Eddy Bainbridge

Mr Hancock, the best compliment I think I can give you is that I hope you live a very long time! We need you. Thank you very much for your clarifying words on 'Deep History'. I entirely agree with your sentiment that the term 'Deep State' has been hijacked, by lazy hijackers. Without wishing to make assumptions about any hypothesis you have on the assassination, I wonder if there may be a tantalising means of evidencing a 'Rogue element': If there was a surface element of the CIA who were unaware of a plot to assassinate JFK, then when it happened it must have created an element of shock. I have read that there certainly is evidence of this shock. I read that Jefferson Morley thinks Angleton may have been unaware of the assassination for example. "All I can say is there is a lot we don’t know. Was Angleton running Oswald? Or was someone else? There’s some evidence that makes me think Angleton was surprised by Kennedy’s assassination. Bill Simpich thinks Angleton was not part of a plot to kill JFK for reasons that make sense. So rather than commit to a speculative position without direct evidence, I’ll just say I don’t know. Because I don’t." - J Morley So, like the people running up the grassy knoll, because their senses indicated the direction of fire, is there evidence of shocked actors metaphorically focussing on the guilty?

Mr Hancock, I have just listened to your fascinating presentation and wondered if you might answer a couple of questions on it: 1. You mentioned Harvey being brought into Staff D and an assassination attempt being made on Lamumba. Does your research indicate that Harvey initiated assassination attempts? The short History you gave of Harvey suggested an intelligence gatherer, not necessarily a character who was going to embark on regime change actions. 2. A subject of general fascination in this field is speculation on the motives of RFK post-assassination. I think you are suggesting RFK was pursuing the elimination of Castro while JFK was pursuing détente. Do you think this explains RFK's failure to pursue or facilitate investigations? 3. You are expounding an interesting alternative to the 'Deep State'. You are suggesting the 'Socially Connected State'. Am I getting that right? Many thanks in advance.

Dreaming of an end to this misery I wondered if Oliver Stone would be able to get finance for another film ; 'JFK 2018' (or 2020 if it takes a while). Since the 90's the original films premise has been enhanced. I think the people who advised on the film (still living) could colour in some more of the story and the reputation of the original would get the crowds flocking in. Whilst the first film looked at events in New Orleans the new one could look at Mexico City and really hammer home the cover-up of medical evidence.

I think a far more interesting question is ; Why did the Kennedy clan react to JFK's assassination in the way they did? I think a potential good answer to this is the involvement Bobby had with Castro Assassination attempts. It may have seemed a real risk that Bobby was tarred with killing his own brother. Winning the Presidential election and enhancing his brother's legacy may have appeared to be a better option.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/release-remaining-jfk-assassination-documents-now-required-law

Hi Lance, I don't agree. If an ignored miscreant actualy makes a valid contribution then their views may filter into the debate as described. That's why the personal decision to ignore is not the sledgehammer solution that banning is.

Just implemented the ignore feature, its brilliant!!. Threads can be unsplurged at the click of the ignore. Highly recommended.

Hi David, The quote is fascinating but are you aware of other people corroborating the quote? I am struggling to keep up with the maths given the little time I am taking to comprehend it. Am I right in this summary of the hypothesis : - The Extant film has been modified. The camera filmed, at least for some of the time at 48 fps. Frames have been removed , and to hide this a narrative has been created whereby the limo travelled at constant speed, and the camera continuously ran at 18.3 fps. This narrative is partly fouled up by the significant slowing required to make the tight and ungainly turn onto Elm Street. A solution to this issue was to remove the ungainly turn from the in-camera original and falsify the surveyor's record of the locations of the limo, as related to the Z film.

I was very troubled by the removal of David Josephs and the resignation of Paul Brancato. There are members whose threads I wish to ignore. Please could instructions be provided for this and the consequences explained. 1. I wish to ignore posters who expound a theory but don' t make a case for it repeatedley. 2. I wish to ignore posters whose overidding objective appears to be disruption. These are my subjective and personal decisions. I don't believe there is a group or moderator solution to this issue.

Thankyou Chris, your position on this is slowly coming into focus and I'm planning to look at CE884 more closely now. I am slowly reading this whole thread as I feel it is very important. Thankyou also to Mr Walton for providing a post to assist my understanding.

Hi Chris, I've got that and agree something is not right. Thankyou very much.

Hi Mr Davidson, I am fighting to understand your maths and am failing for two reasons. Firstly I haven't followed you from the start and secondly because you are providing only sufficient commentary for someone who has. Am I understanding some basics. 1. Your maths show that the 'official' Z-film speed hides the fact that the filming was made with the slow motion setting on the camera. 2. The slow motion setting would create over double the number of frames than we see in the extant film. 3. Your maths shows that the extant film appears to be a film running at a 'normal'(ish) speed because over 60% of frames have been removed. I am very sorry I am not bright enough to add any further basics, but are you willing to answer a couple of questions, a remedial class as it were? 1. Is it the declared film speed that is essential to hiding the conversion of a long piece of film to a shorter one? 2. What tells you reduction has been done, as opposed to it making mathematical sense that it could have been done? 3. What significance does the limo speed have to this? Are you able to ascertain the limo speed or are you relying on witness testimony? Typing these questions I realise I really don't follow, I hope Sandy Larson now does as he also asked for help. You are really creating an interest in me now, but looking at the limited contributors to this thread you aren't getting everyone worked up. You may not care about that, but I would urge you to care, as some of the most brilliant work in this field lies forgotten due to a lack of momentum created around it.

"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. Reading what Alvarez said about the Z film close to the fatal shot; he finds that the film (which he assumes is reality) shows; a short deceleration, the Z313 shot and then..... the Car travelling at constant speed!!. His analysis of the film shows him that somewhere around Z300 a deceleration occurred (from 12 mph to 8 mph) but then this speed remained constant past Z334. "Certainly the car eventually speeded up, and this is doubtless what agent Greer recalled" is Alvarez's conclusion. This is a pretty implausible assessment to me. I find the constant speed observed in this section of the film highly suspicious. From the testimony it seems more plausible that the sequence contains a deceleration to a stop, then a rapid acceleration. You can create the effect of constant speed by removing frames.

A fascinating article. The analysis showing how the Warren Commission were starting from a conclusion (as opposed to seeing were the evidence went) is telling. CE399 was conclusively a plant, but what type of plant isn't clear. I am convinced that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland. I am not convinced that bullet was CE399. The distinction may matter; since if that bullet was CE399, then the cover-up was planned prior to the assassination. If that bullet was not CE399 then why plant a bullet unhelpful to your conclusion? David Phillips was alleged to have stated Oswald made 'a mistake'. Did he take the wrong rifle to work?

I am very resistant to the idea there is a body of media outlets (The 'liberal blogosphere') that resists a frightening truth. I suspect the truth is a little more dull. I think the heavy lifting part of the cover-up was done in the time up to the Warren Report. I think you have to read pretty deeply to decide something is wrong with the official story and a journalist without the background reading has to start from some assumptions . The early cover-up was good at normalizing the 'lone nut' idea, and the suppression of important evidence over time has stalled any momentum that might have generated good journalism. Everyone I know is not part of a cover-up, or is pressured into silence on the assassination. But, everyone I know looks at me with a mix of disinterest and concern that I may have a screw loose when I try to discuss it. Having said the above I do however accept the effective work of project Mockingbird, particularly because of the writing of Jim DiEugenio. I'm just not convinced its necessary or active any more.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/24/fidel-castro-cia-mafia-plot-216977 "(To the chagrin of conspiracy theorists, the documents contain little evidence that anyone besides gunman Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the tragedy." I would love to hear what Researchers (I am not a researcher, just interested) think of this article and specifically can someone explain how a journalist, writing for an organisation I respect, is able to write a sentence suggesting there has been no change in the received wisdom since 1963? Reading the article, I kept thinking the writer was avoiding a massive elephant in the room: The mafia appeared to demonstrate a certain slant on patriotism ,that must have taken a severe knock from Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs, particularly its leaders named in the article. Isn't it legitimate (and obvious) to question whether the mafia 'patriots' and their CIA contacts reacted in any way? This article does a grevious disservice to Politico's readers in failing to even mention there may have been plots, as yet uncovered, involving these actors

I agree that it is highly plausible that if the Russians feared being blamed for the assassination, then playing along in Mexico City makes logical sense, in fact its pretty shrewd thinking on their behalf. Does it start to make sense of Mexico City? A CIA plot to sheep dip Oswald, that was played along with by the Russians, once they had assessed their options? I suspect a large weakness in the theory is that it seems the Russians were already pretty clued up on Oswald. After his treatment in Minsk, could the CIA really have believed he had value as an asset? Doesn't the Minsk trip make it unlikely any mole would fall for the 'Henry' marked card?

I want to add to your list the impossibility of Russia continuing a cover-up until now. Mr DiEugenio I would be very grateful if you could give your view on Nechiporenko, Yatsev, and Kostikov claiming that Oswald visited them on Friday, September 26. We cannot know whether they were lying or not, but can you postulate a reason why they would say this? I would suggest it points to post-assassination cooperation between the Johnson administration and the Russians. To deny he visited would lend weight to a covert Kostikov meeting. To confirm he visited adds weight to a Lone Gunman narrative, and accusing him of histrionics helps even further.

Like everyone else I'd like to understand Mexico City. I've just watched a documentary with an interview with Kostikov and two other Russians confirming they met Oswald at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City. When was the first confirmation by Russia that the 'real' LHO visited the Embassy? The Russians, if responding to the confused picture available from the US intelligence agencies may have concluded they would be unwise to deny it. Did LHO visiting the Russians become a convenient diplomatic consensus? The Russians were able to say 'yes he visited us' and 'no, we didn't plot with him.' The Americans were able to say 'yes he visited the Russian Embassy, we now conclude it was a lone commie nut, we don't blame the Russians.' If the Russians say he didn't visit, messy. If the Americans say he didn't visit, conspiracy.

The work of David Josephs has made my ears stand up. Can I ask either Mr Josephs or Mr Hancock what happened to the trailed presentation by Mr Josephs at JFKLancer 2017. I was expecting it to create a stir?

Report post Posted December 31, 2017 Two recent threads have deserved comparison . Listen to what Bill Simpich says starting from 56.55 in the Lancer presentation : Jorma Jormakka, in his thread on the acoustic evidence argues that the supposedly damning crosstalk (specifically the word 'Hold' heard on both radio channels recorded) has been erroneously matched. Meaning the argument that the shot noises occur at the wrong time to be shots, may have been successfully rebutted by Jorma. What this thread is about is what Jorma believes he hears on one of the channels: "Hold it up right there, we´re gonna do it, I, I got it,……, you got it." Thankyou for replying. Above was my initial post in the thread I mentioned. My answer to your question on intrusion is that perhaps 'intrusion' is not the word I would use. Is it possible the Police frequency was used, not intruded upon.

Mr Hancock, I recently used a link to your JFk Lancer presentation (actualy about something Bill Simpich said) to start a thread on this forum. The thread was a dismal failure and got hijacked, but it is relevant to this thread. Listening to the alleged 'Hold' crosstalk, one of the sentences sounds incredibly suspicious, along the lines of 'stop the limo, we're gonna do it'. I had hoped you might comment on the previous thread as to whether there might be conspirators using the recorded Police frequencies.

Two recent threads have deserved comparison . Listen to what Bill Simpich says starting from 56.55 in the Lancer presentation : Jorma Jormakka, in his thread on the acoustic evidence argues that the supposedly damning crosstalk (specifically the word 'Hold' heard on both radio channels recorded) has been erroneously matched. Meaning the argument that the shot noises occur at the wrong time to be shots, may have been successfully rebutted by Jorma. What this thread is about is what Jorma believes he hears on one of the channels: "Hold it up right there, we´re gonna do it, I, I got it,……, you got it." Is this an example of what Bill Simpich discusses? Who is saying these words? What do they signify?

Thankyou for your response Jorma, I understand now why your analysis does not require the location of the microphones to be known. I am unqualified to comment on your rejection of the original matching of shots. I accept the matching of the alleged shots to the Z-film is not strong ,but when combined with the way the original analysis tracks an alleged stuck microphone following the motorcade at approximately the correct speed you will need to improve your rebuttal of the conclusions drawn to convince laypersons. I have no reason to dispute your analysis of the 'Hold' crosstalk. A very significant discovery. I would love to hear what Don Thomas has to say on your work.

Hi Jorka, My outlook is from someone who reads quite a bit about the assassination, has some understanding of statistics, and some understanding of the acoustic evidence. I am very impressed at your attempts to review the acoustic evidence. I believe it is far more significant than most observers credit it for. Two practical observations : 1. You seem to have given little weight to the fact that the initial study actually fired weapons from the TBSD and the Grassy Knoll. It was the results of these firings that were recorded at multiple locations that were used to match portions of the dictabelt recording. Your analysis suggest that some parts of the recording 'looks like' gunshots. No, some parts of the recording look like the result of shots from guns at these two points to a high degree of correlation. 2. You have stated that it is unimportant which microphone picked up the shot sounds. It is fundamentally important. The shot sound patterns were matched to microphones positioned in Dealey Plaza. The shot patterns were found to match different microphone locations, in a sequence consistent with a motorcycle travelling (with a stuck open microphone) at the motorcade speed, in the direction of the motorcade. You have referred to the testimony of the motorcyclist H.B. McLain as if it definitively disproves his alleged location. I suggest you re-read the assessments of this. His location is certainly open to debate and he admitted his microphone was prone to stick open. Your most interesting analysis to me was of the alleged cross-talks. You propose that the cross-talk used to rubbish the HSCA is in fact two different statements. Can you show that graphically? as opposed to stating what you can hear, as I think that would be more persuasive. Your suggestion that one of the the cross-talks may have been manufactured is quite shocking. How certain are you of that suggestion? Because of my lack of knowledge of this area of science I found some of your analysis impossible to follow, simplification may be unnecessary for your peers, but to me it would prove very helpful, particularly around your theories of shot directions and shooter locations.