Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eddy Bainbridge

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eddy Bainbridge

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Its interesting how vehemently that proponents of a location for the fragment location being at the top of the head argue. As far as I can see only John Hunt demonstrated it couldn't actually fit there (space taken by other bone). The argument about its location obfuscates its true significance (See above)
  8. Proof of two shots in the second burst comes from the Harper fragment.
  9. Sorry this won't be a new analysis for many. Its a Eureka moment for me. 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. 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 neads to be replaced by Kennedy sitting up (or being lifted up by Jackie), and then being shot in the head for the second time. 8. It also explains the dishonesty of the Warren report in dropping the first head 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. Thoughts please.
  10. I like this theory geometrically, but why have I seen no testimony that a bullet hit the windshield at the time of throat shot? The most likely evidence would come from Connally as he was in a perfect spot to hear a bullet hit the windscreen and perhaps whistling past his ear? The front passenger and driver also show no reaction and don't react by getting the car out of line. You could argue they were in on it, but its Connally's failure to register this at the right time I need an explanation for.
  11. Jiggle analysis seems a highly plausible piece of evidence that is correlated over several studies. It seems to prove the Z313 shot did not come from the TBSD: 1. Zapruder reacted to the Z313 shot sound. 2. His reaction is recorded by a 'jiggle' of the camera seen on the film as a blurring. 3. The jiggle and the Z313 frame are too close together in time for a shot sound to reach Zapruder's ear from a TBSD shot. 4. The events are so close together that the shot must have come from somewhere close, like the Grassy Knoll. My own doubt about this logic is not that the jiggle analysis is flawed, but I believe the Z film may be.
  12. I think Bang .....Bang-Bang is so commonly reported that this pattern must lead to part of the truth. I believe silenced weapons (i.e weapons producing a restricted cone of sound) and echos have caused the conflicts. I am a firm believer in small film alteration. I think no more than 2 secs have been removed around Z309-Z350 and some masking around this time to JFK's head. Quick to make alterations. The turn has also likely been removed. (see Chris Davidson) I think more work assuming silenced weapons and fitting testimony to the alleged sniper positions might lead to a stronger theory.
  13. Some of the quotes from Thompson's new book mention the Limo turning in to the curb during the stop. Is there any artifact of that? It's also interesting from a frame removal perspective. If no artifact whatsoever exists, and the inward movement actually happened then sufficient frames must have been excised to hide it. That would need to be 1-2 seconds I would have thought. If its hidden by a zoomed copy then is there any way of measuring the distance of the limo accurately from the curb at each frame?
  14. We only have theories. I can understand from a Political perspective why the lone nut theory would be supported, but not from a factual one. The debate would be equally contentious if a conspiracy was accepted but not the conspirators.
  15. Mr Roe, I am not an expert on the assassination but Jim DiEugenio has pointed out the error in your thinking that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were not one and the same person. The record shows they were, I don't think Tracey Parnell would dispute that. Are you re-thinking that error? You seem to have jumped past it and moved on to some knockabout. Its quite important to the case and might make you reconsider your position. In terms of making a contribution to this site, and learning from the contributors you can fact check people, but you do need to check the record. If you jump past corrections to your thinking it makes you look like a QAnon follower.
  16. I don't think someone who genuinely admired a great man would prod a group of people who disagree that the man was great, into criticising him so soon after his passing. It takes someone with a big ego and no compassion to do that. I hope that you, Mr Parnell, might reflect on this behaviour and apologise to Mr McAdam's family.
  17. I started my study of the JFK case with the McAdams website and once I had read further its dishonesty slowly became obvious. It's omissions also became obvious. I hope that McAdams was employed to promote disinformation because I accept the view that some may hold, that the truth could be damaging to the fabric of the USA. If honestly held, then that is a misguided but understandable position. To be dishonest for any other reason is a sad waste of a life.
  18. Many thanks Matt. I suppose my suggestion that the bus trip was created to cover/obfuscate the Odio story is unlikely. If the narrative is that Oswald got to Mexico by faster means then there should be perhaps either co-conspirators or sightings.
  19. Would anybody be able to enlighten me on some timing: 1. When was Silvia Odio's story first known? 2. When was Oswald first 'revealed' to have visited MC? I ask because I wondered if it was possible that the Oswald's bus trip was created to fill in the period where he could have visited the Odio's? Its clearly testimony with serious consequences if not rebutted, or at least muddied.
  20. I have just watched the disturbing documentary 'Three Identical Strangers'. It concerns covert experiments on twins/triplets. It is probably more disturbing for proponents of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, bearing in mind the time when these experiments were being carried out. Is it worth looking further into the background of Peter B. Neubauer? Mystery surrounds the reason why the results of these experiments were supressed. My guess is that the explanation relates to the sensitivies of the Jewish Nation, as opposed to Intelligence Agency suppression, but who knows?
  21. Is it an optical illusion, or are the motorcycles in this clip converging? There might be more than one reason for that, but one may be that one is reacting to a change in front of it. They would aim to round the curve in parallel. Any thoughts?
  22. I suspect Mary Moorman's shots after Z313 are a misremembering. She states she saw Kennedy grab his chest and then the car accelerated. Look at her photo. She can't see his chest, or what he is doing with his arms. She must be talking about the shot around Z190. She was likely panning her camera with the car. He testimony makes more sense as another' bang... Bang-bang witness'.
  23. Thankyou for your post Mark. I don't understand your last sentence. I don't think you are saying the Zapruder film is the standard, but neither do I see much point matching shot testimony to the Z film: 'Bang pause bangbang doesn't match", shot not heard by some (around Z150), followed by three shots doesn't match. Shot from the front to the throat, weak shot to the back, shot(or shots) to the head doesn't match(or at least not the Warren Report). Possibly worst of all is shot at Z150 (must have missed by a lot, injuring Tague?), shot around Z220(magically got through Kennedy's neck bones with no trace etc etc etc) and Z313(Caused bizarre momentary flash, caused bizarrely explained/unexplained reverse lurch by JFK). Watch Patti Paschall, her statement of "bang....bang-bang" is entirely casual. It doesn't relate to a direct question and she doesn't appear to realise the signficance of what she says. The other witness I can remember on camera, again saying this, was one of the witnesses in the room directly below the snipers nest. From what I have read on ballistics I think these witnesses may have heard two shots (The 'bang-bang' in fact being one bullet exiting the muzzle (one bang) and then braking the sound barrier (second bang)., but that isn't very plausible.
  24. Plausible Denial is a far far better book.
×
×
  • Create New...