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.
