Eddy Bainbridge

I think Tink Thompson's opinion show's bias not sensible scientific analysis. Closing off the possibility of alteration of the film with a theory of non-alignment with other films is a blunt way to shut down debate and relies on non-existent chain's of evidence. What is yet to be established is what scale of alteration is being considered. I agree with Ron on the scale of alteration being limited ( Although I find a matt on the back of JFK's head very convincing.)

Hi Chris, I am fascinated by your research but don't understand it well. I have believed for some time that : The extant film does not accurately record the result of the braking limo, JFK's head-snap is an artifact from a long drop forward of his head due to braking and thus explains the conflicting evidence for the direction on rear blowout of the head wound. (It was more upwards and is missing from the extant film). You have stated that your work agrees with Mark Tyler's excellent research but you are saying your conclusions diverge at Z280. Is that correct?

Most people will have spotted William Harvey leaning on the tree in this photo but how many spotted E Howard Hunt looking from behind Harvey next to the car?

My view from across the pond is that you have one problem to resolve before all others. You can't have a democracy that ; splits you along geographic lines, and splits you on racial lines but allows a minority to maintain that split. One person one vote. We fail in the UK democratically but I find our failing results in the poor getting a bad deal. That's bad but I somehow prefer our failings (perhaps I'm not poor enough)

Hi Mark, David Josephs has linked to his article in this thread which shows the evidence is against Oswald actually shooting from the sixth floor. I am less convinced about his exoneration for rifle smuggling. I hadn't seen the Ralph Leon Yates story before, but it adds to the two-trips suggestion for rifle delivery.

I would like to ask a Harvey and Lee question : David Josephs has exposed the enormous lengths taken to plant evidence that Oswald went to Mexico by bus. Is it possible that the Harvey and Lee document trail, and testimony is a more long winded but similar project. If the evidence for one candidate is in fact a false trail perhaps to catch a mole, or provide a cover story for Oswald or others, does that explanation fit the evidence?

I am not sure either of these responses hit the mark. I am asking 'could Oswald have willingly smuggled in a rifle for someone else to make use of'. I am not making a lone nut argument. I have read about the pieces of evidence that purport to exclude him from doing so. To me they don't completely preclude it. What if he brought bits on different days? What possible 'Patsy' purpose was Oswald willing to carry out, possibly for an intelligence agency?That would incriminate him with the killing, but not require a timed location within the building? I think delivery of a weapon that he knew to be ineffective might be plausible.

Is anyone willing to debate an alternative rifle theory? (sorry if done already). The Conspiracy narrative for the rifle is often stated as 'Oswald didn' t bring the rifle, and the rifle was very poor for the job intended'. For this debate no further rifle related concerns are necessary. What if Oswald did bring the rifle? What if he was well aware of its deficiencies, and that is what reveals his willingness to deliver it. If he had examined it he would know it was not in a fit state to use. Could this have been re-assuring to him? If he had been advised to smuggle in a rifle, perhaps for a fake assassination attempt, or for an FBI sting operation, then he may have been content to take the risk.

I am interested that you have a firm view where Oswald was not located but not a firm you where he was. Do you beleive the evidence points to his presence on lower floors? Or are you persuaded he wasn't shooting? Or both? I am pretty sure there were shots from the TSBD. The only slightly plausible stories of other gunmen I have read are Mac Wallace or Loy factor plus unclear evidence of a man on the stairs and a crew laying a floor.

I don't agree with you on that point. I think the need for the second set of shots was the reason the plan had to change. I believe the throat wound is one of entry but subsequent events have shown that issue has been successfully obfuscated. What could not be obfuscated were the wounds caused around Z313. They needed surgery and bags of lies.

I think the confrontation over the coffin is a strong indication that body alteration was not part of the primary plan. If the State actors showed strong enough resolve then the federal actors would have failed. A plan requiring such an unpredictable element is an excessively risky plan. The two-stage shot sequence, the coffin fight and Finck's testimony in the Garrison trial suggest to me we got the implementation of a backup plan. The autopsists were guided, they were not rehearsed and the plan has sufficient holes so the truth can be partially seen through the disguise.

Hi Bob, you should read the analysis before dismissing it. The dictabelt has recorded wave forms. When test shots were fired in DP and the wave forms compared, at different points on the Plaza, statistically significant matches were found. Or put another way ; how the heck do you explain a close match between a test rifle shot and an alleged recording of the assassination?

What is wrong with a theory that Hulmes/funeral prep altered the body? The directions may have been provided by; talking to Perry, viewing the body on the plane, or pre-autopsy investigation. If there have only been two modifications (removal of front entry wound and reconstructing rear of the head) then there are no timing issues. The throat wound may have been destroyed but there wasn't a pressing need. The back wound's position has been successfully blurred by conflicting testimony. The brain is another piece of evidence that has been successfully blurred. Its removal and hiding was sufficient. Is it absolutely necessary to have it replaced?

Don Thomas does have a very good rebuttal (on MFF I think) basically it revolves around the dictabelt stylus skipping at definable points.

The hole in the shirt evidence is so convincing it should be taken to Donald Trump, have its own website and probably have a rockface carved with it.... Until then.

It is important to be aware of the strength of the acoustic evidence: The analysis proposes that the wave form created by test shots fired from the TSBD matches with a high degree of probability the sounds on the Dictabelt. The sounds are timed on the tape to accurately match the assassination timing. The sequence of the shots matches the hypothetical positions of a microphone travelling at the speed of the motorcade. If the acoustic evidence is to be rejected, then there are some astonishing coincidences to be faced. I am not an acoustic expert but the dictabelt is a filtered recording of the actual sounds. To suggest you can listen to the recording and state what type of engine can be heard needs to consider what effect the filtering had. To accept the testimony of McClain as accurate, one needs to consider what influences may have come to bear on his testimony.

Always being wary of disinformation. Can posters who disagree with DavId Lifton please confirm if it is his theory they reject or is it the possibility of body alteration.I view the evidence as showing a frontal entry wound has been removed. Is there a non-alteration explanation?

This man didn't get the original. He clearly had two copies that he was capable of playing. It also puzzles me he is so adamant of four shots when other analysts have considered the dictabelt may have recorded five shots. It suggests that in the limited time taken it would be difficult to be so certain of the number of shots. Perhaps he was told there were two shots as a means of authenticating his conclusions.

The debate on whether Oswald was supposed to appear the sole gunman or not has another twist. The shot sequence (and umbrella man) may suggest initial rear distraction (Bad loud Carcano shots) followed by assessment, followed by a signal to shoot, then kill shots, then a need for alteration of the head to mask the need for the kill shots? You then have a theory why surgery became a requirement but may have been avoided if the first attempts proved fatal.

I would love to derail this appalling thread onto a more fruitful but related track. Are there two competing schools of thought on alteration? One school claiming body alteration and another claiming other evidence was altered (photos, xrays) I have concluded that the forehead has been cut to remove the site of a bullet entry, I can't make a conclusion about the rear of the head. I suspect it was shattered underneath the scalp so what it looked like on arrival at Bethesda is not clear to me. Whether it was altered is also unclear. Evidence of alteration or replacement of photo evidence looks virtually certain. Evidence of Xray manipulation highly likely. So my question reworded : What do DSL and JD disagree on?

I've just finished reading Scheim's book. (Renamed 'The Mafia Killed President Kennedy') and Ruby is the central character. It is a very interesting collection of information. The most interesting piece for me is how Ruby's phone habits changed coming up to the assassination. His out-of-state phonecalls significantly increased to mafia contacts and then reduced closer to the assassination. Was he collecting money? Was he a messenger between bigger fish? He was surely not an organiser. The book puts a very interesting and plausible spin on his testimony , suggesting a man desperate to confess and supressed from doing so by Warren.

I don't see the argument being made that two separate groups were using Oswald. It may be one group who makes a mistake; Oswald needs to be sheepdipped as an Assasin in Mexico and actualy required to attend the Odios. These two events require coordination if the risk of discovery is high. Less so, if the flaws in the Mexico story remain hidden.

Hi Mark, I found the Zapruder quote I referred to : "I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell." - Abraham Zapruder, Clay Shaw Trial It was a rather unpleasant experience, but I watched internet footage of people being shot in the head. In all instances I found the obvious happens : The bullet is travelling so fast that the body barely reacts at all (always away from the shot), a considerable amount of the momentum carries on through the skull and then the body slumps a fraction of a second later. The passengers in the limo, except JFK are braced, or at least turned from the diection of travel at Z313. Kennedy's snap backwards indicates to me a reaction to the driver accelerating the vehicle so what we now see is a slow, brief slump forward followed by the snap back from acceleration of the car (See Kellerman on car? testimony)

Thank you very much for replying to me. You are doing high quality, difficult analysis so to comment on my amateurish thoughts is very kind. Researchers (Doug Horne being a good example) have considered the opportunity for alteration and made a good case for opportunity being available. Zapruder himself made an odd comment in the Garrison trial about his film being susceptible to alteration. Repeating myself, I don't accept so many witnesses perceived a stop from what you have simulated. I find it implausibly coincidental to the braking that Kennedy moves forward at Z312, but appears to be thrown back at Z313. This was first officially explained as the 'jet effect' kicking in, and then as possibly by a nerve generated action. I suggest it is considerably more likely that Kennedys slumping continued, and the snap we now see is in fact a poor animated simulation of the event.