Eddy Bainbridge

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 The Oswald as Commie story seems to have been superceded/covered up/rejected by the establishment, but its hard to make the case that this was because they realised his links to MC were bogus.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?

Larry, I was unaware of Hosty's report on the matter. As relayed by you, his report would appear to leave open the possibility that the FBI may have been given false information by the CIA. At this point in time would the FBI have possessed independently verifiable information on Oswald? I understand there was blurring of loyalties within the two agencies ranks. Is it possible the CIA ran an operation whilst keeping the FBI hierarchy misinformed? I am accepting your assessment of Hosty's sincerity. Am I right to be wary that he has an accurate picture of the events in MC? I find Michael's argument above plausible with regard to there being a need for Oswald to be in Mexico City to lend credibility to the subterfuge, but that doesn't chime with my scepticism that he got there and back as per the official explanation. If he went with 'others' and came back with 'others', it perhaps explains the need for a false travel story?

I am not well read on Oswald in Mexico but i find Mark Lane's claim that David Phillips stated he didn't think Oswald went to Mexico (There should be a tape of this statement somewhere at the end of their USC debate) very interesting. I've looked also at the evidence purporting to cover his journey's there and back and it appears suspect. A common view appears to be that he DID go to Mexico City and an equally common view is that he was impersonated both in person and on the phone to the Embassies. I would like to know from those who hold both of these views what they beleive he went to Mexico for, or at least why he thought he was going.

The general public is unconvinced of conspiracy. Its easy to claim otherwise by referring to polling, but if you asked a member of the public 'what convinces you of conspiracy' I have no confidence the answer would make any sense. This lead, about a nurse who may have spoken to others about her story is very interesting. If her story is corroborated its fantastic evidence of conspiracy. The official (but not widely disseminated view) a'la 'JFK Declassified' ,is that there was a benign cover-up to avoid war. I believe that's how far JFK research has pushed the accepted facts, and no further. Because I have read more widely on the subject than most of the general public I can point to pieces of evidence which I simply don't believe fit into the lone gunman theory. I think almost every piece of the evidence I cherish is challenged not by a lone-nut believer, but by someone with a conspiracy theory or someone highly successful at disinformation. Please keep looking at the 'how', not just the 'who'.

Michael I take your point to an extent, but perhaps look at it this way: Look at the dissenting views of the acoustic evidence and you will see it is never attacked head on. The reason it isn't is because its so convincing. I am no expert in acoustic science, I am knowledgeable in statistical analysis and that is basically what is so convincing. To take one small piece of the evidence ; they fired a rifle out of the snipers nest and the sound pattern produced matched the pattern on the dictabelt. When I say 'matched' I mean in a statistical sense, or put another way some of the sounds heard on the dictabelt are highly likely to have been made by a rifle shot from the TBSD. I urge anyone who hasn't read it to read the work of Don Thomas, it isn't difficult to follow. I am amazed you can say it doesn't amount to anything. If you believe in it then its four shots fired too fast for one person and its one shot from the Grassy Knowl. I don't see any more concrete evidence of conspiracy.

It is very difficult to untangle what has caused more damage to the value of the acoustic evidence : Project Mockingbird, The HSCA's rushed conclusions, the vaunted (by McAdams et al anyway) discovery of contradictory crosstalk, or the lack of support from the research community. If you look at how 'The CIA did it' has blossomed since the 90's as a theory , and yet 'Oswald acted alone' as a theory still has followers, you can see that the research community has failed to find solid ground. The acoustic evidence, in my view is very solid ground.

Why don't JFK researchers support and develop the acoustic evidence? (I think Jim DiEugenio has hinted there may be more to come). I don't want to have a thread arguing whether its right or wrong, I want to know why its appears to be shied away from. To understand my position I'll outline my feelings on the topic. I have no doubt the Dictabelt recording is of the assassination because the amount of corroboration for that is massive. The Zapruder film has been used as the starting point for analysis of the assassination by thousands. My view of the corroborative evidence that the film is completely genuine is that it is far weaker in comparison. So why not start from the acoustic evidence? The opportunities for expansion of the research seem huge to me. The starting point for research in my eyes would be ; We have four established shots, a fifth needing further analysis and possibly more. I guess getting more Dealy Plaza testing done would not be easy, but what about computer simulation? How does the Zapruder film match up if the acoustic evidence becomes the standard? I would tentatively suggest it implies two headshots, one around Z320 (or whatever should be seen around that time). I don't fully understand the corroborative evidence for two headshots, but as a convinced convert to the 'large hole in the BOH' evidence I am open to persuasion that a headshot is missing from the Z film. A big gap in understanding in my view is the possible use of silenced weapons. Can the acoustic evidence be developed to show that the perceptions of the crowd can be explained by the focussing effect of weapons with silencers, and also perhaps an explanation for bullet paths. (By this I mean that slow moving bullets deflect from their path after impact far more easily i.e neck to lungs, forehead to top of head?) The above is a bit of brain splurge, but hopefully demonstrates my frustration, that YOU are not backing what seems to me excellent evidence.

I have listened to the Fonzi interview with Specter. I can see two plausible reasons for Specter's poor answering of Fonzi's questions. Firstly Specter may have failed to remember the salient arguments. This is highly unlikely, anyone who puts forward a contentious suggestion is sensitive to its weaknesses and rehearses the defence. Secondly Specter may have genuinely no coherent answers to challenges of the SBT. It certainly seems plausible that an objective view could be formed by Fonzi , that the SBT was unlikely. Its a tiny step to then becoming a conspiracy believer. When Fonzi describes meeting Specter for the last time, and suggests Specter may be looking for absolution, I suppose you could make the case he fabricated the meeting's contents. That would be a fairly incredible attack on Fonzi.

Thanks for the very informative posts. I started with a view that the plot to kill Oswald may have included a plan to get him into the hands of persons who could ensure his death. I'm less enamoured by that idea now. I'm pretty sure my inspiration for the question was something David Lifton trailed for his new book. Perhaps that's incorrect.

Thank you very much for your post Michael, it has enlightened me somewhat. If your conclusion is that this was a reliable assassination technique then my further information is irrelevant. I would however like to ask you to expand on the idea that this type of shot would require the victim to be neglected to ensure fatality. That interests me because Oswald was removed from where he fell (is that good practice?), a room full of possible lifesavers, to a room where presumably access was controlled. I have no idea what a third year medical student is capable of, and no evidence he did anything. But it is stated a medical student was on the scene and he , under normal circumstances would have been the go-to-guy.

If a plot is suspected, then a plot that relies on a man with a small handgun lunging to shoot the victim, and shooting low, looks like having a high risk of failure. Anthony Summers states that 'someone applied artificial respiration- the worst possible treatment for an abdominal wound'. Jim Leavelle stated in a 6th Floor museum interview (On youtube) that an ambulance was on the scene surprisingly quickly to pick Oswald up, he thought this was due to a call being cancelled. He also states that a 3rd Year Medical student from South West Medical Institute called 'Bettendoff' (Spelling unknown) started work on Oswald immediately. Can anybody provide more information on the medical student? Where did the Artificial Respiration information come from?

I live and was born in the UK in 9/08/1967 I have degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Law and was formerly a Magistrate. I am interested in World Events and I consider the JFK Assassination as extremely significant. My motive for joining the Forum is to ask questions of the knowledgeable. I am not knowledgeable but I believe I am good at asking questions.