Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eddy Bainbridge

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eddy Bainbridge

  1. Many thanks David for commenting. I was trying to tempt you into providing more information from your new book, as I am persuaded that alteration was made to JFK's head above the eye, and I posit that the rear head wound could have been obfuscated with an autopsy incision. Perhaps your new book will persuade me alterations were carried out earlier.
  2. I would like to suggest for discussion the following scenario: 1. Hulmes was called before the autopsy and advised he would need to remove the entrance wound above the eye and enlarge the rear headwound by hiding it within the scalp reflection process. 2. Hulmes made an incision through scalp from front to back and cut a notch above the eye with a saw. 3. Due to the fractures of the skull he was able to remove pieces and allege the skull was incomplete, but not reveal the large rear hole. 4. The early part of the autopsy was partially a charade to convince Finck that no shots came from the front. 5. With foreknowledge I suspect this may have been very quick to complete and actually witnessed by others, without knowing what they were watching.
  3. Hi Ron, I think some of Mantik's conclusions are a little hasty (e.g large fragment at rear). I think anyone would say the low back wound is a puzzle. I think the best you can say is that the autopsy witness testimony probably confirms there was some sort of wound in the back, and probing was inconclusive. I don't think you can confidently say the wound existed in Dallas.
  4. Adding another theory reliant on film alteration in my view. Three headshots theory (Mantik, Horne, Chesser), One rear, one above eye, one right temple. The theory is largely based on viewing of the original Xrays and photographs so has a good evidential basis. Horne particularly posits Z film alteration. I am not scoffing at this theory, it largely matches my thoughts. but would make some observations: The evidence provided for rear bullet entry, and temple entry isn't very persuasive( Based on one crack following Puppe's law and a barely defined 'keyhole' entry site). The xray bullet track (front to back) , in my view, is somewhat misinterpreted. Bear in mind that a large right portion of the brain is missing. This means any bullet track will be visible in the remaining brain, but has no medium to support it on the right side. In my view we see around 1/4 to 1/3 of the debris trail from the shot above the eye and Chesser's interpretation of its direction is misplaced. The theory also does not accept the large fragment next to the eye socket (They need to listen to Pat Speer) and ignores where the autopsy surgeons say they removed bullet fragments. I hold the injuries can be explained by two head-shots. If you propose three head-shots I think you are struggling to demonstrate three exit points without unsupported speculation.
  5. Hi Chris, My latest thinking is that there is a block of frames removed after Z312 not 313. My reasoning is the apparently natural movement of the fragment emitted from the head shown in subsequent frames and that matching two shots (first rear per Rydberg, second frontal) I know its only 1/18 sec but does that effect your calcs?
  6. Many thanks to Chuck and Ron, I will read more fully how David Mantik reaches his conclusions about three headshots, and if I find this worth adding I will. In respect of Dr Mantik being the 'Gold Standard', can I strongly advise you read what Pat Speer has to say on the large fragment that Mantik states is visible on the AP xray, but not on the others. Speer's analysis is the 'Gold Standard' in this area in my view. I think it is big error in Mantik's analysis.
  7. There is a part of this article I don't think anyone has touched on yet : The suggestion is that Perry was called during the Autopsy or very soon after (before the autopsy conclusions certainly). It is not in dispute that the Surgeons spent time trying to fathom out where the low wound on the head came out (Boswell, Ipsey for two). It always struck me as odd they didn't leap to the conclusion it was through the Trach wound. The article may suggest they had already been told about Perry's statement that the Trach wound was an entrance point. They were thus initially forced to try and find an alternative exit, and then forced to bully Perry.
  8. For anyone new reading this post, it is intended to summarise theories on the head shots seen around Z313. I am trying to collate all plausible theories, presented in simple terms. Its is essential for all Conspiracy Theorists to vigorously scoff at all theories, other than their own, so I’ll have a go at a bit of scoffing as well. Warren Commission – Head Hit by one shot from rear, smallish low rear entry. Fired from TBSD – Scoff; what about all the witnesses and evidence of a large blowout at the back of the head and the angle of the shot that doesn’t match its supposed origin? HSCA – Head hit by one shot from rear, fired from TBSD but entry higher up than Warren Commission, to ‘adjust’ angle to match TBSD location – Scoff ; As per Warren Commission scoff, AND no evidence provided for shot entry location change, other than an extraordinarily weak reference to the fragment tracks visible on the X-rays. The fragment tracks seem to show a shot from completely the opposite direction. JFK film/public theory - One shot fired from Grassy Knoll entering somewhere near right front of head and exiting through blast in rear(as per witnesses etc) – Scoff; I can’t see much serious support from anyone for this simple theory. How does it explain the larger fragment behind the eye socket visible behind the eye socket? and how does it explain the eye-witness and photographic evidence of a blow-out at the front/side of the head? Two head-shot theory 1 (Josiah Thompson?) – A shot fired from the front, entering above the right eye and blowing out the rear. A second shot from the rear that hits JFK a glancing blow on the right side of his head and causes a blow-out wound at the front/side of the head – Scoff; Where is all the mess created by this sequence in the Z-film? It requires a rejection of the testimony of the three autopsy surgeons. That might sound easy to do, but a reading of their testimony, and others, plus the documentary evidence results in a bizarre conclusion. That conclusion being : The autopsy surgeons were trying to lie about their autopsy, CONTRARY to the alleged cover-up. Put another way: the autopsy surgeons produced an explanation, and, during the autopsy, acted in a way, that did not support the Warren Commission or the HSCA findings. They insisted on a low entry at the rear and, during the autopsy spent time trying to find out where this low entry came out. After the autopsy the cover-up kicked in, to obfuscate the autopsy report, but the three autopsy surgeons never jumped on board. Two head-shot theory 2 (Pat Speer?) – As above, but two head shots from rear – As above theory but the rear blow-out is higher up the head, and the theory includes a detailed explanation of why the rear blow-out is not located where the witnesses apparently state it is located. Scoff– Same as the theory above. You might find the theory of the mislocated rear blow-out persuasive (I don’t) but you are still left with lying autopsy surgeons, going rogue! (All the above theories do not require any alteration to the Z-film to work, Josiah Thompson’s version of ‘Two head-shot theory 1’ is the most fully formed attempt at resolving the lack of debris in the film.) Two head-shot theory 3 – First head-shot from TBSD, Second head-shot from front. The theory requires missing Z film frames, as the angle of the first shot doesn’t work otherwise. Scoff : There is no scoff! Absolute genius! Go to thread “The Harper Fragment Proves a Lot” for a full explanation. Please can anyone post corrections to my characterisations of these theories, and also please suggest other plausible theories I have missed. I will then edit my post accordingly.
  9. Many thanks Paul. It seems impossible that Rather would lie, and I think he repeated his statement 'on air' three times. Its pretty implausible that any conspirators had time to think 'Rather needs to reverse the body movement', bearing in mind we ended up with a backward movement that suggested a shot from the front anyway!. From the edgy approach to the subject he seems to have ever since, I think he knows what was done to the film, and falling back on 'I misremembered' was the safest option.
  10. Many thanks to Chris Davidson for the Hickey quote and encouragement. I am going BIG with my next conclusions. If this post sparks some interest I'll post the evidence. Zapruder film sequence (note This sequence is not exactly correct, as what it doesn't incorporate is frame removal, necessary to hide the limo stop (Decelleration/Acceleration) : Z309-Z311 - Limo starts to brake Z312 - JFK's torso moves forward and down due to braking. Z312a - JFK slumps further forward with Jackie concerned Z312b - Shot from the rear hitting JFK in the head (as per Boswell, Hulmes, Finck, Ipsley, and Doug Horne location, and per Pat Speer discovery of large fragment from this shot in the eye socket) Z312c - Jackie is aware JFK has been shot again, but can't exactly see the right sided blast location. (The car is virtually stationary) Z312c - Jackie lifts JFK to try and see what has happened to his right side Z312d - JFK is now upright (See George Hickey quote above) Z312e - Shot to JFK's head from the front (as per Kilduff and Xray fragment pattern and other evidence), blasting out at the rear (as per Uncle Tom Cobley and all) and ejecting the Harper Fragment. A piece of JFK's brain shoots across the back of the car. Z313 - The Harper Fragment has shot nearly vertically into the air, and can be seen in this frame, the initial blast is diminishing in this frame. The added 6 frames amount to 0.33 seconds removed. I have a feeling the missing sequence may need a few more frames. ---------- The WC Rydberg Drawing is correct!! It shows the angle and direction JFK was first hit at. (Arlen Specter spotted the problem but it has been interpreted as a fault in the drawing not the Z film) Dan Rather was correct. JFK slumped forwards. The Autopsy Rear Head photograph is accurate. It unfortunately fails to show the low rear entrance, due to the loose scalp (after repair) sagging slightly. It was intended to show the rear entrance, not to fool anyone. It was only in 1967 that the autopsy surgeons got to see their intention failed. If they had seen the picture on the day of the autopsy it would have been retaken. Doug Horne found the hole when viewing the original at the archives but everyone else has been looking at other features in the photo. Life Magazine was correct!!. Their initial sequence published was based on what they saw, a forward slump. They may have used actual missing frames for their sequence, or more likely; placed extant frames in the wrong order based on their viewing of the original film. This accurate reporting may have required the death of the reporter. The Bang.....Bang-Bang sequence accurately depicts two head shots (Bang-bang). Witnesses accurately report the sequence, but not the timing, as this varies (Jarman in the TBSD hears a shot originating close to him, and one the from the other side of the Plaza, potentially up to 0.5 seconds apart. Clint Hill hears one shot and an 'echo' as he is between the two shots) This may not be perfect, but I'm looking for some rebuttals to damp down my enthusiasm for this concept.
  11. I believe the focus should be on a modern day 'reckoning' as opposed to placing blame on historical characters. Research into the dealings of the deceased is worthwhile if it leads to modern day prosecution for the ongoing cover-up of a crime.
  12. Hi David I would be grateful if you could clarify 'and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway' in your view. My UK interpretation is that he is saying the limo nearly ran into what I might call a Bollard, or more importantly, a specific point in the road. Mr Belin seems to be asking Mr Truly 'are you saying the car nearly hit the curb?'(a continuous line) NOT asking 'Did the car hit a specific point' (abutment?bollard?) I hope its clear I'm asking this because IF there is an identifiable point that Truly is referring to as an 'abutment' then it makes re-creations easier.
  13. Sorry, Sorry, I have realised my own analysis is wrong. I have done further reading and realised my statement at the start of this thread is wrong in one aspect, needed further research, ..but still, fundamentally holds some water: 1. The Fragment came from the back of Kennedy's skull. This is proven without doubt by John Hunt ('A Demonstrable Impossibility (Mary Ferrell)) . He shows it can't fit where the HSCA tried to place it. And there isn't another suitable location. 2. The lead smears and cratering/beveling (See photographs and Testimony of those who saw it) on one side show it was hit by a bullet. 3. In its correct location, this shot came from the rear and into Kennedy's head (See the rear autopsy photo for its entrance, but beware!!) The bullet caused the hole in Kennedy's scalp at the rear. What happened to his skull is another matter. -WRONG THE FRAGMENT'S BULLET IMPACT SHOWS LEAD LEAVING THE SKULL AT THIS POINT NOT ENTERING. OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWS A SHOT FROM THE REAR. MOST CONVINCINGLY TO ME ,THIS IS PAT SPEERS PROOF THAT THERE WAS A LARGE FRAGMENT REMAINING IN KENNEDY'S EYE SOCKET (CONTRARY TO MANTIK'S ANALYSIS), but also witness testimony that what we see on the Z film (side head wound) is correct (not convinced by Speer on this) 4. The momentum of this bullet clearly didn't eject the fragment. Physics tells us that. An ejecting fragment would be on the outward travel of a bullet/debris and we know the fragment ejected and was found by Harper. 5. The above means another bullet ejected the fragment. A shot from the front, evidenced by the bullet track on the Xrays, witness testimony by the truckload, and a spokesman pointing to its entry point on his own head on the 22nd. 6. It also means the Zapruder film is missing the second shot to Kennedy's head. The shot (see recent posts by Mark Tyler) is likely to be the last bang in the bang.....bang-bang sequence stated by many witnesses. 7. It also means the trajectory of this second head shot can be used to assess what is missing from the film. David Mantik posits the trajectory through JFK means he must have been sitting upright when hit by the second shot (otherwise the angle is upward, shooting from below the limo), so the head-snap needs to be replaced by Kennedy sitting up (or being lifted up by Jackie), and then being shot in the head for the second time. POSSIBLY WRONG - I HAVE SPENT TIME READING THE DEBATE BETWEEN THE HSCA/CLARK PANEL AND THE AUTOPSY SURGEONS, THE POINT OF ENTRY IS IN SEVERE DOUBT. I NOW BELEIVE THE EVIDENCE POINTS TOWARDS THE LOWER (WARREN COMMISSION ENTRY SITE). HULMES is adamant (HSCA testimony) the entrance was not as high AS THE HSCA POSITS AND TELLINGLY REFERS TO A SCALP ENTRANCE NOT SKULL (WE SUSPECT NO SKULL AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA). THE EVIDENCE MAY MEAN ANY MISSING FRAMES WERE ACTAULY WITH KENNEDY BENT FURTHER OVER (SEE HSCA RYDBERG DIAGRAM) - POSSIBLY WHAT SPECTOR WAS AFRAID OF IN HIS MEMO ON THE SUBJECT. 8. It also explains the dishonesty of the Warren report in dropping the first head shot bullet's entrance, to conflate damage to the back of the skull (caused by the second bullet) with the first bullet's entrance. It also makes the HSCA's decision to move the first head bullet's entrance embarrassing. They clearly didn't realise that this relocation revealed the lie in the Warren report. - NOT SO SURE!! I AM NOW LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY MISSING FRAMES SHOW KENNEDY SHOT AS PER RYDBERG DIAGRAM!
  14. Thank you Chris. I understood your judgment is more analytical than my own. Looking around Z313, and my thoughts on the Harper fragment, and my belief a 'pause' has been removed around this time, I see around 15-25 frames removed basically to hide the second head shot. Not in one block but clustered in this area.
  15. Hi Chris, would you be willing to estimate the range of gap size that is currently up for debate?
  16. Hi Mark, that is terrifically interesting. I will study the map you've created and if I see any different to you. I'm going to experiment with potential shot locations to see where there may have been witnesses outside acoustic cones (widening out from the source of the blast and narrower with a silenced weapon) Look forward to the Z313 map.
  17. Hi Mark. I am interested in your review of witness testimony regarding gun shots. I have tried to research bullet speeds and distances in Deeley Plaza to assess whether a shot from two locations at different times could : 1. Sound like one shot to some people. 2. Sound like 2 shots to others (bang-bang). My conclusion is that it is possible and it might indicate where the shots came from. I think we are looking at around a 0.5 sec difference in the time a shot sound would reach one location to when it may have reached another. Can you find a correlation between people who heard 2 shots and their location in DP if you look at your two apparent one-shot, two-shot locations? A strong candidate for a shot is the South Knoll, near the underpass, which is quite a way from the TSBD.
  18. Judge Tunheim gave the impression he knew what was in the unreleased documents and that there was no smoking gun. I now doubt he saw unredacted documents.
  19. Can someone please confirm my interpretation of this article: The archivist raised concerns about document release. I translate that to mean the archivist was tasked with releasing unredacted documents. The archivist couldn't do that as they didn't hold the unredacted documents. At the date of release the archivist couldn't do their job so raised concerns. The article seems to show the 'concerns' in fact related to the CIA's failings. I had naively assumed the archivist held unredacted copies of evidence, and redacted copies were in the public domain, unless completely redacted. If I'm right, this must mean no one outside the CIA has seen unredacted documents. That means potential smoking guns.
  20. Hi Chris, you are proposing, what appears to me at least, a complex process. I beleive there has been frame removal, I doubt 36 frames. I think Chris Davidson's work suggests less frames. Around extant Z313 frame removal is aided by the fact the camera direction forms approximately a 90 degree angle with the limo direction, and we highly suspect a slowing of the vehicle that has been removed. My wild estimate is around 18 frames that have not all been removed in a sequence. They have been removed to hide a hard braking, a pause,a second frontal head shot a rapid acceleration (at least more rapid then we now see). In my view the use of a matte to cover the rear headwound is pursuasive, and is seen before the wound is actualy produced. I'm not pursuaded by the use of any other mattes, thus far.
  21. I greatly admire Oliver Stone's work but I have a criticism of the trailor. The single bullet theory is old topic that has been obfuscated and has just the sufficient amount of plausibility to hang around. I just feel it isn't the slam dunk of a debunking that researchers try to portray. Far better, in my eyes is the voluminous evidence of a large rear hole in JFK's head, and the persuasive evidence of its cover up. I would have preferred the trailer to lead with that.
  22. I found it interesting that these early reports also describe the throat wound as an entrance wound and suggest a route for the bullet downwards rather exiting.
  23. My newspaper today has an article on a new book 'Two Steps Forward, One Step Back' by Miles Copeland III. The interesting quote comes from his father, who joined the CIA in 1947 as a founding member, and chief of its Political Action staff :- "Nobody, knows more about changing governments, by force or otherwise, than me". Any thoughts?
  24. Hi Ron, I noticed your post and have a possible answer to your 'problem'. You are assuming the head snap is a genuine reaction. For me I can see it aligning with two effects: Firstly the braking of the car(forward motion 312), and secondly the (unseen) reaction of JFK to Kellerman's alleged instantaneous acceleration (backward motion at extant 313/314). Thus Kennedy's actual reaction may align more with the direction of car travel, and changes in velocity than shot direction.
  25. You can watch a presentation by Randy Robertson on youtube where he allegedly tracks the fragment through the Z film frames. There is also a diagram (produced by Itek I think) showing fragments shooting virtually straight up. I don't think there is reliable info on where the fragment actually landed. I read that a small boy claimed he saw a man pick up a fragment on the day(Article in 4th Decade I think), but Harper claims to have collected the day after.
  • Create New...