Eddy Bainbridge

Thankyou for posting this photo, it appears to show that I was under a misapprehension about part of the plaza. At the right hand side of the photo there appears to be parked cars curving under the the underpass. Is this traffic? or static vehicles. I ask because this is a likely spot for the frontal head shot to come from.

Whilst I agree that using the word fraudulent is perhaps overly dramatic I also have suspicions as to Mr Speers approach. Two examples : He repeatedley refers to his own theories as 'where the research community has got to'. This is false. Secondly in an inconsequential post he posited that researchers had made up Hawkeyeworks. That might be true as far as I know. If it isn't then its rather a naughty thing to claim.

Two headshots, straight through. One rear entry, one frontal. As opposed to contortions of bullet track, bizarre rearward bouncing head, and weakly supported tangential wounds? Take your pick.

Many thanks for the illuminating post Keven. I don't find the testimony completely persuasive but they hold out the possibility that JFK was indeed 'slumped' at the time of a first headshot.

That's pretty poor reading of my post. Hey ho. The entrance shown in the Ryberg diagram agrees with the fairly adamant autopsy surgeons. But.. The head angle doesn't match for a rear shot from above. I don't agree with the Rydberg depiction of the exit. I believe this rear shot was seen exiting by the Newmans and Zapruder. The second, rapidly following headshot was from the front and caused the large rear blow-out. Simple and matching of most facts, other than the extant z film.

Abraham Zapruder described JFK slumping in a TV interview. Dan Rather describes something similar. I can't see what they are describing. Is there a catalogue of slump witnesses? My theory of the shooting relies on JFK's head position matching the Rydberg drawing at some point. You can then make simple sense of the headwounds and shot directions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.