Eddy Bainbridge

Hi Richard, your theory of shot position to me has equal validity to that of David Josephs, sorry I can't see much solid support for either. Your proposal of the position does at least have witness evidence of persons unknown in the vicinity. I think your shot position would require a change of bullet direction after entry, an entirely likely scenario and one that doesn't seem to be acknowledged by everyone. The best that can be done, in my view is look for evidence that supports other evidence. The Xray scatter pattern I referred to is supported by ; The odd black patch on Kennedy's head in Zapruder, most Parkland and Bethesda witness statements, and the suggestion of alteration to the Xrays (not complete fakery, they MAY be total fakes). I feel confident there was a rear blowout, and its location is well established. I find the Lancer presentation fairly persuasive, along with other evidence of the entry location for the matching headshot. I don't discount ANY of the proposals for shooter location based on this thread so far.

An almost complete unknown is the direction of a bullet after it hits a solid object at an angle. The best we have is the autopsy Xray showing a scatter pattern of debris, but I think that only gives a 2D approximation of bullet trajectory. If you are willing to postulate the Z-film has been altered then another unknown is the angle of Kennedy's head when he was hit. Some witness evidence suggest matter flew forcefully up and back and cascaded onto the car front passengers. That suggests the rear blowout may have been somewhat upwards (Brigioni said so) with Kennedy facing downwards. At Z312 he is moving forwards (probably due to braking). If in reality he fell forwards, was shot in the temple, and then was forced back, then perhaps removed frames answer Sandy's question?

The CIA have admitted a 'benign cover-up' and many suspect a toxic cover-up. Regardless of the type of cover-up, what documents provide instructions to the people at lower levels?An explanation of what to redact and a fuller picture of leads that need to be hidden is needed for thousands of man-hours of work. It is entirely plausible that since the assassination and probably before evidence has been corrupted, but I don't find it plausible that the instructions to do this were undocumented, certainly when considering the length of time over which redactions have been made . How detailed have instructions been to carry out the latest redactions? Do the latest redactions mean that someone in the CIA has shadow documents outlining the conspiracy? How else do you they know what to redact?

With limited time this is the best I have managed. I guess to someone who knows what they are looking at it may spark an interest, or dismiss as a dudd. DOC 104-10211-10186.doc DOC 104-10211-10186.docx

Just had a quick scan, lots of stull about De Mohrenshildt, back to 1942.

I have tried to attach a CIA document https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146988 in Microsoft word format after my first attempt at repairing it. I decided my eyes were pretty good at character recognition but also that my brain might recognise patterns to fill in the blanks. As it is a CIA document I assumed it would contain cryptonyms but alas the only one I thought I could recognise was AMSPELL. I haven't looked deeply into the records released and some of the illegible documents don't look like they can be saved. I suspect some aren't even genuine text. The one I have chosen is tantalising to me, as I suspect someone with greater CIA document knowledge would see more in it than I do, and someone with greater I.T skills could take advantage of the visible marks that may be converted back into discernable letters. DOC 104-10211-10186.docx

Mr DiEugenio , I always read your posts with great interest and there is an area that I would like to read your comments on. The CIA's official position has morphed into stating there was a 'benign cover-up'. Can you comment on the what/when/why of this change? You could hardly say the MSM forced the change?

Hi George, I am extremely grateful to you for posting this data, but unfortunately I am too stupid to understand it. Please could you help me? I understand there are several points at which the 'shots' on the dictabelt can be compared with the Z-film. In order these are; Kennedy lifts arms, flap of Connally 's lapel (I can't see this but I think analysis was done which found it in the film), and Headshot. I'm guessing your references to blur analysis for other points are predictions (or is there evidence I am missing?). How does your table align the results of blur analysis with acoustic (is there a start point somehow?, and what are your references to seconds, I don't understand what they refer to. Many thanks in advance.

Hi George, I am very interested in the above statement. I am convinced by the correlation between the acoustic evidence and other evidence , but my confidence in evidence does not stretch to believing the Zapruder film has not been altered. When you say that the correlation is not exact can you clarify where it is inexact? The commentary by experts on the film appears to leave open the possibility of some frame removal. If the acoustic evidence doesn't quite match the blur analysis, could that be because the Zapruder film doesn't quite match actual events?

In "Politico’s JFK story may be wrong but it is not ‘disinformation’ Jeff Morley wrote:- "I know Shenon and Sabato. Both are very knowledgable about the JFK story. There is plenty to debate in their journalism and scholarship but nothing that indicates they would intentionally lie. While I disagree with their analysis of the JFK case, I have no reason to believe they are making assertions they know to be false. No evidence is presented for the insinuation of intentional deception, so I believe the charge is baseless and should be withdrawn." The statement above rather defeats itself. If Jeff Morley 'Know's Shenon and Sabato' then why have they failed to use him as a signpost to the Facts of the JFK case? unless they have reason to avoid the facts? I fully agree with Jim DiEugenio , Shenon is deliberately attempting to limit the impact of any document release and has wasted his airtime, when an honest journalist would at least provide a considered review of why some of the unreleased documents could be revealing.

The acoustic evidence, which has yet to be effectively impeached by anyone to my knowledge, is the starting point for me. From that we get a sliding scale, definitely 3 shots, almost certainly 4 four shots, up to 6 discernable shotlike sounds. Claims for more and you have to claim silenced shots, juxtaposed shots etc. I would suggest the acoustic evidence is sufficient to eliminate a single rifle shooter (shots too close together) and to determine at least two locations (In front and behind limousine). Other than the acoustic evidence, determining the number of shots is pretty speculative since any witness testimony is subject to potential misinformation/alteration.

Hi Glenn, all docs are on the Mary Ferrell website. This looks like a straightforward to repair illegible document https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146988 This looks far harder https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=147148 . Even the tough one, when you zoom in on the image appears to have dark pixels which MAY be able to be reformed into characters based on their estimated positions. I hope you have some success. Eddy

I have looked at some of the ineligible documents released, and feel there is sufficient data within them for restoration to be attempted using Optical Character Recognition Software. In the typewritten documents there are sufficient legible letters (or perhaps similar clearer documents could be used) to map the fonts and identify letters by means of elimination. The final weapon in the restoration armoury would be contextual evaluation (e.g if we get 'Ogwals' from the software, a human can have a good guess what the original word is). Has anyone tried this?, could it work? is there anyone in the research community who could try?

I do not think that Oswald being an FBI asset is an established fact. What I don't know is how we get from a Warren Commission memorandum stating he is, to no reaction?. Can anyone explain?

If LBJ was a plotter for war then something made him change tack, what was it? If Kennedy was killed , LBJ would come to power. If he was not in on the plot what level of confidence would the plotters have that he would go to war with Cuba? Did the plotters completely misjudge LBJ's response? I am willing to be persuaded there was a plot to provide a pretext for war, but only if I can understand why it failed. Otherwise a plot with the sole goal of killing Kennedy is just as likely in my view, and that then opens up more potential culprits again.

Thank you for responding. Can you give your opinion on why LBJ's response wasn't anticipated by the plotters?

I watched several of these videos. The one that really interested me is Doug Horne's. The Northwoods document outlining the suggested Joint Chiefs of Staff pretexts for war with Cuba is scary. I could not help imagining the obvious unlisted pretext that may have been implemented. I would like to know what views people have on this idea ( That the assassination was planned as a pretext for war) Specifically I want to know what stopped it working? I have never read a plausible answer to that. Could Oswald have inadvertently stopped war, by sounding sane/ calm\believable in the brief TV appearances, and thus spooking the conspirators. Or, was the problem a mess- up in the Mexico City cover story, again spooking the conspirators. What spooked the conspirators?

Please David could you help me follow your thinking by describing some possibly common ground; 1. Suspiciously quickly after the assassination claims are made that Oswald was a commie with known associations to Cuba (Russia trip,FPCC New Orleans, and MC visit) 2. The claims can be traced to the DRE, and thus to Phillips and the CIA. 3. You believe that Oswald was never in MC at the relevant time, thus blurring the argument that the MC episode was a sheep dipping exercise by the CIA to prepare Oswald for his Patsy role. It's taking a big risk with the Oswald part of the cover-up if any investigation can quickly refute Oswald was in MC. Wasn't there a risk the FBI might blow the story? You certainly provide a strong argument they had the evidence to do so? 4. The Oswald as Commie story seems to have been superceded/covered up/rejected by the establishment, but its hard to make the case that this was because they realised his links to MC were bogus. Do you subscribe to a possible explanation that the 'Oswald as commie' and perhaps the assassination itself was a rogue/compartmentalised CIA plot? and that the realisation of the consequences of this plot caused the wider CIA/wider establishment to cover up? This, I feel is a good explanation of the failure to provide actual photos of Oswald in MC, since less questions about covert operations are asked if the 'myth' of Oswald in Mexico is maintained.

http://jfkfacts.org/who-was-valery-kostikov/#more-25529 Looks very much like Kostikov was not thought significant by the CIA, so was Phillips trying to get at Lechuga with Oswald?

Kostikov or Lechuga? My reading is making me wonder which of these two people is more significant. I'm coming down in favour of Lechuga. I hadn't realised how closely he was connected with the Kennedy's and Castro. It seems plausible to me that Oswald was used in an attempt to either foul up communications of the Kennedy's with Castro or it was an attempt to discredit Lechuga through Duran. How convincing is the portrayal of Kostikov as an 'Assassin in chief'? His interview with Anthony Summers doesn't appear to show a cunning and powerfull man, more a man out of the loop. Who is responsible for the common perception of Kostikov,is it credible? Philips perhaps? Setting up an 'incident' to involve Duran looks easier than arranging a meeting with Kostikov, or were both these events planned and significant?

Phillips appears to have been loyal to the CIA during his retirement. He was employed in Counterintelligence and I would suggest sowing a false lead for people to latch onto was excellent use of his skills. His alleged confession to his brother doesn't match the story, and his apparent admission when debating Mark Lane (Oswald was never in Mexico City) doesn't match it either. What I do think can be taken from the book outline is a picture of what Phillips considered significant in the assassination. These elements include : What Oswald was doing in Mexico City and the awkward known facts about this episode, the strong suspicion that Phillips was involved in the assassination and with Oswald, and the link between assassination attempts on Castro and the JFK killing.

Hi Sandy, http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html This is the link in John Newmans lecture to the second memo (he didn't provide the first) The memo is a reply to Mexico City on 23rd November confirming they haven't got the requested photo for MC from the Navy yet and it would be quicker to refer to the press. I'm assuming Newman is right about the first memo being before the assassination.

I have just finished reading John Newman's 1999 presentation at the JFK Lancer conference http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html I feel the 'paradigm' he uses to analyse MC events is fascinating, and aligns with my idea that the timing of evidence 'discovery' can prove very useful in understanding MC. It's not an easy read so I hope someone will correct my errors in attempting to summarise his 'paradigm'. 1. The plotters aim was to introduce evidence into the record of Oswald meeting Kostikov and dealing with both Russia and Cuba. 2. The CIA in MC were deliberately kept in the dark ,as were the FBI. 3. The evidence shows that some CIA operatives deliberately ("I got Jane Roman to admit it, 'I'm signing off on something I know isn't true.' " - John Newman,1999) withheld information on Oswald from MC. Newman suggests this was a deliberate 'dimming of the lights' for the insertion of the Mexico story. 4. The plotters are successful in forcing the authorities into a cover-up. One of the pieces of documentary evidence he introduces is a memo prior to the assassination from CIA Mexico to Headquarters requesting a photo of Oswald to compare with the surveillance photos taken outside the Embassy. The CIA falsely claims they will have to request the Navy provides one (as they haven't got one). Thus Winn Scott doesn't get a genuine photo until AFTER the assassination via the Press! I hope this doesn't derail the discussion on the application photograph. It perhaps suggests a reason why the photograph may have been inserted after the assassination.

I find it very tempting to postulate theories based on the evidence, but as Larry Hancock has explained, disseminating facts from the evidence is taking some time! Is it possible to look at the MC story in a different way? The first JFK assassination theory, emanating from the DRE I believe, supports the 'Oswald with Communist accomplices theory'. The mainstream media did not get hooked by that and quickly the 'lone gunman' theory gained traction. It is an assumption , based on some good evidence that this media redirection may have been controlled, not by emerging facts, but by a cover-up. Is there a tiny window in time, after the assassination, where MC evidence gave a different picture? Can the evidence be assessed as to the timing of its being revealed, as opposed to its evidentialy provenance. I suspect David Josephs would have an interesting opinion on this.

Hi David , I thought your writing on the Mexico travel story was fantastic and persuaded me the official story was concocted. I am not persuaded yet that Oswald didn't go to MC. If the 'Poor man Oswald' is replaced with the 'CIA supported Oswald' I don't think rapid travel from MC to the Dallas area is inconceivable , even in the 60's?