Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eddy Bainbridge

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eddy Bainbridge

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Andrew, I spent some time reading the witness statements and I agree there is something contrived about getting witnessing to answer such limited questions. Two statements jump out to me: That of Ochus Campbell who gives a rather contradictory impression, he did not look at the TBSD, but does recall seeing the Motorcade passing the TBSD. I guess that's impossible and his emphasis on not looking at the building may suggest his awareness of his earlier comments about Oswald's location. The second statement is odd as it doesn't match the standard of the others. It is that of Wesley Frasier. He doesn't get to say 'I don't know Oswald' and more improtantly he does not get to say he does know Oswald. I guess as a 19 year old he may not have been very talkative, but its odd they didn't prompt him to say what most of the other's had said, or what seems likely this is not a full recording of what he did say.
  2. I have searched this thread to find a quote that encapsulates the reason I am now adding you to my ignore list. You have had nothing valid to say on this thread. I distinguish you from DVP who I believe presents good contrary arguments and supporting evidence. The above paragraph is drivel. If you present a child with evidence of their wrongdoing they say ; 'I didn't do it' with no supporting evidence supplied ("Why ? Because Lee Oswald was inside the building, not there on the steps") If you challenge a child as to their thinking skills they say 'no I'm really clever' ("And here, see, I am applying critical thinking skills. It's easy, by the way."). You are also abusive, another childish trait. If you ever make a useful post I hope reaction to it will alert me. On ignore now.
  3. That is a confirmation about what I said about your thought process. You have received two new pieces of evidence (Ochus Campbell article and Hosty report) and your response is ; "I'm satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald could not possibly have been in a storage room near the front entrance of the TSBD". Of one thing there is NO doubt. The new evidence relating to Prayer Man casts doubt on the whereabouts of Oswald around 12.30. It is extremely disturbing that in 2019 we can look back and see a pattern of changing witness evidence. Do you move even slightly from 'beyond all reasonable doubt' when faced with two pieces of contradictory evidence?
  4. Hi Mr DVP, at this point in the thread you were unaware that Campbell had been reported as saying he saw Oswald on the first floor. You dug about a bit and discovered it was the case. In fact you realised it in the middle of a subsequent post. Without the batting of an eye you had rejected this new evidence (to you) as quickly as you have rejected the evidence upon which this thread is based. That is very closed minded behaviour. You had a conclusion prior to your assessment of the facts.
  5. That is a good point and actualy provides two corroborations. As well as Campbell's timely recollection, if Oswald moved from the Prayerman position very shortly after his view of the Presidents car was lost then he was 'in' the building when the President was shot. On an irrelevant point, I thought the picture of Mr Carlier on his posts showed a microphone, but I think its actualy either a sausage or a dark ice-cream cone. I conclude this since a microphone is used when you have something to say and there is absolutely no evidence that is the case.
  6. Randy Robertson made a pretty persausive match between the Dictabelt recorded shots and the Z film. The analysis for me has three weaknesses. He attributes the Z312 movement of JFK to a shot, but I understand all car occupants also moved slightly foward. He supports the idea of Barger (?) that there are two shots around 312/313 which isn't well supported, and finally he makes no attempt to explain the car-stop testimony. The study proves the validity of the acoustic evidence and to me supports film aleration There are a minimum of three changes to the momentum of JFK's head (braking , shot and acceleration) at the relevant period. It is plausible to me that the sequence of movement from 312 was : 1. Slump forward from braking 2. Shot from rear causing bevel in delta fragment 3 shot from front .25-1 sec later blowing out delta fragment etc. As Kennedy is slumped the exit debris goes up (Brigioni) 4 Car accelerates violently throwing Kennedy back. The extant film has number 3 (above ) removed so closely aligning JFK's movement with the first shot.
  7. A small, but significant piece of evidence in Bonny Ray-Williams short film. He says "Bang, Bang-Bang"
  8. My interest in whether Oswald went to MC was sparked by Reading that David Phillips was willing to believe he didn't go. That is an astonishing admission. I believe the work by David Josephs is based on documentary evidence. If anyone with criticisms of his work can put down their bluster-guns and do a review then I will read it.
  9. Hahaha. One pretend reasonable person applauds another pretender. I like this thread, it's wasting the time of the time wasters.
  10. The persons who come to this forum with no desire to further the debate are pretty transparent and appear to post with a view to deterring a new audience. The forum is getting a bit heavy on debates about Conspiracy theory. The forum to me is unashamedly built on the premise that Kennedy was assassinated via a Conspiracy or at the very least poster's will countenance that possibility.
  11. The head snap attributed to a bullet appears to be too fast (and in the wrong direction). Making the assumption that it was due to the braking, combined with frame removal, how many frames have been removed?
  12. Mr Davidson and Mr Josephs, Do you intend to produce a presentation on this research? I've said it before and I'll say it again, this stuff appears really really important and I believe it needs to be understood by a much wider audience.
  13. Hi Mr DiEugenio, Your research is part of the reason I believe Jim Garrison was on to something. The 'something' is not clear to me. Was Shaw a low level player or did he marshall funding for the assassination? I find the evidence of a New Orleans group plotting the assassination incongruous with other notions of high level CIA plotting, any help matching the NO story with the CIA story greatly appreciated.
  14. Sorry Steve, I can't right now but if you type the references I gave into google (I got them from Mary Ferrell by typing David Christensen) then it took me to the lists in the NSA archive.
  • Create New...