Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eddy Bainbridge

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Interesting things

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Eddy Bainbridge's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • Collaborator
  • First Post
  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

  1. I think their is a good point made by the thread starter. Failure to reach consensus has been the enemy of getting to the truth: 1. We need a broad consensus view . I propose ' The CIA have culpability in the murder of JFK' 2. Once the CIA are forced to honestly engage with this charge a fuller truth may emerge. 3. Rebuttal of fringe theories is immensely difficult as the evidence is so tarnished. There is some supporting evidence for EVERY plausible theory.
  2. I am not am advocate for the Warren Commission but I think the answer is Credibility. No subsequent investigation has achieved the credibility of the Warren Report. I don't mean high credibility in the public eye, I mean sufficient credibility over competing sources of conclusions. The subsequent reviews are less well known, equivocal in conclusions and the press has failed us. The Warren Report is bad. The opposing views are piecemeal, kooky, and less credible.
  3. If you were to see JFK's skull with all fragments removed there would be a massive hole extending from top front, partialy one side and to the back. Everyone agrees on this. From bullet strike to coffin there have been witnesses to the expansion (and contraction by Jackie) of this massive hole. I believe the notch above the eye is the only certain elicit surgery. The autopsists state a lot of the remainder fell apart without the scalp's support. I believe Jackie held the head together and closed the side flap which sealed with blood. The fracture lines extend from the bullet exits. The fracture lines intertwine to create such a huge area of shattered skull.
  4. Thankyou for your detailed post. I have used your visuals above as reference for my reply. 1. Bill Newman described seeing a wound on the SIDE of the head. His location at the scene is essential to this observation. He did not describe a rear headwound or a top of the head blowout. ( He ducked before that happened?) 2. At Bethesda JFK was photograhed with a notch above his eye, after some witnesses described a small hole at this location.( I think this was deliberate body alteration) 3. Paul Landis's interview is so aligned with other Witnesses that I am convinced there was a large rear blowout. I do not propose the side injury witnessed by the Newmans was the sole exit head injury.( I disagree with Pat Speer) Apologies to Sandy for my alleged infraction in this thread on fragments. I think most others would accept the close relationship between these issues.
  5. Your theory has led you to reverse the direction of one of the shots (after Pat's challenge) , so much for long extensive research? The extant Z film shows what Mr Newman described. If he was wrong then that extends film alteration requirements considerably, and the amount of elicit surgery to the head. I don't believe there was time to create a side skull flap and alter the Z film to match said skull flap.
  6. I don't think the Harper fragment is the piece aligning with the low entry hole. I do believe it blasted out of the skull from the second frontal head shot.
  7. HSCA Testimony of Boswell :- "Dr Boswell- But not much. because this bone all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here—there was a hole here, only half of which was present the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the bevelling was on the interior surface." Two points : - Boswell is stating that 'half' the hole on the rear of skull was intact and another piece (not present initialy) 'fit right on there' Secondly, he is stating the bevelling was on the interior surface. He may have lied, other fragments (Harper) may have bevelling on the outer surface, but Boswell most certainly is claiming there was a low entrance wound, above which was a SPACE that needed filling with later arriving bone.
  8. Thankyou for replying Sandy. There is another explanation I prefer to your theory which avoids the discounting of the Newman's. The Z film is missing JFK's slump prior to the first headshot from the rear ( seen by the Newmans and recorded in the Rydberg diagram). The second frontal head shot has been removed with JFK's backward movement a remnant of it. I am pretty convinced the autopsists were told avoid mentioning frontal shots but only a sawn notch above the eye was necessary in respect of clandestine surgery. The rest is simply shattered/missing skull.
  9. Sandy I think you have done a great job of drawing out an essential and simple point: The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body. They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back. Isn't there a flaw in your argument about the Z film showing the rear headshot? Isn't the head in the extant film at the wrong angle? I think it is. I think the Newmans saw this shot and it exited through the top/side of the head. Your trajectory doesn't have an exit.
  10. Incorrect , he draws dots to represent the cloud at the rear of the skull. Thus your analysis of the direction holds for front to back.
  11. My view is that the Newman's are important witnesses to what occurred. Their testimony is provided extremely close to the events, and on TV. They saw a shot that matches the extant Z film from a very short distance away. Their natural reaction was to drop to the floor and cover up. If there was a second headshot they would not have seen it for the simple reason they were no longer looking at the scene. Their testimony convinces me there was a shot from the rear and that it was the first shot to strike the presidents head. In my view the clearest dishonesty in the extant film is its failure to record the limo stop/near stop. At Z312 all occupants of the limo are moving forward due to braking and then Z313 fails to report the continuance of that motion. If Kennedy's head. in fact continued to slump, it would reach the position shown in the Ryberg drawing, and first headshot would then match the Warren report, and the repeated confirmation of the autopsists. The best, and least contentious evidence of a frontal headshot are the fragment trails in the Lateral head xray. We can see straight lines of metallic fragments emanating from an explosion. We have reliable evidence that these trails come from an unseen (on internet viewable copies) cloud of smaller particles at the rear of the skull (See Chesser presentation) that are visible on the NARA version. This explanation needs no reliance on evidence of large rear blowouts, or evidence of frontal wounds in the hairline. Evidence of these two holes are continually impeached. I don't think the explanation above is easily challenged.
  12. How does the spacing of shots become moot merely because some people agree on the shot number? Yes more than person was observed in the sixth floor, so yes more than one person may have fired (I think the Loy Factor story relies on this). To my understanding the time between shots CANNOT exceed the time in which someone can reload, aim and fire a Manlicher Carcano (for the lone-nut theory). Please explain how again if I've got that wrong.
  13. Commenting on my own post will perhaps enhance its appeal! There is a common fallacy with analysis of the medical evidence 'the medical evidence has been subject to fakery and poor chains of custody, so it is not worth analysing' The fallacy within this argument is that; if the evidence shows conspiracy, assuming its genuine, then there was a conspiracy! Its worth analysing the evidence at face value, and the lateral X-ray is a great example of this. 'Prayer man' has a problem, the lateral x-ray does not To move the Prayer man argument forward really requires access to films held unlawfully (Contravening the Records Act) by third parties. The lateral X-ray (or at least a good copy) is held at NARA. Dr Chesser has described in incomplete detail what the X-ray shows. We can surely all be allowed to see an enhanced version of this X-ray, which will show ; a fuller pattern of metallic particles, better detail of bones and better detail of where metal may be embedded in bone.
  14. The following analysis is based on facts deduced in the presentation made by Dr Michael Chesser in his presentation available here: Reviewing the Autopsy X-Rays – The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org) His presentation focusses on the Lateral (side to side) skull Xray and I am focussing on the fragments seen on the Xray near the top of the skull. 1. There is no dispute that these are metallic fragments due to the way they are highlighted as bright particles on the Xray. 2. At 33:10 of the presentation Dr Chesser confirms he saw a huge number more ‘dustlike’ particles on the Xray’s (at NARA) towards the front of the skull. 3. The Ramsay Clark Panel and the HSCA portray the particle pattern as evidence of a bullet track from back to front (The Warren Commission appears to simply lie about the location of the fragments on the Xray). The location of this alleged track is part of the concern debated at the HSCA on bullet entrance location. The debate resulted in their conclusion that the rear head wound entered far higher than where the Warren Commission had determined. 4. Some of the clearly visible fragments form lines of fragments stretching at different angles across the Xray. What explains the ‘lining up’ of fragments? The answer leads to a clue about the bullet entry point. At 37:10 in the presentation Dr Chesser shows a slide titled ‘OPS 9mm hollow point frangible gel ballistics’ I can make no conclusion as to the type of bullet used in the assassination, but I want to use this slide to make another point: 1. Large bullet fragments have more momentum and will travel further in a medium (gel/brain) than smaller particles (See presentation at 36:10). 2. A large/ high momentum fragment creates its own pathway through the medium. 3. Any fragment that is following behind such a fragment, on a similar path, now has a pathway to follow, which is less resistant to travel. Therefore, smaller fragments travel along these pathways farther than they would in the basic media. The result is the straight lines on the Xray (See also the presentation slide at 37:10). Dr Chesser confirms there are a mass of dustlike (low momentum) particles at the rear of the skull. Further to the top rear of the skull there are lines of larger (high momentum) particles, some of which have formed lines ‘followed’ by lower momentum particles. If this constitutes a bullet disintegrating front to back, why can’t we see more particles? This can only be partly answered with any confidence. Dr Chesser states there are tiny particles in what appears to be black areas of the Xray. The particles require a medium (brain) to support them, and we can be confident that a large proportion of Kennedy’s brain was missing due to his injuries (No photo is available but a sketch of the brain was made showing massive damage to one side, and many witnesses confirm massive brain loss). Looking at the Gel ballistics diagram it does not appear to be assured that a bullet passing through a brain would remove sufficient matter and bullet particles to prevent them appearing in the Xray. The best I can offer is three possibilities : 1 This was one of multiple impacts to the head. Subsequent bullets removing evidence of previous bullets. 2 The bullet ‘flushed out’ the other particles through a large exit. 3. The Xray has been altered to remove particulate evidence. Conclusions The distribution of the metal particles reviewed is consistent with a frontal shot. The purported bullet track is a grouping of the tracks of multiple large particles, that were followed by lower momentum particles to form straight particle lines. These lines are suggestive of where the bullet entry was, but no firmer conclusion is possible.
  15. I believe that "Mexico City shenanigans were used by CIA plotters to place blame on Cuba/Russia". What I don't believe is proven is WHAT the 'blame' was placed for: Oswald's story after Mexico City is not a clear line from 'met Kostikov' to 'killed JFK', and the evidence of Mexico City is not a straight line from 'Oswald set up as patsy' to 'Oswald killed JFK'. Why is that? For examples: Why are there such strong evidential reasons to believe that, if Oswald acted at all, he didn't act alone? How did the evidential mess of the photograph of another man outside the embassy happen? Another starting point that I believe needs further exploration is that the 'Oswald in Mexico shenanigans' was part of a pretext relating to Cuba/Russia but NOT the Kennedy assassination. (One suggestion is that it was supporting a pretext for war in some other plot) This theory allows other actors to have redirected Oswald (possibly his associates at the Odio residence) towards the assassination, and may explain the conflicting behaviour of the intelligence agencies after the assassination: One faction is caught being associated with a murder they didn't intend and another faction is satisfied in the assassination (and successfully avoiding blame).
  • Create New...