Eddy Bainbridge

Hi Mr DiEugenio, Your research is part of the reason I believe Jim Garrison was on to something. The 'something' is not clear to me. Was Shaw a low level player or did he marshall funding for the assassination? I find the evidence of a New Orleans group plotting the assassination incongruous with other notions of high level CIA plotting, any help matching the NO story with the CIA story greatly appreciated.

Sorry Steve, I can't right now but if you type the references I gave into google (I got them from Mary Ferrell by typing David Christensen) then it took me to the lists in the NSA archive.

Just read NSA 144 10001 10178 and 10180 re David Christensen. His letter reads like a genuine recall of an event prior to the Nov 1963, which possibly supports Eugene Dinkin's foreknowledge. The docs suggest rather similar treatment to Dinkin's.

Z313 shows a 'flash' of some sort. To my understanding there are two potential genuine explanations: It could be blood/matter or it could be a flash caused by some sort of exploding bullet. Taking the first option : Is the colour right? Are there any comparisons on film that support the proposition? Is there a plausible explanation why the 'flash' effect is so shortlived? Taking the second option : If Oswald fired the earlier neck/back shot, why didn't that cause a flash? I understood that bullets were propelled by an initial explosion in the barrel. Can you get bullets that also cause a 'flash' on impact?

The JFK assassination is a very very odd subject for the application of Conspiracy theories because of the uncertainty over what the 'Official' version of events is. Is there any other disputed piece of history where officialdom has attempted to improve the original findings of fact (HSCA) and have Less supporters than the original (Warren)?

I live in the UK so can't come but I would like to know if you are re-inviting David Josephs. I want to see his views on Mexico City viewed more widely and I also want him to present live on the mysteriously modified survey plat with Chris Davidson.

This rule makes little sense to me. You have banned a person for their conduct. How can a third party be banned for expressing ANY views, as long as their conduct is acceptable. The experts on here call out misinformation and we all make value judgments on posts. Are you really worried about a master manipulator?

I found the part in the 1967 memo stating no determination could be made about the CIA's use of Permindex interesting. It leaves open the possibility that an element of the CIA did use Permindex, but not in an internally transparent way.

Thankyou very much for your reply Mr Von Pein. As I said, you're comments are based on evidence which is very helpful. Your response does not appear to answer my question. You have responded by stating that, in effect experts have confirmed it happened. Put another way; people with medical expertise say a bullet passed on the trajectory (there is absolutely no doubt as to the required trajectory, a line can be drawn from the 'snipers nest' to the front of Kennedy's throat) required through the bones in JFK's neck/back. I urge anyone to seek out an anatomically correct neck/back model and see the problem, no gap. I have asked this question on the JFK facts website and received the reply 'JFK had an obnormality ' (from another poster, no support for this provided). That's a shame because it is incredibly implausible, but at least possible. If Oswald had aimed badly and his bullet had struck something (a branch?) then again implausible , but possible. You have chosen one line of argument, your argument lends weight to the premise, about the weight of a grain of sand. Do you have anything else to add to your reply to me?, I would again be grateful. To me, the inability to explain this simple fault with the suggestion Oswald caused the throat wound makes me look at the other options. The possibility he was shot from the front and the bullet ricocheted into to his chest cavity matches the evidence best.

Mr Von Pein, I always read your posts with interest as you back up your comments with evidence. I have studied an anatomically correct model of the neck. There is no gap for a bullet to pass through, it is built rather like a suit of armour. It can of course flex, but flexion does not result in a gap appearing at any angle (I tried this with the model). With this in mind, please could you point me to evidence that either shows the damage to the neck bones caused by a bullet fired from the TBSD, or provide an alternative explanation for the bullet path if it didn't pass through the neck bones. Thankyou in advance.

Please can someone disabuse me of something that looks obvious to a beginner in the field. This is basic stuff but not everyone on here is deeply involved. Around Z309 (Brake lights confirm) the limo braked. JFK, as the only un-braced person in the car (Jackie was turned sideways to the direction of motion, as are John and Nellie) fell forward at around Z312 (Forward movement visible). 1. JFK's head slumps (Removed from film) 2. JFK is shot in the temple with his head facing down.(Removed from film) 3. Debris flies out up and back(Brigioni testimony) hitting Hargis(?) (See testimony) with force and sprays up and over the front passengers (Removed from film, confirmed by Connelly's) 4. A possible second shot to Kennedy's head (See autopsy discussion). (Removed from film, verified by acoustic evidence?) 5. The limo accelerates violently (Kellerman testimony) forcing Kennedy (Again unbraced) 'back and to the front' (Seen in film but perceived to be 'the headshot') Bear in mind, since the car is stopped almost directly in front of Zapruder, then the crop is not easily discernable as little is changing in the field of view. In the sequence discussed the car has ; decelerated ,stopped and accelerated.With a crop the car appears to be at constant speed after Z313 (confirmed by Alvarez analysis). If Chris Davidson or David Josephs would comment I would be most grateful, as I believe their analysis is pretty persuasive on frame removal, and that a shot/shots were fired after Z313. I believe the 'maths rules' thread is relevant because the cropping has forced the cover up to move the shot back to Z313 so it aligns with the braking of the car. It seems an amazing coincidence if the headshot exactly matches the point where Kennedy was moving due to the braking. A side issue to this, that I have only just considered is ; how far would Kennedy's Jacket and Shirt have ridden up in this scenario? Would the bullet holes in Jacket/Shirt/back align?

We hit a nasty impasse when the single bullet theory is challenged. The argument goes : Look at the evidence! It shows the SBT is false. I believe this to be true, but to complete the argument and conclude 'and this is what actually happened!' always relies on impugning the evidence. The list of theories are some variant on 1. The body was altered 2. The film was altered. 3. The autopsy photos/xrays were altered, or combinations of the three. This makes for an area of research ripe for disinformation. It is impossible to argue with any credibility that no evidence alteration has occurred. So if some alteration is proven then other alteration is plausible. Forget the 'No alterationists'. That position is not tenable. In my short time studying the case I have read nothing persuasive that stops me believing that JFK left the motorcade with a large hole in the back of his head. Until I am persuaded otherwise I want to know why I can't see that on the Z-film (altered/spliced ?) and why the evidence indicates brain matter went forcefully back, and showered forwards. These views are very relevant to the current thread,. Milicent Cranor does not challenge the 'back and to the left' motion as accurately reflecting history. I do challenge it, for the reasons above.( I have a theory, but don't we all)

Mr Dean, I am very grateful for your contribution and apologise for quoting you without giving you the credit (You had responded to a Jon Simkin thread). Would you be willing to give your personal opinion as to the FPCC?

Thanks for that, I couldn't resist selectively pinching a titbit from the thread : "Phil Hopley wrote: Gibson was in the US military in the early 1950s then, after leaving the Army, headed to Paris, France, in 1955 and joined the US ex-pat community who mostly spent their time at the Cafe Tournon and the "left bank" crowd. ... .. it was generally believed in the Paris ex-pat community that Gibson was secretly working for the CIA or FBI."

The Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) lasted from April 1960 to December 1963. It was formed by Robert Taber and Richard Gibson. Bill Simpich provides more information ( https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/07/24/fair-play-for-cuba-and-the-cuban-revolution/ ) It would appear the source of funding for the FPCC was unclear, with its fundraiser (Santos Buch) first claiming eight individuals provided the money and later that the Cuban Government provided it. The latest document releases confirm Richard Gibson spied for the CIA. (http://www.newsweek.com/richard-gibson-cia-spies-james-baldwin-amiri-baraka-richard-wright-cuba-926428 ) In the Newsweek article Morley describes how Gibson became a spy around 1965, but he had made documented attempts to contact the CIA at least as early as 1962 when he was allegedly deemed to be too unreliable for use. Taber later also offered to assist the CIA (See Simpich article) Vincent T. Lee was the final leader of the FPCC and is another opaque character (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Tampa%20Florida%20Times/Item%2004.pdf ) . John Simkin has attempted to find out about his background without success, the following appears on a past Ed Forum thread "Harry J.Dean said: The only info. I know re; V.T. Lee is that he had lived in Florida, he made several trips to Cuba., and was a firebrand for Castro. He arrived at FPCC in New York long after my time in the Chicago Chapter 60/61. Prior to V.T. Lee's position at FPCC, Richard Taber and Richard Gibson 'were FPCC', with whom Chicago FPCC leaders held a meeting and as FPCC secretary I was present, 1960." So was the FPCC a genuine pro Castro organisation? If it wasn't, then perhaps its use by Oswald points more strongly to his association with Phillips. The FPCC appears to be a candidate for a Phillips organisation. Its leaders were certainly malleable and the timing of its collapse suspicious. Any thoughts?

Hi David, many thanks for your excellent reply . You have reinforced my understanding of the troubling adjustment of the survey plat and the plausible but complex explanation of the reasons for it. I am convinced by the acoustic data, but not by D B Thomas's matching of the shots to the Zapruder film ( http://www.whokilledjfk.net/d_b_thomas_report.htm ) He uses the Film speed as 18.3 fps and you are challenging this. Are you able to use the acoustic evidence to assist in yours and Chris's analysis? I think the first thing you would have to address is your assertion that there was multiple shots fired at exactly the same time, since the acoustic evidence and analysis does not support that.

Hi Michael, The Ignore function on The Education forum is extremely valuable. I have you on Ignore. I have edited your reply to my post to demonstrate why you are on ignore. You have used two phrases that set my alarm bells off. "We all know that that's what really happened" is a phrase that will never be used by someone honestly interested in JKF's assassination. The phrase "Now try to keep an open mind here" has been used by you to convey the impossibility of keeping an open mind 'here'. I find reading anything I don't have an open mind about intolerable. Its a pity you don't. On the subject of the ignore function. I had hoped to monitor the people I ignore, in case they said something worthwhile, by seeing how their posts were reflected by others. That bit of the plan hasn't worked yet, but I'll keep trying.

Hi David , I don't understand your post. I am interested in understanding it, but rather than explain I would greatly appreciate your help in another area. Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread and I suspect you are one of the few people who understand what he has done. You have shown great skill with explanatory diagrams and unravelling complex issues (Oswald's Mexico travel for example) and I suspect he is on to something very significant. He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses.

I fear one can make an argument for National Security which gives little succour to anyone seeking the truth. If the Intelligence Agencies have any culpability in the assassination or any culpability in its cover up, then it demonstrates there is a severe weakness in American Democracy. A severe weakness in Governance is a threat to National Security. Perhaps its better not to reveal such a weakness?

In the clip linked below note how vehemently the friend(Ruben Carbajal) of David Morales ( who worked with Harvey on assassinations) makes the moral case for the hatred of Kennedy. The witnesses in the clip are persuasive that Morales was a man of action and who was willing to indicate the CIA 'got' JFK, an action he fully backed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzOs-jTOo-Q I would suggest the evidence shows Morales would affirm Harvey's justification of the assassination.

Yes, go to Mary Ferrell foundation for transcript. Eddy

William K Harvey's testimony to the Church Committee is fascinating. It illuminates a highly intelligent, and morally motivated man. Several times he returns to topics he has testified upon, to ensure he is not being misunderstood, or has not given a clear and honest answer. He is meticulous with his wording and respectful to the committee, this is a man who appears to have a highly considered moral code. He demonstrates this when asked by Bissell to investigate the CIA's capabilities for executive action: "Well I'm not trying to be humorous, but the first thing I did quite honestly, was to go back and think about it, and try to think out my own thoughts...' In his own words assassination of high ranking officialdom is justified. (my highlights added) "I can conceive of it being perfectly within the province of an intelligence service, one, on proper orders, from the proper highest authority in case of utter necessity to eliminate a threat to security of this country by any means whatever, whether its a nuclear strike or a rifle bullet, if I may be that blunt." "The second category of case is the one where not the Constitutionally defined treason, but treason in the ethical sense is involved, and where a given individual is guilty of such treason, either has to be eliminated or one of more other lives of a great deal more worthiness and a great deal more value obviously have to be sacrificed. I would not personally exclude assassination or any other technique as a proper weapon under such circumstances." I think 'proper highest authority' is a carefully chosen phrase. He is talking to Senators. The audience-specific phrase is a choice of 'The President' , 'The White House' or 'The Democratically Elected Government'. The phrase used suggests William K Harvey himself determines 'the proper highest authority' i.e An authority he deems worthy of that name. The phrase "treason in the ethical sense" I would suggest can only convey one meaning: That is , 'treason in my ethical sense'. So, from Harvey's own analysis: If Kennedy's Bay of Pigs decisions are an act of "treason in the ethical sense" then executive action is justifiable when the order comes from 'the proper highest authority'. His wife referred late in life to the Kennedys as 'scum'. Presumably the type of people who can be removed so those of "a great deal more worthiness" can live.

Mr DiEugenio , First there was 'On the trail of the assassins' then there was 'Reclaiming Parkland', surely your comments point to a new film!!

Hi Mr Kamp, There was a question I guess would have been hard for you to ask in public: But I would like to know what Malcolm Blunt thinks of your research on Prayerman? Can you enlighten me?

I live in the UK and there is a piece of Freedom of Information requests I would like to clarify. In the UK we have had cases where the debate has been over whether the body requested to provide information is in fact a 'public' body to which the law applies. If this avenue of challenge is open in the USA are there any supposedly non-public bodies that FOIA requests about the assassination could be made? For example : Is a body that holds public records a public body?