Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Eddy Bainbridge

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eddy Bainbridge

  1. The work of David Josephs has made my ears stand up. Can I ask either Mr Josephs or Mr Hancock what happened to the trailed presentation by Mr Josephs at JFKLancer 2017. I was expecting it to create a stir?
  2. communications override/hacking?

    Report post Posted December 31, 2017 Two recent threads have deserved comparison . Listen to what Bill Simpich says starting from 56.55 in the Lancer presentation : Jorma Jormakka, in his thread on the acoustic evidence argues that the supposedly damning crosstalk (specifically the word 'Hold' heard on both radio channels recorded) has been erroneously matched. Meaning the argument that the shot noises occur at the wrong time to be shots, may have been successfully rebutted by Jorma. What this thread is about is what Jorma believes he hears on one of the channels: "Hold it up right there, we´re gonna do it, I, I got it,……, you got it." Thankyou for replying. Above was my initial post in the thread I mentioned. My answer to your question on intrusion is that perhaps 'intrusion' is not the word I would use. Is it possible the Police frequency was used, not intruded upon.
  3. communications override/hacking?

    Mr Hancock, I recently used a link to your JFk Lancer presentation (actualy about something Bill Simpich said) to start a thread on this forum. The thread was a dismal failure and got hijacked, but it is relevant to this thread. Listening to the alleged 'Hold' crosstalk, one of the sentences sounds incredibly suspicious, along the lines of 'stop the limo, we're gonna do it'. I had hoped you might comment on the previous thread as to whether there might be conspirators using the recorded Police frequencies.
  4. "we're gonna do it",

    Two recent threads have deserved comparison . Listen to what Bill Simpich says starting from 56.55 in the Lancer presentation : Jorma Jormakka, in his thread on the acoustic evidence argues that the supposedly damning crosstalk (specifically the word 'Hold' heard on both radio channels recorded) has been erroneously matched. Meaning the argument that the shot noises occur at the wrong time to be shots, may have been successfully rebutted by Jorma. What this thread is about is what Jorma believes he hears on one of the channels: "Hold it up right there, we´re gonna do it, I, I got it,……, you got it." Is this an example of what Bill Simpich discusses? Who is saying these words? What do they signify?
  5. Can you give comments on two articles on the Dictabelt?

    Thankyou for your response Jorma, I understand now why your analysis does not require the location of the microphones to be known. I am unqualified to comment on your rejection of the original matching of shots. I accept the matching of the alleged shots to the Z-film is not strong ,but when combined with the way the original analysis tracks an alleged stuck microphone following the motorcade at approximately the correct speed you will need to improve your rebuttal of the conclusions drawn to convince laypersons. I have no reason to dispute your analysis of the 'Hold' crosstalk. A very significant discovery. I would love to hear what Don Thomas has to say on your work.
  6. Can you give comments on two articles on the Dictabelt?

    Hi Jorka, My outlook is from someone who reads quite a bit about the assassination, has some understanding of statistics, and some understanding of the acoustic evidence. I am very impressed at your attempts to review the acoustic evidence. I believe it is far more significant than most observers credit it for. Two practical observations : 1. You seem to have given little weight to the fact that the initial study actually fired weapons from the TBSD and the Grassy Knoll. It was the results of these firings that were recorded at multiple locations that were used to match portions of the dictabelt recording. Your analysis suggest that some parts of the recording 'looks like' gunshots. No, some parts of the recording look like the result of shots from guns at these two points to a high degree of correlation. 2. You have stated that it is unimportant which microphone picked up the shot sounds. It is fundamentally important. The shot sound patterns were matched to microphones positioned in Dealey Plaza. The shot patterns were found to match different microphone locations, in a sequence consistent with a motorcycle travelling (with a stuck open microphone) at the motorcade speed, in the direction of the motorcade. You have referred to the testimony of the motorcyclist H.B. McLain as if it definitively disproves his alleged location. I suggest you re-read the assessments of this. His location is certainly open to debate and he admitted his microphone was prone to stick open. Your most interesting analysis to me was of the alleged cross-talks. You propose that the cross-talk used to rubbish the HSCA is in fact two different statements. Can you show that graphically? as opposed to stating what you can hear, as I think that would be more persuasive. Your suggestion that one of the the cross-talks may have been manufactured is quite shocking. How certain are you of that suggestion? Because of my lack of knowledge of this area of science I found some of your analysis impossible to follow, simplification may be unnecessary for your peers, but to me it would prove very helpful, particularly around your theories of shot directions and shooter locations.
  7. Hi Richard, your theory of shot position to me has equal validity to that of David Josephs, sorry I can't see much solid support for either. Your proposal of the position does at least have witness evidence of persons unknown in the vicinity. I think your shot position would require a change of bullet direction after entry, an entirely likely scenario and one that doesn't seem to be acknowledged by everyone. The best that can be done, in my view is look for evidence that supports other evidence. The Xray scatter pattern I referred to is supported by ; The odd black patch on Kennedy's head in Zapruder, most Parkland and Bethesda witness statements, and the suggestion of alteration to the Xrays (not complete fakery, they MAY be total fakes). I feel confident there was a rear blowout, and its location is well established. I find the Lancer presentation fairly persuasive, along with other evidence of the entry location for the matching headshot. I don't discount ANY of the proposals for shooter location based on this thread so far.
  8. An almost complete unknown is the direction of a bullet after it hits a solid object at an angle. The best we have is the autopsy Xray showing a scatter pattern of debris, but I think that only gives a 2D approximation of bullet trajectory. If you are willing to postulate the Z-film has been altered then another unknown is the angle of Kennedy's head when he was hit. Some witness evidence suggest matter flew forcefully up and back and cascaded onto the car front passengers. That suggests the rear blowout may have been somewhat upwards (Brigioni said so) with Kennedy facing downwards. At Z312 he is moving forwards (probably due to braking). If in reality he fell forwards, was shot in the temple, and then was forced back, then perhaps removed frames answer Sandy's question?
  9. The cover-up documents

    The CIA have admitted a 'benign cover-up' and many suspect a toxic cover-up. Regardless of the type of cover-up, what documents provide instructions to the people at lower levels?An explanation of what to redact and a fuller picture of leads that need to be hidden is needed for thousands of man-hours of work. It is entirely plausible that since the assassination and probably before evidence has been corrupted, but I don't find it plausible that the instructions to do this were undocumented, certainly when considering the length of time over which redactions have been made . How detailed have instructions been to carry out the latest redactions? Do the latest redactions mean that someone in the CIA has shadow documents outlining the conspiracy? How else do you they know what to redact?
  10. Document Restoration

    With limited time this is the best I have managed. I guess to someone who knows what they are looking at it may spark an interest, or dismiss as a dudd. DOC 104-10211-10186.doc DOC 104-10211-10186.docx
  11. Document Restoration

    I have looked at some of the ineligible documents released, and feel there is sufficient data within them for restoration to be attempted using Optical Character Recognition Software. In the typewritten documents there are sufficient legible letters (or perhaps similar clearer documents could be used) to map the fonts and identify letters by means of elimination. The final weapon in the restoration armoury would be contextual evaluation (e.g if we get 'Ogwals' from the software, a human can have a good guess what the original word is). Has anyone tried this?, could it work? is there anyone in the research community who could try?
  12. New document releases 2017

    Just had a quick scan, lots of stull about De Mohrenshildt, back to 1942.
  13. Document Restoration

    I have tried to attach a CIA document https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146988 in Microsoft word format after my first attempt at repairing it. I decided my eyes were pretty good at character recognition but also that my brain might recognise patterns to fill in the blanks. As it is a CIA document I assumed it would contain cryptonyms but alas the only one I thought I could recognise was AMSPELL. I haven't looked deeply into the records released and some of the illegible documents don't look like they can be saved. I suspect some aren't even genuine text. The one I have chosen is tantalising to me, as I suspect someone with greater CIA document knowledge would see more in it than I do, and someone with greater I.T skills could take advantage of the visible marks that may be converted back into discernable letters. DOC 104-10211-10186.docx
  14. Rachel Maddow, JFK and Easy Money

    Mr DiEugenio , I always read your posts with great interest and there is an area that I would like to read your comments on. The CIA's official position has morphed into stating there was a 'benign cover-up'. Can you comment on the what/when/why of this change? You could hardly say the MSM forced the change?
  15. Number of shots in Dealy Plaza?

    Hi George, I am extremely grateful to you for posting this data, but unfortunately I am too stupid to understand it. Please could you help me? I understand there are several points at which the 'shots' on the dictabelt can be compared with the Z-film. In order these are; Kennedy lifts arms, flap of Connally 's lapel (I can't see this but I think analysis was done which found it in the film), and Headshot. I'm guessing your references to blur analysis for other points are predictions (or is there evidence I am missing?). How does your table align the results of blur analysis with acoustic (is there a start point somehow?, and what are your references to seconds, I don't understand what they refer to. Many thanks in advance.
  16. Number of shots in Dealy Plaza?

    Hi George, I am very interested in the above statement. I am convinced by the correlation between the acoustic evidence and other evidence , but my confidence in evidence does not stretch to believing the Zapruder film has not been altered. When you say that the correlation is not exact can you clarify where it is inexact? The commentary by experts on the film appears to leave open the possibility of some frame removal. If the acoustic evidence doesn't quite match the blur analysis, could that be because the Zapruder film doesn't quite match actual events?
  17. Key Documents to Stay Concealed?

    In "Politico’s JFK story may be wrong but it is not ‘disinformation’ Jeff Morley wrote:- "I know Shenon and Sabato. Both are very knowledgable about the JFK story. There is plenty to debate in their journalism and scholarship but nothing that indicates they would intentionally lie. While I disagree with their analysis of the JFK case, I have no reason to believe they are making assertions they know to be false. No evidence is presented for the insinuation of intentional deception, so I believe the charge is baseless and should be withdrawn." The statement above rather defeats itself. If Jeff Morley 'Know's Shenon and Sabato' then why have they failed to use him as a signpost to the Facts of the JFK case? unless they have reason to avoid the facts? I fully agree with Jim DiEugenio , Shenon is deliberately attempting to limit the impact of any document release and has wasted his airtime, when an honest journalist would at least provide a considered review of why some of the unreleased documents could be revealing.
  18. Number of shots in Dealy Plaza?

    The acoustic evidence, which has yet to be effectively impeached by anyone to my knowledge, is the starting point for me. From that we get a sliding scale, definitely 3 shots, almost certainly 4 four shots, up to 6 discernable shotlike sounds. Claims for more and you have to claim silenced shots, juxtaposed shots etc. I would suggest the acoustic evidence is sufficient to eliminate a single rifle shooter (shots too close together) and to determine at least two locations (In front and behind limousine). Other than the acoustic evidence, determining the number of shots is pretty speculative since any witness testimony is subject to potential misinformation/alteration.
  19. Document Restoration

    Hi Glenn, all docs are on the Mary Ferrell website. This looks like a straightforward to repair illegible document https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146988 This looks far harder https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=147148 . Even the tough one, when you zoom in on the image appears to have dark pixels which MAY be able to be reformed into characters based on their estimated positions. I hope you have some success. Eddy
  20. 16 mind-blowing facts about who really killed JFK

    I do not think that Oswald being an FBI asset is an established fact. What I don't know is how we get from a Warren Commission memorandum stating he is, to no reaction?. Can anyone explain?
  21. The National Security State and JFK

    If LBJ was a plotter for war then something made him change tack, what was it? If Kennedy was killed , LBJ would come to power. If he was not in on the plot what level of confidence would the plotters have that he would go to war with Cuba? Did the plotters completely misjudge LBJ's response? I am willing to be persuaded there was a plot to provide a pretext for war, but only if I can understand why it failed. Otherwise a plot with the sole goal of killing Kennedy is just as likely in my view, and that then opens up more potential culprits again.
  22. The National Security State and JFK

    Thank you for responding. Can you give your opinion on why LBJ's response wasn't anticipated by the plotters?
  23. The National Security State and JFK

    I watched several of these videos. The one that really interested me is Doug Horne's. The Northwoods document outlining the suggested Joint Chiefs of Staff pretexts for war with Cuba is scary. I could not help imagining the obvious unlisted pretext that may have been implemented. I would like to know what views people have on this idea ( That the assassination was planned as a pretext for war) Specifically I want to know what stopped it working? I have never read a plausible answer to that. Could Oswald have inadvertently stopped war, by sounding sane/ calm\believable in the brief TV appearances, and thus spooking the conspirators. Or, was the problem a mess- up in the Mexico City cover story, again spooking the conspirators. What spooked the conspirators?
  24. The Mexico City Mystery Man

    Please David could you help me follow your thinking by describing some possibly common ground; 1. Suspiciously quickly after the assassination claims are made that Oswald was a commie with known associations to Cuba (Russia trip,FPCC New Orleans, and MC visit) 2. The claims can be traced to the DRE, and thus to Phillips and the CIA. 3. You believe that Oswald was never in MC at the relevant time, thus blurring the argument that the MC episode was a sheep dipping exercise by the CIA to prepare Oswald for his Patsy role. It's taking a big risk with the Oswald part of the cover-up if any investigation can quickly refute Oswald was in MC. Wasn't there a risk the FBI might blow the story? You certainly provide a strong argument they had the evidence to do so? 4. The Oswald as Commie story seems to have been superceded/covered up/rejected by the establishment, but its hard to make the case that this was because they realised his links to MC were bogus. Do you subscribe to a possible explanation that the 'Oswald as commie' and perhaps the assassination itself was a rogue/compartmentalised CIA plot? and that the realisation of the consequences of this plot caused the wider CIA/wider establishment to cover up? This, I feel is a good explanation of the failure to provide actual photos of Oswald in MC, since less questions about covert operations are asked if the 'myth' of Oswald in Mexico is maintained.
  25. http://jfkfacts.org/who-was-valery-kostikov/#more-25529 Looks very much like Kostikov was not thought significant by the CIA, so was Phillips trying to get at Lechuga with Oswald?