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. Ron Bulman in an earlier post sparked a new thought in my mind. Could the concept of Plausible Deniability have gone wrong or been abused? I understand it is a theory that Bobby Kennedy felt huge guilt as to his involvement with the assumed conspirators. Was that because an instruction given by him (Such as 'Eliminate any person's who are either within, or hinder the downfall of the Castro regime') was interpreted fatally further down the chain. Reading William Harvey's Church Committee testimony is quite chilling with this in mind. He says two important things in this regard: Firstly he
  2. Another question for Larry: You are certainly not suggesting a Corporate decision by the CIA to assassinate the President, but the impact on the CIA must have been massive. Firstly in creating tensions in the Organisation and secondly in internal review of its chains of command. Do you see these consequences in your research?
  3. I accept that I (who at 53) did not really 'live' the experience but if you will allow me an equivalent generalisation. I discern in older posters/ researchers a resistance to honest consideration that the extant Z film is not the camera original. I suspect the shock at seeing the film in the sixties burned a version of reality onto the brains of those who experienced it I feel this has and is hampering research progress
  4. To Steve, I completely agree. To Larry I apologise, I mischaracterised your views. I believe the Z-film has frames missing after Z312. Two remarkable events make the removal possible. Firstly I believe the car was stationary and secondly it was directly in front of Zapruder. The only way I see to remove witness anomolies, car decelleration effects and car acceleration effects , and witnessed injuries is to add frames back in.
  5. I don't think so either , for different reasons: Larry Hancock has clarified that he believes the extant film was sufficiently revealing of ' multiple shooters' to ensure it's suppression . I have severe doubts as to that view. Firstly supression failed, or the film was intentionally leaked , we'll never know. And secondly the extant film clearly isn't convincing proof of 'multiple' shooters. The public are sceptical but not convinced. Chris Davidson's work, stemming from the altered survey plat, is convincing in respect of frame removal and why. Dino Brugioni's testimony is convincing o
  6. Larry I am very grateful that you are engaging on this. Your choice of words is extremely careful on this topic, but are you risking the conflation of two issues? The film JFK, and many other commentators state that the Z film 'intuitively' shows a frontal shot. I don't think it does. I feel the extant film's missing frames are hiding a slow fall forward (from braking), during which the President was hit in the head (probably more than once). The head snap now shown is thus an artifact, impossible to intuit anything from. Thus I feel you are at risk of conflating proof of a frontal shot,
  7. As I understand the view put forward in 'Tipping Point' there was a planned cover up, and a cover-up that became necessary. I think David Phillips was quoted as saying Oswald made a mistake, and Martino is referenced in 'Tipping Point' as having acted to cause a change of plan. This rings true. I can see evidence of preparation for a cover-up (Martino seemed prepared for example) but also there were obvious signs of cover-up on-the-hoof (The 'mystery-man' photo debacle) to shoe-horn Oswald into his new role. Tipping Point mentions the two briefing board events. Does this indicate the auth
  8. I think Tipping point is a terrific structure for future research. I have two observations. Firstly concerning the cover-up. It appears to have moved terrifically fast from 'Foreign Conspiracy' to 'Lone Nut'. I say that from looking at the NPIC briefing board events, which indicate even that early the plan had changed. What was the 'Tipping Point' to swop between the two? Secondly ; The work of Vince Palamara casts a shadow over the Secret Service. 'Tipping Point' suggests a limited number of conspirators. Are the Secret Service exempted from involvement? or does suspi
  9. I am fascinated by 'Tipping Point' and very grateful to Larry Hancock for his generosity and excellent analysis. The process thus far described appears extraordinarily high risk. The descriptions of the disagreement within organisations and governance suggest to me a plan impossible to carry out without fatal flaw or discovery. I'm not saying the assassination was flawless but the flaws haven't gained traction and the cover-up has worked superbly. I'm in no position to challenge anything within Tipping Point but the idea of a plan being hatched in the timescale proposed looks like breakneck sp
  10. The fading of interest in the JFK case is inevitable due to the passing of time. I am one who believes there are actors who help the public 'wait out' (Angleton's words?) the desire for truth, but history is forgotten, eventualy. I think since I have taken an interest (about 3/4 years) some conspiracy theories have certainly faded : Mafia did it, Cuba did, Russia did it., these are all theories whose support has diminished, but at least within the research community there are other theories that have diminshed. For example ; few think the medical evidence supports the Warren Commission. F
  11. Former CIA officials say Trump can’t be trusted with US secrets once he’s no longer president – Raw Story
  12. I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.? 2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back?
  13. Pat Speer's article doesn't get us very far, and doesn't debunk the Dictabelt evidence. He doesn't really even try to debunk it. Lets say from the beginning the mystery of who recorded the shots has not been definitviely determined. If you're looking for film backup then you have two problems ; Firstly the community is not agreeing on potential crops to films and secondly the Dictabelt recording likely has 'skips' in it (See D B Thomas's later work on this, he postulates where they may be.) So if you want to say 'voila! McClain wasn't in the right place' then I can't counter that a
  14. I would say 'I don't know, but the CIA share the guilt. Until the CIA come clean The State is sadly not to be trusted to act on the will of the people'
  15. Can anyone direct me to an accurate map of the Zapruder film? What I'm looking for is a guide from frame 1 onwards as to what exists, if missing/damaged then a date for this and where are the confirmed splices and alleged splices. This information doesn't appear to be in one place and I struggle with spliced/damaged copy stories as opposed to what frames actually exist. I just read that Robert Groden matched an acoustic evidence 'shot' with 2 missing frames but I can't tell if these frames ever turned up. Thanks for any guidance.
  • Create New...