE
I don’t think I should talk about what happened
before, because it is hearsay knowledge that I have no real knowledge of
it.
HM: Okay, again, I know where it was done, and I know who did it, and
I’m not going to answer.
HM: Yes…but I don’t know if there was…..
TRANSLATION: I DON"T know where it was, and I DO know where it was,
but I wouldn't tell you either way. Anyway, IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
QUOTE
HM: 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.
HM: About eight shots.
Thanks Homer. ANOTHER mystery solved.
QUOTE
HM: I seem to recall it as being a 16 mm, but that
again, we had every kind of projector.
HM: …..I can’t really answer that. 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.......
Ah Memories.
But I am CERTAIN in my MEMORY about one thing: Whether it was 8 millimeter
or 16 miilimeter or some other millimeter entirely, it was definitely A
PROJECTOR.
This post has been edited by J.
Raymond Carroll: Feb 1 2010, 01:42 AM
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 02:36
AM)
QUOTE
HM: We were just trying to get were all the shots of
action….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
and directions it showed up on one of the police tapes that was recorded,
one of the motorcycles had it on…..I don't know.
Wow! THis guy's really up to date. He remembers something about the HSCA.
QUOTE
I don't think I should talk about what happened before,
because it is hearsay knowledge that I have no real knowledge of it.
HM: Okay, again, I know where it was done, and I know who did it, and I'm
not going to answer.
HM: Yes…but I don't know if there was…..
TRANSLATION: I DON"T know where it was, and I DO know where it was,
but I wouldn't tell you either way. Anyway, IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
QUOTE
HM: 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.
HM: About eight shots.
Thanks Homer. ANOTHER mystery solved.
QUOTE
HM: I seem to recall it as being a 16 mm, but that
again, we had every kind of projector.
HM: …..I can't really answer that. 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.......
Ah Memories.
But I am CERTAIN in my MEMORY about one thing: Whether it was 8 millimeter
or 16 miilimeter or some other millimeter entirely, it was definitely A
PROJECTOR.
I agree with you 100 % And you haven't even gotten the best of it, yet.
It is my humble opinion, that Homer McMahon was a very reluctant witness,
who would never have even been known to ARRB if it wasn't for their only
public hearing on the Z-film that was shown on CSPAN and caught the
attention of Ben Hunter's wife. And after McMahon gave up the farm, he
realized it and did everything he could to discredit himself.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 03:17
PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 04:36 AM)
And after McMahon gave up the farm, he realized it and
did everything he could to discredit himself.
Well he certainly succeeded in discrediting himself, Bill. His testimony
here is one big JOKE.
Every witness can be discredited, but I think he discredited himself
intentionally, not knowing what the beans were that he spilled.
How do you squeeze the good information from a JOKE?
McMahon's sidekick, Ben Hunter also provides information that you haven't
seen yet, right?
Of course, they really did work for the CIA at NPIC, and it has been
independently verified from Sydney Greybeal that 70-90% of the strategic
intelligence of that time came out of NPIC, where they also figured in the
information obtained from other secret sources - including Penkovsky, so
he got that part right.
So, as a reluctant and discredited witness, everything he says must be
independently verified, and can be.
It just so happens that he is one of the sources of the handwritten notes
on the yellow legal pad, verififed through handwriting, and he did in fact
make the enlarged color prints for the second set of briefing boards.
Now, did he use the original Z-film as he says, and did it in fact come
from
Rochester
, the one thing he was positively sure about?
Those who think McMahon discredited or a JOKE don't have to go there.
BK
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 1 2010, 03:22 PM
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
ARRB
Interview with Homer McMahon. Part III
HM: ......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 frame
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, how do you think the accuracy is?
HM: I just told you, I don't have a
full deck. I don't know how I am presenting anything here. This is
not…at the time I did it 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.
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# 1993.07.22.08:41:07-6200 ? Titled Analysis of
the Zapruder Fil 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
HM: Some of the writing is mine. I
don't know whose this is.
DH: And the page you are not sure about
is….
HM: This is my writing.
DH: What
Mahon
has identified as his writing is on the backside of the half page: which
reads: "….process….a total of seven hours." That's in
pencil. Below that is some long divisions, and …..That's your writing?
HM: Yes.
DH: What is this the long divisions and
additions? Do you recall what they are?
HM: It's my writing; I think it is either mine or Ben's. Do you have Ben's
handwriting?
DH: I can show you I have one section
of the notes that he recalled was his handwriting, what he said…
HM: This looks like Ben's writing….
DH: Other side, which is a description
of briefing board panels…. Panel one, two, three, four…print number
frame number….Ben identified…These are the only two that he thought
was his handwriting. Under Panel One.
HM: This is….this looks like Ben's
writing, and this looks like mine.
DH: This is at the bottom of the page
where it talks about time between shots.
HM: I'm not sure about this. This looks
like mine and this looks like….
DH: Just for the records, the
descriptions of the time it took to make internegatives and prints is in
Mr. McMahon's writing.
HM: This is not my writing.
DH:
Okay, Mr. McMahon is now looking at,….what he says that where it says
fifteen frames per second, he says that is not his writing.
HM: This is not my writing. That might
be Ben's.
DH: …..Page on the right hand corner
reads: "Questions…..first and second shot?"
HM: Okay, we didn't have……we were
told what 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: Yea, 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: These were made on the day that you
processed…?
HM:
Yes, these are fairly accurate times…. 16 frames per second, I don't
know if I agree on the 18 seconds….This might be a further analysis…..
JG: Do you know if the other person
made the notes at the same time…
HM: They conformed, my best
recollection, to what we wrote…..I don't know why I remember 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.
Off The Record While we figure out how
to move the briefing board in.
Back on Record:
01:23:51
DH: The date on this Riff Document is
90 – A
RIF
# 1993.07.21 154804.930600
Briefing Panels containing Zapruder
Photos. 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 will ask you the same about each
panel. This is labeled Panel 2.
HM: Yes.
DH: You also recognize these as photos
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: Now that you've seen all four
panels do you feel this is all you made?
HM: No, there were more.
DH: The notes say, 28, you said earlier
there were between 20 and 40.
HM: You mention they went behind the
sign and came out again. I don't think we had all that sequence
there….And then there was the FBI….not the FBI, the body guard,
jumping on the back…..and one where his head fell on her lap
DH: When you say his head you mean the
president? HM: Then again that might have been not
used.
DH: Panel 4, has Secret Service Agent
Clint Hill on the rear of the limousine, the only frame that shows him.
HM: I think there might have been two
agents no the back, but that was after the barn door…was closed at that
point…..
DH: Let's look at Panel 1…….road
sign. Does this sequence seem like it represents….?
HM: Yes, but I thought there was some
before the road sign….maybe they determined…..
DH: This first frame on Panel 1 –
although it is not labeled on the panel, this is Labeled 188. Do you
remember if there were any panels prior to 188?
HM: Yes… where there was some action
of some sort…
DH: I'd like to clarify for the
records, …...Did you see the actual briefing boards that night?
HM: No. I made the pictures, and I made three each, copies of each…..
DH: Did you give them to Mr. Smith when
you were finished?
HM: I remember Ben Hunter, and if it
was…Smith, or whoever he was, and Ben Hunter, took them upstairs to make
the panels, and I didn't stay. I didn't stay to see the finished product.
They had to….. and I think they had to put classifications on them, but
I'm not positive they did.
DH: In relation to the discussions that
were held that night between you, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hunter, do you have
any opinions what these triangles are, on the first row, a blue
triangle…on Panel 2?
HM: I haven't the faintest idea.
DH: Okay…. Do you recall what
happened to the inter-negatives?
HM: Yes, all of the information, including the scraps, were given to Bill
Smith. Everything we had, scraps, test sheets, everything, 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, that we should cover? Anything that comes
to mind. That maybe there's something important that we should cover 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. I know 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: Michelle is there anything you
wanted to ask?
Michelle: I have one very quick question. Who called you in? Were you in
the building when you were contacted?
HM: Okay, I think that I was, okay when
I'm contacted from home, it's by a security officer, 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 and there must be some
security records, if they kept those records. …..These had deteriated
rather badly. There's die, tremendous die loss….you could see the
pictures, the faces…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 corps coupler, and ….percent of the corps, and …, so
there's a lot of information that's not there. That was a problem with the
old resin corps 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, and …..misunderstood by people,
including myself. You've been very helpful. Thank you very much.
DH: We're back on the record and I just found another photo, bigger than
the others,…
Dated 11/23/6, an 8 by 10 color print
of Z-film in between the sign and the head shot, and on back. Color crown
marking 80 x. and I'd like Mr. McMahon to explain this.
HM: This…2x enlargement.done on a
Deveir (?), not a precision enlarger, it shows, …it was made to show
what the enlargement would look like. The contact print was of a better
quality. We had to …do it on a cheaper Italian….enlarger,… could
have gotten equal quality in resolution and sharpness, but we couldn't for
some reason use that equipment and we had to use a lesser, big enough, go
with the sharper resolution. Too much loss.
DH: Too much loss...
HM: …..from the original 40x interneg,
so we elected not to go that way.
DH: So this was a test prior to the
prints for the briefing board?
HM: ….were better quality…..
DH: I see, but you didn't?
HM: For some reason it was down.
DH: Is that your writing?
HM: Yes.
DH: It looks like a nine…do you
recognize that number...?
TAPE ENDS.....
Over at 1:41:19
[size="3"][/size]
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 1 2010, 03:40 PM
Group: Members Posts: 1793 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672
QUOTE
HM And I'm not a competent witness because I don't have
accurate recall.
I just told you, I don't have a full deck.
at the time I did it 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.
Thanks for the Heads-up, Homer.
QUOTE
I don't know why I remember that.
HM: I think there might have been two agents on the back, but that was
after the barn door…was closed at that point…..
HM: I didn't stay to see the finished product.
HM: I haven't the faintest idea.
Great, Homer. That is very helpful.
QUOTE
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. I know 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
Good man Homer, you tell 'em.
QUOTE
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.
Well let's just say you're getting up in years, anyway.
QUOTE
Doug Horne: Thank you very much for sharing your
recollections and opinions, and …..misunderstood by people, including
myself. You've been very helpful. Thank you very much. [/size][/font]
Yes, Thank you Homer, and thank you Bill Kelly, and thank you Doug Horne.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
[/size]
Homer McMahon: We had a complete world
beyond facility (ha, ha), a multi-billion dollar photo lab, that the
Kennedy brothers got built for us in what, three months I think. They
moved out of the Steuart right in.
DH: Did the NPIC relocate after the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Was it after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October
1962 that you moved?
HM: When was Kennedy's inauguration
take place?
DH: January 1961
HM: It was shortly after that.
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that the new NPIC opened
at the Navy Yard according to:
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…..
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 2 2010, 09:58 PM
Group: Members Posts: 1793 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 05:21 PM)
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that
the new NPIC opened at the Navy Yard
Hey Bill, give poor Homer a break. He was only off by a couple of years,
and that's nothing for a guy who's almost 70 or almost 80 or almost 90
years old.
Group: Members Posts: 3250 Joined: 15-November 04 Member No.: 1913
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 04:27
PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 05:21 PM)
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that
the new NPIC opened at the Navy Yard
Hey Bill, give poor Homer a break. He was only off by a couple of years,
and that's nothing for a guy who's almost 70 or almost 80 or almost 90
years old.
Gotta laugh too. NPIC had EVERYTHING, money was no object...except for a
film processor to process the long roll film from the KH-9's. Maybe Kelly
and Horne can explain that away.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Feb 1 2010, 05:39 PM)
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 04:27
PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 05:21 PM)
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that
the new NPIC opened at the Navy Yard
Hey Bill, give poor Homer a break. He was only off by a couple of years,
and that's nothing for a guy who's almost 70 or almost 80 or almost 90
years old.
Gotta laugh too. NPIC had EVERYTHING, money was no object...except for a
film processor to process the long roll film from the KH-9's. Maybe Kelly
and Horne can explain that away.
It's not my intention to explain anything away.
This is the CIA's guy, not mine.
And I understand however old he is, he's still alive, so he can be called
back to a be questioned properly before a Conressional Oversight Hearing,
if they ever hold any.
Extract from Chapter 4, “The Filmed Assassination,” from Fred
T. Newcomb and Perry Adams’ Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Probe,
1974):
Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the
film was altered.
Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices
were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto
the duplicates.
The following is an inventory of our examination.
Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and
Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.
Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices
exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the
previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between
frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an
extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.
Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a
splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the
foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at
the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.
The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during the that
period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign.
There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape
adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a
bluish cast, as do frames 207-212.
Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near
the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing
adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a
splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice
line runs across the top fourth of the frame.
Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce
one continuous film.
A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number,
indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between
frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only
10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or
stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number
of frames could have been removed.
Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been
added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted
from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the
assassination.
Retouching
Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames
214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign.
Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s
side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a
car on
Elm Street
, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the
driver’s motions clearly through the windshield.
Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action
of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat.
The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297,
the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily
seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the
driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the
fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down.
Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that
frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is
vital to the health of the scenario.
Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal
shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is
horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the
points of exit and entrance would be at an angle.
To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the
side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6).
Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area
around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other
films of the assassination lack this halo. The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder
film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an
exploding head. Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony.
The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the
President’s head, not only confuses the features of the head, but also
distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the
burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not
appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing
and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made
of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to
record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then
the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of
fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.
The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a
shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came
forward and down on them. No pictorial evidence verifies their claims.
A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found
in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn
in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g.,
running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal.
Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The
President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of
the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then
reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such
as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321
the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In
addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321
has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and
that an unknown number of frames were removed.
Refilming
More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures,
especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and
Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the
original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove
certain material just below their heads.
For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the
assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in
Dallas
. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President,
“…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was
unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the
Governor.” On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this
sequence.
The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an
optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical
printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of
the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the
images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer
could eliminate the Connally hit.
Deletions
Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky,
especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts
was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to
the casual viewer.
Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body
snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the
film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The
viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the
limousine.
Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be
eliminated.
First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down
from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated
that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto
Elm St.
from
Houston St
. The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days after the assassination
apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it.
Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from
the Vice-President’s follow-up car.
Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy
(first) shot, and the second (throat) shot.
Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to
his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the
direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast
with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential
limousine.
The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is
missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the
President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).”
CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a
bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…”
The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published
frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211.
The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating
the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the
Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film
could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential
automobile at any point along the parade route.”
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
Transcribed by William Kelly - January, 2010
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
Douglas Horne:
D.H.: Okay, it is Monday, July 14th,
1997, my name is Doug Horne. I am 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 (sp?) of the AARB. And we
before we begin I would like to confirm with you on the record, is it
okay, do we have your permission to tape this interview?
Homer McMahon: Yes, I am Homer
McMahon, I wasn't NPIC, I was with the CIA. That was my cover at the
time, and you have my permission. At the time NPIC was a classified
topic.
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.?) who is
in the building today also. Could you summarize for us sir, your
professional experience and 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 edit] My boss
was 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 as the photographer on the yearbook committee.
I used to work at…for Pop Baker, and that was at the Kodak photo
finishing at 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.
I took several courses up at
Rochester in Binghamton, under…..and 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…MBA, but I never….. or worked on that level,….to make national
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 Fromm (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 two or three 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: Yea, but I didn't go back to the
printing service division, I went to the Science Division. When
Stewart's Garage closed down, ah,…Kennedy's brother Bob got that
built. It was a special building, it was behind the barrier, 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, 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, it would be in the 50s perhaps?
HM: Oh, yea. Yes.
DH: Okay. When you went back to the
CIA for the second time, were you working at the Stewarts Motors
building with…?
HM: No. I didn't work in the Stewart
Garage; I'm not going to name names of people that I worked with…
DH: Okay.
HM: I could give you Mike…..he's
retired, he worked at the Stewarts but he retired, and I talked to him,
and he said he could get me an interview, and I was working for Austin
Young, ….right there at Kingston, or….King Street, I forget which, - 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 (B.?) 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. You mentioned
to us during that telephone call that you were involved in analysis and
other events with 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 someone who did photo interpretation in my
branch. I was a photo-technologist. What I did I timed…to my best
recollection, I was I worked in the vaulted area behind the barrier with
pretty sensitive material. 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. 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. They knew along with,…I
was in the science area, but they also had access and used other
information.
But the best I can remember how I
came to work on this project. 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….?
HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. 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 on film he shot with
a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We
had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the
film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever
that is, 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, of the entire
event, 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 and they will tell you who told him, but he got the
film processed, and he brought it to us, and he and three other people
timed the film, for through observation you can tell where the gunshots
actually caused the hits and slumps. We didn't know anything about any
audio, it was just visual, and we timed it, and determined the time -
physically timed it with a stop watch, where the gunshots hits hit. And
we went from I think maybe two frames before the first hit and then we
hit every single frame thru….He only counted three hits, possibly four.
I couldn't tell I think, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when he
got hit the first time, and then the second time he got hit, going off
into an 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? I worked with Ben Hunter, Ben Hunter 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. To the best of my knowledge.
DH: So the total number of people 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? Or how did they
first notify you?
HM: I haven't the faintest idea,
because 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? Jeremy Gunn: I just want to make sure
for the record. When you say you were called in many times, you mean for
other jobs?
HM: When the goose laid the egg, we
went on 12 to12, 12 hour shifts until we worked out the mission. I don't
think that's important. The other work I did had nothing to do with
this.
DH: That's what the question
was….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.
We had it, we did it, but I didn't know who was going to be briefed…..My
guess, 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. 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 Top Secret
classifications to the community.
JG: We were only trying to clarify if
you were called in several times, you were only called once for the film
of 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,
you indicated that you were called in and you worked basically all night
long. Does that refresh your recollection?
HM: Yes, …I don't think it was during my normal….I didn't know what I
was being called in for. I didn't have the faintest idea.
HM: Would you allow me to test your
recollection on something else? You said it was within two days of the
assassination. Is there any particular reason why you associated it with
other events within a few days?
HM: I think I was told that to get
the film from the individual, to get it processed, and get it back, it
was a couple of days. I'm not sure.
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? Could you revisit that topic again?
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 of the clearances I held,
and 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 a 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 interlays and I printed up eight by ten…Ben Hunter and
myself, exposed them and processed them. Then we had a period of time we
had 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
then we 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 contacted the
8 x 10 negatives that were exposed…. 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.
JG: It wasn't clear to me about the
negatives and the internegatives. You refer to there being five by seven
and eight by ten…. I don't know whether they were separate things or
were you were referring….
HM: It's called a working…..You take
an 8 by 10 negative and print a five by seven on a five by eight, you
print a ……then turn it…set up the liquid gate, and make the other one,
and then put it in the box. So you finish say the first two and move the
frame to the third frame. 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 half frame super
double eight…or whatever it was, we had three different, we had a ten
twenty forty….
DH: Is that the enlarging machine?
HM: Yes, that's the enlarging machine. You set it up with – this is a
coherent light source enlarger…We set it up with a specific optical
lens, and a specific condenser, and a color pack CC filters, so we could
expose all three layers of the Kodacrome on these negatives.
DH: You mentioned wet gate a moment
ago?
HM: Yea, it's a liquid gate, a liquid gate, 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: You had ….injection….you had
front lens come down…it was precision equipment, with the excessive
fluid went out, so it was full gate, almost like a microscope. And if
you have air bubbles in it, you have to go back and 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.
Do you recall the condition of this movie when you saw it, had it been
slit or unslit?
HM: I think it was unslit and I might have said that, and we might have
slit it before we used it, but 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?
HM: I think it was unslit. This was
the original film. I think they ran dupes of it, but we actually ran the
acquisition material of the original film.
DH: Is this something you observed
yourself or something that you were told by Mr. Smith? How do you come
to the conclusion today that you had the original film?
HM: 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 actually….Kodacrome is an additive process. It's black and
white film with filers that give you color separation negatives, you use
….dies….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 die 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. I am positive that he
said that he took it to Rochester, and got it processed, and then
brought it to us to dupe it. Rochester wasn't set up to do that stuff.
DH: 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 the Kennedy
brothers got built for us in what, three months I think. They moved out
of the Stewart right in.
DH: Did the NPIC relocate after the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Was it after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October
1962 that you moved?
HM: When was Kennedy's inauguration
take place?
DH: January 1961
HM: 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….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 film that you made internegatives?
HM: The best recollection is 40
(pause), and it might have been 20, between 20 and 40.
DH: 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, but in hindsight, 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: After you viewed it as a motion
picture, how did you, did you lay it out on a light table and use a
loop, what did you do for further study? 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 or we used or… acquisition. We might have
used a dupe role to project it. 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
on the vacuum board where the film goes.
DH: That would be superior to the
loops viewing?
HM: Yes, and we also used a Tin-x
magnifier to grain focus the image, each image, before we exposed it on
the inter-negative, so we actually were getting the acquisition, the
grain on the acquisition material into sharp focus, because you couldn't
see the image so ten times forty is four hundred…
DH: So you were focusing on the
actual grain?
HM: Well, it's not actually grain; Kodacrome, 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 colors, which are the primary
colors, magenta, yellow and cyan couplers, so when these are all
developed on the tri pack of film you have, you have a positive die
image. The negative had the grain; the positive had a reciprocal die
image, which would have been a much finer grain of silver. Okay the
chemical reaction is to replace the fine grain silver positive image
with die, and then you bleach out the sliver and are left with just the
die, so it's not technically grainy, it's perception of what used to be
grainy.
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 where they had to relinquish the
processing of Kodacrome, 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, if they were the 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.....
END PART I
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Jan 31 2010, 08:02 PM
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Jan 31 2010,
09:57 PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Jan 31 2010, 08:57 PM)
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.
QUOTE
HM: I think it was unslit and I might have said that,
and we might have slit it before we used it,
but 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 one thing is certain, we either slit the film, or else we didn't
slit the film. It was DEFINITELY one or the other.
Absolutly. One way or the other.
And you are only dealing with one visit of the Z-film to NPIC, as Dino
Brugioni also says he worked on the Z-film that weekend in a completely
different session that also made enlargements of the z-film frames for
briefing boards that were used to brief CIA director John McCone, who
after the briefing, informed RFK that there was evidence of a second
shooter, and thus a conspiracy.
Why was the "original" Z-film taken to the NPIC twice, for the same
project - making enlargements of the individual frame for briefing
boards?
Neither Homer McMahon nor Dino Brugioni, both CIA employees of the NPIC
are making any allegations about the film being altered at all, but
merely describing the film that they had in their possession that
weekend.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
McMahon interview Part II. 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, because I had
met him overseas, and I asked him if he was any relation? (ha ha)…. I
knew he had been in Texas, where he got the film. And I asked him and he
said no.
DH: That's interesting. You just
mentioned another chap who may have been involved with the briefing
boards and analysis…, do you recall their name?
HM: I can't recall the name. I don't
recall, and even if I did I wouldn't tell you…because he was young…
DH: Let me ask you a question about
names. Do you recall a person named Sands? S-A-N-D-S?
HM: No. No recollection of that name.
DH: If I would call this person
Captain Sands, would that help anyway?
HM: Okay. Well, we had an
intermediate, a naval officer. They would have had to have someone bring
him in because they wouldn't have had clearance. To get behind the
barrier was pretty hard to do without presidential or above Top Secret
clearance (ha ha). I had a CIA badge and that would get me past the
guards, and to get behind the barrier I had 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 penetrateable. And 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….Do you
remember a Captain Sands was on the staff at NPIC?
HM: Even if I knew I couldn't tell
you. It was a geo-military operation.
DH: Ben Hunter recalled that a
Captain Sands who brought in the film. Subsequently he said there might
have been a Secret Service Agent, but he remembered a Captain Sands.
HM: 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 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…..(ha 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, but I did not put any classification or anything of that nature, I
didn't put any classification or control, on any of the documents.
Normally that is required before it could 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, that would have also had classifications. We
made briefing boards, Teleprompters and graphs for dissemination to the
intelligence community.
DH: For other types of work, 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… I don't know what it was for…
DH: Before we move along and before I
show you the notes that the Archives have, let me revisit with you, what
exactly Mr. Smith said about secrecy or non-disclosure regarding this
event? Could you tell me that story again?
HM: I know 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 needs to know about it, there was no records….
JG: When you say he had all the
tickets, you mean he had had clearances?
HM: He had all the clearances I had, but was not allowed, it was not the
CIA or, 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 a name?
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 on a Need to Know Basis….and he didn't
give me anything other than I was sworn to secrecy. I don't know if I
signed a document, I don't recall, but I know it couldn't be divulged.
DH: Did it have a level of
classification, like Confidential or Secret?
HM: No, it did not have…He said it was Above Top Secret, 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 them.
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 earlier in the interview where you said, "When I
recall…he took three hits, possibly four," and it wasn't clear to me if
he was, were you were talking about 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. They said it hit Kennedy and hit Connally, ricochet…
DH: Did they say that that night?
HM: We were just trying to get were
all the shots of action….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 and directions it showed up on one of the police tapes
that was recorded, one of the motorcycles had it on…..I don't know.
JG: How is you and the others, how
did you come to conclude the number of hits? Was it from the film while
it was rolling, or was that a frame by frame analysis?
HM: Well the person who brought the
film in, he had already saw it, he had pre-knowledge before we had it,
so maybe we were swayed to go along with his first impression. I don't
know.
JG: Did he say anything? Could you
sort of recount what happened, was it Bill Smith, what Bill Smith said
what he already knew about the film and what it showed.?
HM: 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: I was just selected to do the job
that I covered, and I don't think I should talk about what happened
before, because it is hearsay knowledge that I have no real knowledge of
it.
JG: …Just so it's clear…..That's what
we're asking about. 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, it's important to us, 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
by his organization about a film, a person called up and they said they
had it, and they felt they didn't want to give to anyone, 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.
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, or if I did I don't remember it.
JG: Right now, you're not certain if
the film you worked with was the Zapruder film or another film?
HM: I was told it was the only coverage they had. 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 do
what they wanted done, was that 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, and that's what we could do and we were
way beyond the state of the art and the quality that was turned out.
JG: Before the film of the
assassination, was it your understanding that anything more that could
be done besides….?
HM: The prints were duplications of
the original film.
DH: Was anything else done to the
film? HM: No, not 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: Now you're getting into
classified grounds, that I can't answer that question. I know but I
can't talk about it. 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 would be fine, but this is
something that is important for us to do, and we can go back to the
agency and talk to them.
HM: 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 without you perceiving a classified intent – 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 not going to answer.
DH: Okay, is there any chance that
where it was done could that be in 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 where it is your understanding that is where
it was processed….in terms of the name of it
HM: Yes.
JG: …..where it was your
understanding it was processed….In terms of the name of it, we don't
need that..
HM: Yes…but I don't know if there
was…..You couldn't say National Photo Interpretation Center…..You could
say NPIC, and that was secret. 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 on the opinions in the room on the discussion of the hits on
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: I may not answer that question, let me take a detour. I'm an army
brat. My dad was in the first and second world war. He was an officer.
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.
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….I later worked as aerial photographer and I did aerial photography
for what do you 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 was not paid to do
that.
DH: What did Mr. Smith think?
HM: He thought there were three shots.
JG: From what direction.
HM: He held to the standard concept,
that Oswald fired out of the second story…you have psychological
profiles of Oswald…you have tons of it, you ought to be able to figure
out…(ha ha)
JG: Was there a selection made of the
photos – frames to be enlarged?
HM: I didn't make any selection. It
was all sequential, from that group, everything was sequential, nothing
was left out.
JG: Would that be from the first time
you could identify there was a shot?
HM: Up to what they thought were the
shots.
JG: Approximately how many frames
were there between….
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: So the question I have is how
many frames were actually made?
HM: Well, maybe what they thought
were three shots, so maybe we we did before and after, I'm not clear on
that. I thought 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 maybe it might have
been they did it before each hit they thought was detectable, but I
thought there were others…
DH: Did you express your opinion?
HM: Yes, I expressed my opinion, (ha
ha) but you know, it was preconceived. That's the way I thought about
it. You don't fight city hall and I wasn't there to fight them. I was
there to do the work.
JG: When you say preconceived, you
mean the Secret Service man had preconceived notion?
HM: Yes, and I didn't care. I had no
vested interest in what was happening.
JG: Secret Service agent
HM: I didn't care…..
JG: Motion picture?
HM: It was a projector. And we had
the still frames that we could put in and stop it and run it backwards.
It was a unique one, not a cheap one.
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 film that had one series of images on one side and
one series on the other? HM: Yes.
JG: If it was 16 mm you would see one
going up and the other upside down, do have a recollection of that
happening.
HM: I think that happened from the
original film when I put it on the optical precision enlarger, because,
but we, you could center the film in the liquid gate, the frame, right
in the center of it, and you don't see it.
JG: I assume that when you made the
negative you would focus on the single frames of the assassination; do
you have any recollection now if there was anything in the other part,
that wasn't the assassination part?
HM: …..I can't really answer that. 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.......
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 1 2010, 01:00 AM
Group: Members Posts: 1793 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672
QUOTE
HM: We were just trying to get were all the shots of
action….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
and directions it showed up on one of the police tapes that was
recorded, one of the motorcycles had it on…..I don’t know.
Wow! THis guy's really up to date. He remembers something about the
HSCA.
QUOTE
I don’t think I should talk about what happened before,
because it is hearsay knowledge that I have no real knowledge of it.
HM: Okay, again, I know where it was done, and I know who did it, and
I’m not going to answer.
HM: Yes…but I don’t know if there was…..
TRANSLATION: I DON"T know where it was, and I DO know where it was, but
I wouldn't tell you either way. Anyway, IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
QUOTE
HM: 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.
HM: About eight shots.
Thanks Homer. ANOTHER mystery solved.
QUOTE
HM: I seem to recall it as being a 16 mm, but that
again, we had every kind of projector.
HM: …..I can’t really answer that. 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.......
Ah Memories.
But I am CERTAIN in my MEMORY about one thing: Whether it was 8
millimeter or 16 miilimeter or some other millimeter entirely, it was
definitely A PROJECTOR.
This post has been edited by J. Raymond
Carroll: Feb 1 2010, 01:42 AM
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 02:36
AM)
QUOTE
HM: We were just trying to get were all the shots of
action….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
and directions it showed up on one of the police tapes that was
recorded, one of the motorcycles had it on…..I don't know.
Wow! THis guy's really up to date. He remembers something about the
HSCA.
QUOTE
I don't think I should talk about what happened before,
because it is hearsay knowledge that I have no real knowledge of it.
HM: Okay, again, I know where it was done, and I know who did it, and
I'm not going to answer.
HM: Yes…but I don't know if there was…..
TRANSLATION: I DON"T know where it was, and I DO know where it was, but
I wouldn't tell you either way. Anyway, IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
QUOTE
HM: 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.
HM: About eight shots.
Thanks Homer. ANOTHER mystery solved.
QUOTE
HM: I seem to recall it as being a 16 mm, but that
again, we had every kind of projector.
HM: …..I can't really answer that. 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.......
Ah Memories.
But I am CERTAIN in my MEMORY about one thing: Whether it was 8
millimeter or 16 miilimeter or some other millimeter entirely, it was
definitely A PROJECTOR.
I agree with you 100 % And you haven't even gotten the best of it, yet.
It is my humble opinion, that Homer McMahon was a very reluctant
witness, who would never have even been known to ARRB if it wasn't for
their only public hearing on the Z-film that was shown on CSPAN and
caught the attention of Ben Hunter's wife. And after McMahon gave up the
farm, he realized it and did everything he could to discredit himself.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 03:17
PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 04:36 AM)
And after McMahon gave up the farm, he realized it and
did everything he could to discredit himself.
Well he certainly succeeded in discrediting himself, Bill. His testimony
here is one big JOKE.
Every witness can be discredited, but I think he discredited himself
intentionally, not knowing what the beans were that he spilled.
How do you squeeze the good information from a JOKE?
McMahon's sidekick, Ben Hunter also provides information that you
haven't seen yet, right?
Of course, they really did work for the CIA at NPIC, and it has been
independently verified from Sydney Greybeal that 70-90% of the strategic
intelligence of that time came out of NPIC, where they also figured in
the information obtained from other secret sources - including
Penkovsky, so he got that part right.
So, as a reluctant and discredited witness, everything he says must be
independently verified, and can be.
It just so happens that he is one of the sources of the handwritten
notes on the yellow legal pad, verififed through handwriting, and he did
in fact make the enlarged color prints for the second set of briefing
boards.
Now, did he use the original Z-film as he says, and did it in fact come
from Rochester, the one thing he was positively sure about?
Those who think McMahon discredited or a JOKE don't have to go there.
BK
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 1 2010, 03:22 PM
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
ARRB Interview with Homer McMahon. Part III
HM: ......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
frame 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, how do you think the accuracy is?
HM: I just told you, I don't have a
full deck. I don't know how I am presenting anything here. This is
not…at the time I did it 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.
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# 1993.07.22.08:41:07-6200 ? Titled
Analysis of the Zapruder Fil 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
HM: Some of the writing is mine. I
don't know whose this is.
DH: And the page you are not sure
about is….
HM: This is my writing.
DH: What Mahon has identified as his
writing is on the backside of the half page: which reads: "….process….a
total of seven hours." That's in pencil. Below that is some long
divisions, and …..That's your writing?
HM: Yes.
DH: What is this the long divisions
and additions? Do you recall what they are?
HM: It's my writing; I think it is either mine or Ben's. Do you have
Ben's handwriting?
DH: I can show you I have one section
of the notes that he recalled was his handwriting, what he said…
HM: This looks like Ben's writing….
DH: Other side, which is a
description of briefing board panels…. Panel one, two, three, four…print
number frame number….Ben identified…These are the only two that he
thought was his handwriting. Under Panel One.
HM: This is….this looks like Ben's
writing, and this looks like mine.
DH: This is at the bottom of the page
where it talks about time between shots.
HM: I'm not sure about this. This
looks like mine and this looks like….
DH: Just for the records, the
descriptions of the time it took to make internegatives and prints is in
Mr. McMahon's writing.
HM: This is not my writing.
DH: Okay, Mr. McMahon is now looking
at,….what he says that where it says fifteen frames per second, he says
that is not his writing.
HM: This is not my writing. That
might be Ben's.
DH: …..Page on the right hand corner
reads: "Questions…..first and second shot?"
HM: Okay, we didn't have……we were
told what 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: Yea, 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: These were made on the day that
you processed…?
HM: Yes, these are fairly accurate
times…. 16 frames per second, I don't know if I agree on the 18
seconds….This might be a further analysis…..
JG: Do you know if the other person
made the notes at the same time…
HM: They conformed, my best
recollection, to what we wrote…..I don't know why I remember 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.
Off The Record While we figure out
how to move the briefing board in.
Back on Record:
01:23:51
DH: The date on this Riff Document is
90 – A RIF# 1993.07.21 154804.930600
Briefing Panels containing Zapruder
Photos. 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 will ask you the same about
each panel. This is labeled Panel 2.
HM: Yes.
DH: You also recognize these as
photos 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: Now that you've seen all four
panels do you feel this is all you made?
HM: No, there were more.
DH: The notes say, 28, you said
earlier there were between 20 and 40.
HM: You mention they went behind the
sign and came out again. I don't think we had all that sequence
there….And then there was the FBI….not the FBI, the body guard, jumping
on the back…..and one where his head fell on her lap
DH: When you say his head you mean
the president? HM: Then again that might have been
not used.
DH: Panel 4, has Secret Service Agent
Clint Hill on the rear of the limousine, the only frame that shows him.
HM: I think there might have been two
agents no the back, but that was after the barn door…was closed at that
point…..
DH: Let's look at Panel 1…….road
sign. Does this sequence seem like it represents….?
HM: Yes, but I thought there was some
before the road sign….maybe they determined…..
DH: This first frame on Panel 1 –
although it is not labeled on the panel, this is Labeled 188. Do you
remember if there were any panels prior to 188?
HM: Yes… where there was some action
of some sort…
DH: I'd like to clarify for the
records, …...Did you see the actual briefing boards that night?
HM: No. I made the pictures, and I made three each, copies of each…..
DH: Did you give them to Mr. Smith
when you were finished?
HM: I remember Ben Hunter, and if it
was…Smith, or whoever he was, and Ben Hunter, took them upstairs to make
the panels, and I didn't stay. I didn't stay to see the finished
product. They had to….. and I think they had to put classifications on
them, but I'm not positive they did.
DH: In relation to the discussions
that were held that night between you, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hunter, do you
have any opinions what these triangles are, on the first row, a blue
triangle…on Panel 2?
HM: I haven't the faintest idea.
DH: Okay…. Do you recall what
happened to the inter-negatives?
HM: Yes, all of the information, including the scraps, were given to
Bill Smith. Everything we had, scraps, test sheets, everything, 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, that we should cover? Anything that
comes to mind. That maybe there's something important that we should
cover 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. I know 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: Michelle is there anything you
wanted to ask?
Michelle: I have one very quick question. Who called you in? Were you in
the building when you were contacted?
HM: Okay, I think that I was, okay
when I'm contacted from home, it's by a security officer, 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 and there
must be some security records, if they kept those records. …..These had
deteriated rather badly. There's die, tremendous die loss….you could see
the pictures, the faces…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 corps coupler, and ….percent of the corps,
and …, so there's a lot of information that's not there. That was a
problem with the old resin corps 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, and …..misunderstood by people,
including myself. You've been very helpful. Thank you very much.
DH: We're back on the record and I just found another photo, bigger than
the others,…
Dated 11/23/6, an 8 by 10 color print
of Z-film in between the sign and the head shot, and on back. Color
crown marking 80 x. and I'd like Mr. McMahon to explain this.
HM: This…2x enlargement.done on a
Deveir (?), not a precision enlarger, it shows, …it was made to show
what the enlargement would look like. The contact print was of a better
quality. We had to …do it on a cheaper Italian….enlarger,… could have
gotten equal quality in resolution and sharpness, but we couldn't for
some reason use that equipment and we had to use a lesser, big enough,
go with the sharper resolution. Too much loss.
DH: Too much loss...
HM: …..from the original 40x
interneg, so we elected not to go that way.
DH: So this was a test prior to the
prints for the briefing board?
HM: ….were better quality…..
DH: I see, but you didn't?
HM: For some reason it was down.
DH: Is that your writing?
HM: Yes.
DH: It looks like a nine…do you
recognize that number...?
TAPE ENDS.....
Over at 1:41:19
[size="3"][/size]
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 1 2010, 03:40 PM
Group: Members Posts: 1793 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672
QUOTE
HM And I'm not a competent witness because I don't have
accurate recall.
I just told you, I don't have a full deck.
at the time I did it 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.
Thanks for the Heads-up, Homer.
QUOTE
I don't know why I remember that.
HM: I think there might have been two agents on the back, but that was
after the barn door…was closed at that point…..
HM: I didn't stay to see the finished product.
HM: I haven't the faintest idea.
Great, Homer. That is very helpful.
QUOTE
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. I know 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
Good man Homer, you tell 'em.
QUOTE
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.
Well let's just say you're getting up in years, anyway.
QUOTE
Doug Horne: Thank you very much for sharing your
recollections and opinions, and …..misunderstood by people, including
myself. You've been very helpful. Thank you very much. [/size][/font]
Yes, Thank you Homer, and thank you Bill Kelly, and thank you Doug
Horne.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
[/size]
Homer McMahon: We had a complete
world beyond facility (ha, ha), a multi-billion dollar photo lab, that
the Kennedy brothers got built for us in what, three months I think.
They moved out of the Steuart right in.
DH: Did the NPIC relocate after the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Was it after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October
1962 that you moved?
HM: When was Kennedy's inauguration
take place?
DH: January 1961
HM: It was shortly after that.
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that the new NPIC
opened at the Navy Yard according to:
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…..
This post has been edited by William
Kelly: Feb 2 2010, 09:58 PM
Group: Members Posts: 1793 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 05:21 PM)
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that
the new NPIC opened at the Navy Yard
Hey Bill, give poor Homer a break. He was only off by a couple of years,
and that's nothing for a guy who's almost 70 or almost 80 or almost 90
years old.
Group: Members Posts: 3250 Joined: 15-November 04 Member No.: 1913
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 04:27
PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 05:21 PM)
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that
the new NPIC opened at the Navy Yard
Hey Bill, give poor Homer a break. He was only off by a couple of years,
and that's nothing for a guy who's almost 70 or almost 80 or almost 90
years old.
Gotta laugh too. NPIC had EVERYTHING, money was no object...except for a
film processor to process the long roll film from the KH-9's. Maybe
Kelly and Horne can explain that away.
Group: Members Posts: 5008 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667
QUOTE (Craig Lamson @ Feb 1 2010, 05:39 PM)
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Feb 1 2010, 04:27
PM)
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Feb 1 2010, 05:21 PM)
BK Notes: He got that wrong. It was January 1963 that
the new NPIC opened at the Navy Yard
Hey Bill, give poor Homer a break. He was only off by a couple of years,
and that's nothing for a guy who's almost 70 or almost 80 or almost 90
years old.
Gotta laugh too. NPIC had EVERYTHING, money was no object...except for a
film processor to process the long roll film from the KH-9's. Maybe
Kelly and Horne can explain that away.
It's not my intention to explain anything away.
This is the CIA's guy, not mine.
And I understand however old he is, he's still alive, so he can be
called back to a be questioned properly before a Conressional Oversight
Hearing, if they ever hold any.
