Eddy Bainbridge

I am not persuaded by the 'surgical mangling' argument. I have spent time looking at Dr Hulme's conduct and I cannot decide whether he made a poor job of the autopsy, and subsequent reporting, or he was dishonest. The double reversal of his position on the low skull entry wound suggests to me he was pressured to alter his honest opinion by the HSCA. I can come up with no explanation for the notch above the eye, other than elicit surgery. The evidence seems to suggest Hulmes may have cut the notch, whilst removing the shattered pieces for brain removal. I am utterly confused by the provenance of the medical evidence. I am open to forgery, but to me the extant lateral X-ray cannot be interpreted to indicate a rear headshot. This is why I want a better copy.

Below is a Gel Ballistics photo that I googled and rotated so that it matches the lateral x-ray in orientation. It is exactly what I see in the lateral x-ray EXCEPT that half of the image is missing (the lower half) and is partly described by Chesser in his presentation (the large amount of particles nearer the front of the skull not visible to the naked eye). I believe an enhanced lateral x-ray would give an even clearer confirmation of this. It would also help to confirm that the reason the lower half of the frontal entry shot debris is missing is that a subsequent shot blasted part of the track out of the rear of the skull.

I am not particularly impressed by Chesser's presentation. I don;t think (as shown above) it has the power to convince people of a frontal shot. What I do believe, and have posited on another thread about this presentation is that he has provided THE BEST description of the lateral xray by anyone who has seen it in the archives. We have discussed analysis of enhanced evidence ad-nauseum (Prayer man, knoll photos, z-film). In Chesser's presentation we have entirely believable testimony that there is more to see on the x-ray than a lay person can discern from available copies. Why isn't there a strong push to simply get an enhanced copy from the archives? That will prove a frontal shot.

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.