Eddy Bainbridge

I would like to make a couple of points. I have watched Mark's video and wonder whether there is a flaw around Z312 and after. We know the presidential limo braked(brake lights), but this is not really perceptible on the animation , firstly there is no clearly noticeable coming together of limo and the following car, and secondly if I try to imagine watching this 'live' from a rear or side vantage point then I fail to see anyone reporting a stop or virtual stop (which significant numbers did). My second point is that I contend there has been a removal of around 9 frames from Zapruder after Z312 (or around 0.5 seconds of film). I suspect this has masked a deceleration (to a near stop) and a rapid acceleration. The result on the extant film (and the animation) looks like a fairly constant speed over this period. This gives an explanation for the overly rapid head lurch, and the evidence suggesting a missing rear head blowout (probably whilst Kennedy was facing downwards, causing mainly vertical blowout)

I have just finished reading 'Secret Agenda' which I agree is excellent. My main takeaway from the book was the parallels with the actual actions of the 'Plumbers' and the plausibly alleged actions of JFK's assassins. I have attempted to list the parallels I see. 1. A number of the same actors. 2. A patsy or at least a cover (Nixon) 3. The use of exiled Cubans. 4. Deception of the CIA on the FBI. 5. Mysterious deaths of vitally important witnesses. I watched the Front line interview with E Howard Hunt and he near as dammit admits he was working for the CIA by bleating about the remuneration he was owed and stating it was part of a spooks unwritten entitlement to have his family supported.

If the throat shot hit the spine and travelled downwards, and behaved like the frontal headshot ( Timing would allow this) then both shots may have come from the same gun and the same bullet type.

Fakery and Counterfakery have kept the provenance of the Z film up for debate in the minds of most open-minded researchers. The honest photo experts seem to accept minor changes to the film could have been made and the insurmountably convincing amount of evidence for a large rear headwound fits well with at least a blacking out of the rear of JFK's head. I have spent time reading what Alvarez said about the motion of the limo. Assuming this part of his analysis is factual, then it is also incomplete in some way. He accepts the witnesses stated the car rapidly accelerated after the 'third' shot, during the duration of the film but reports there is no such acceleration discernable. If a piece of the original film was removed ( around Z313) during which the car was braking and then accelerated, then the result may be a film showing a constant speed.

If you take a used cartridge it presumably resembles a circular shaped punch. If you push it into a persons body can the skin be broken and create a bullet shaped hole? You can see where I am going with this. If alteration to fit rear shots is needed quickly then that looks easier than a scalpel? Not being a ballistics expert my sense that a bullet wound could be shallow is that it is implausibly unlikely. I am also aware you can't shoot someone through the spine at neck level and miss the spine as a gap doesn't exist.

No no no. You try and establish 'the salient facts'. When you try, and you use the evidence available to all, you cannot honestly conclude the Investigation or the Warren Commission established the salient facts.

To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct a more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to avoid.

Mr Schnapf, what do you conclude from your test?

Thanks to Josh Cron for posting this. The record runs in chronological order pretty much and the likely important piece starts at 6.50. I can see that it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the announcer is at DP or whether information is being rapidly relayed to him. His commentary is stilted and some noises apart from his voice can be discerned. Is there anyone who is willing to give a judgment on this bearing in mind the information posted by Bart Kamp posted above, perhaps by using the timings provided?

This is fascinating. Putting a spin on the HSCA commentary. No comments are recorded by the two bodies who analysed the dictabelt to compare findings. If some parts of the recording are not from DP then some are. The fact that the Kersta spectrograph was miss-filed (or least failed to appear) until late in the day is also suspicious. Has Donald Thomas made any comments in this potential evidence? The analysis above, by a person listening to a record bears no relation to the HSCA analysis. The analyser can clearly hear shotlike sounds and distinguishes three. Kersta's analysis (or the summary) is written as if nothing was confidently distinguished. Looks like a smokescreen.

Am I getting ahead of myself? Does this record have a recording of the shots, that confirms three shots were 5 secs apart, and confirms that it was impossible for Oswald to have fired all three, and verifies the Dictabelt recording?

Anybody got the Colpix record?

Hi Andrew, I spent some time reading the witness statements and I agree there is something contrived about getting witnessing to answer such limited questions. Two statements jump out to me: That of Ochus Campbell who gives a rather contradictory impression, he did not look at the TBSD, but does recall seeing the Motorcade passing the TBSD. I guess that's impossible and his emphasis on not looking at the building may suggest his awareness of his earlier comments about Oswald's location. The second statement is odd as it doesn't match the standard of the others. It is that of Wesley Frasier. He doesn't get to say 'I don't know Oswald' and more improtantly he does not get to say he does know Oswald. I guess as a 19 year old he may not have been very talkative, but its odd they didn't prompt him to say what most of the other's had said, or what seems likely this is not a full recording of what he did say.

I have searched this thread to find a quote that encapsulates the reason I am now adding you to my ignore list. You have had nothing valid to say on this thread. I distinguish you from DVP who I believe presents good contrary arguments and supporting evidence. The above paragraph is drivel. If you present a child with evidence of their wrongdoing they say ; 'I didn't do it' with no supporting evidence supplied ("Why ? Because Lee Oswald was inside the building, not there on the steps") If you challenge a child as to their thinking skills they say 'no I'm really clever' ("And here, see, I am applying critical thinking skills. It's easy, by the way."). You are also abusive, another childish trait. If you ever make a useful post I hope reaction to it will alert me. On ignore now.

That is a confirmation about what I said about your thought process. You have received two new pieces of evidence (Ochus Campbell article and Hosty report) and your response is ; "I'm satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald could not possibly have been in a storage room near the front entrance of the TSBD". Of one thing there is NO doubt. The new evidence relating to Prayer Man casts doubt on the whereabouts of Oswald around 12.30. It is extremely disturbing that in 2019 we can look back and see a pattern of changing witness evidence. Do you move even slightly from 'beyond all reasonable doubt' when faced with two pieces of contradictory evidence?

Hi Mr DVP, at this point in the thread you were unaware that Campbell had been reported as saying he saw Oswald on the first floor. You dug about a bit and discovered it was the case. In fact you realised it in the middle of a subsequent post. Without the batting of an eye you had rejected this new evidence (to you) as quickly as you have rejected the evidence upon which this thread is based. That is very closed minded behaviour. You had a conclusion prior to your assessment of the facts.

That is a good point and actualy provides two corroborations. As well as Campbell's timely recollection, if Oswald moved from the Prayerman position very shortly after his view of the Presidents car was lost then he was 'in' the building when the President was shot. On an irrelevant point, I thought the picture of Mr Carlier on his posts showed a microphone, but I think its actualy either a sausage or a dark ice-cream cone. I conclude this since a microphone is used when you have something to say and there is absolutely no evidence that is the case.

Randy Robertson made a pretty persausive match between the Dictabelt recorded shots and the Z film. The analysis for me has three weaknesses. He attributes the Z312 movement of JFK to a shot, but I understand all car occupants also moved slightly foward. He supports the idea of Barger (?) that there are two shots around 312/313 which isn't well supported, and finally he makes no attempt to explain the car-stop testimony. The study proves the validity of the acoustic evidence and to me supports film aleration There are a minimum of three changes to the momentum of JFK's head (braking , shot and acceleration) at the relevant period. It is plausible to me that the sequence of movement from 312 was : 1. Slump forward from braking 2. Shot from rear causing bevel in delta fragment 3 shot from front .25-1 sec later blowing out delta fragment etc. As Kennedy is slumped the exit debris goes up (Brigioni) 4 Car accelerates violently throwing Kennedy back. The extant film has number 3 (above ) removed so closely aligning JFK's movement with the first shot.

A small, but significant piece of evidence in Bonny Ray-Williams short film. He says "Bang, Bang-Bang"

My interest in whether Oswald went to MC was sparked by Reading that David Phillips was willing to believe he didn't go. That is an astonishing admission. I believe the work by David Josephs is based on documentary evidence. If anyone with criticisms of his work can put down their bluster-guns and do a review then I will read it.

Hahaha. One pretend reasonable person applauds another pretender. I like this thread, it's wasting the time of the time wasters.

The persons who come to this forum with no desire to further the debate are pretty transparent and appear to post with a view to deterring a new audience. The forum is getting a bit heavy on debates about Conspiracy theory. The forum to me is unashamedly built on the premise that Kennedy was assassinated via a Conspiracy or at the very least poster's will countenance that possibility.

The head snap attributed to a bullet appears to be too fast (and in the wrong direction). Making the assumption that it was due to the braking, combined with frame removal, how many frames have been removed?

https://thecorrespondent.com/

Mr Davidson and Mr Josephs, Do you intend to produce a presentation on this research? I've said it before and I'll say it again, this stuff appears really really important and I believe it needs to be understood by a much wider audience.