Eddy Bainbridge

I have a poorly evidenced theory on Mexico City : Oswald in MX was a David Phillips operation to sheep dip Oswald for purposes unknown. Phillips did not factor into the plan that Oswald was unpredictable and usable by others. Oswald made a 'mistake' and that mistake was to be drawn in by JFK's assassins. This separation between Oswald in MX and Oswald in Dallas thus explains the mess created within the intelligence agencies. The MX operation didn't need the level of backup forced upon it by the JFKA. Within the Intelligence Agencies there wasn't a consensus, and hanging together a watertight story became impossible.

I am not well read on Mexico City, but I feel the focus on whether Oswald was or was not there to be unfruitful. I am convinced he didn't go by bus, because the alleged bus trip doesn't match with the actual buses (See David Joseph's work). If he didn't go by bus but David Philips coordinated a story that he did, then this is very significant. I am convinced he was impersonated in MC. David Phillips, I understand, is a likely candidate for coordinating the impersonation. Very significant if true. It is the use of Oswald in MC that interests me, not his presence. Evidence of his presence is undoubtedly mixed with false evidence. Is anyone doubting he was put to some use by intelligence in MC?

I am angry that this research seems to have been cocked up and hope it can be resurrected. I firmly believe there is useful irrefutable evidence. The analysts need to stick to what is not in dispute.

To define what we need ; a set of plausible trajectories from the alleged snipers nest to JFK's back. A set of plausible trajectories from this region, and through to the hole in his tie/front of shirt. Forget JFK body wounds, there isn't agreement. Then a set of plausible trajectories from this region to Connally's back wound. Questions we can then answer. Does the Warren Commission JFK back wound entrance, and throat wound exit align plausibly? Does the Warren Commission exit from Kennedy align with an entrance to Connally plausibly?

Can anyone confirm there is a genuine frame in existence between 312 and 313 ? In terms of interpolation I think there may be sufficient 'residual' evidence to recreate the frames missing after 312 (I have tried with free software). The sequence would be (braking, Kennedy slump due to braking, shot to head from rear causing side blowout( with autopsy located entrance), front shot with head at correct angle for Brugioni/Nelly Connally/Ryberg Drawing, accelleration causing extant head snap) The timing for this is defined by 'bang-bang' evidence which must mean it occured in .25 - 1 sec.

I am quoting from two of Spector's answers below: "The reason that such a hole would be inconclusive turns on the consideration that the bullet which passed through the President's neck met virtually no resistance in the President's body—it struck no bone," "And Dr. Perry said that those wounds could have been accounted for by having a bullet come in through the neck, strike the vertebrae in back, and glance up through the top of the head — which would be an extraordinary combination, but one which was conceivable in the light of the limited information available to the Dallas doctors at that time." The reason Dr Perry came up with the suggestion in the second quote is twofold ; He knew the bullet came from the front, and he knew, from its location it would have to strike neck bone on its path. The second point applies whichever direction the bullet was travelling. Spector's statement 'it struck no bone' is impossible.

I am not wedded to Prayer man being Oswald, or to the figure being male. The analysis above from Alan Ford is pretty weak sauce so far. I was impressed with Shaun Murphy's elimination of potential alternatives to Oswald and I was impressed with the discovery of evidence Oswald may have been 'out front'. I am not impressed with collar debates based on a grainy photograph. The collar is at best indicative and certainly nothing to hang ones hat on (Almost a clothing gag!). The brown paper bag 'out front' is a massive stretch. Goodness knows what can be seen next to the post box, perhaps a parcel someone picked up later?

I wonder if there is a slight nuance to this: The State Department decided immediately that 'No conspiracy' was the message. That is potentialy a good holding position, and one that had been planned for any assassination of high level officials. Breathing space was then created for covert investigation. Unfortunately, the conclusion was unpalatable, so the initial cover-up story stuck?

I think this thread has been quite a good investigation into the views of Pat Speer. There are people on the forum who disagree with his views on the large hole location. I disagree with him. If you prefer the location shown in the multiple witness photos above ( I do) then in my view you have to accept an uncomfortable truth, the Z film has been altered. Is there anyone willing to make a case the film is genuine, but Pat is incorrect as to wound location?

Hi Chris, Thankyou for posting. As usual your posts leave me confused, but to try and answer your questions; 1. How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does? This is a wild estimate but I'd say another maybe 3-4 secs more for a slow wide turn (50 - 70 frames?) as I think you believe occurred. Should I be allowing for later frame removal as well? 2. Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version? I have not read , but think you have quoted, that the FBI had a longer film than the extant Z film. My best guess is that they would get it from Life, but I am going to take some convincing the FBI used one film while the CIA modified another. That is incredibly incompetent. 3. What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version,....... Sorry but that sounds obvious. To synch films, showing the same initial footage, is always going to take the same 'frame difference ration' isn't it?

Hi David, your excellent articles have led me into this rabbit hole, so please be patient with my understanding. I have re-read the first article you listed in your post, possibly too quickly, so can you answer this: Are you concluding the FBI/SS were using an earlier version of the Z-film than the extant one? If you are, I can see how there is no film record of a shot past Z313. I struggle to comprehend how incompetent that would make those involved in the cover-up. I would also assume that, somewhere the FBI refer to Z frame numbers, so can't we see a frame numbering mistake in the documentation? to indicate later frame removal (or is that simply achieved by ignoring later Z frames in later documents?) My understanding of maths is not up to following most of Chris's work, but I do not agree with the statement that 'The main reason it was altered was to remove two SS driving "mistakes".' I can see from some of Chris's work that there may have been two driving mistakes, but to suggest these as 'main' reasons seems implausible. I would suggest that, if the original film showed poor steering and then an awkward stop, then the SS would have been 'thrown under the bus', by the cover-up, if that were necessary. You are surely not making the case that the primary reason for the Z-film cover up was to save the SS from embarrassment? .

I am not a researcher. I dabble and think about topics relating to the JFKA. I have read the views of the following researchers to come to some conclusions . In no order ; Vince Salandria, Chuck Marler, Chris Davidson, David Josephs, Doug Horne ,and Luis Alvarez(!!). Its probably a slanted list, but, to make sense of my conclusions at least you can see where they came from. Firm Conclusions : 1. There was the opportunity to alter the Z film (and subsequently, other important films) on the weekend after the assassination. There is evidence this may have been done. 2. The official view of the shot sequence changed during the official investigations lasting into 1964, and evidence was altered to 'prove' this. It was not simply a re-interpretation of evidence, it was the deliberate alteration of inconvenient evidence.(The West survey plat is a great example) Tentative Conclusions : 1. The urgent issue after the assassination was to hide frontal shots and excessive shots from the Z-film. The film was to be used by Life magazine to convince the public of a lone gunman. A conspiracy vacuum was a massive concern, needing to be filled by convincing evidence, provided very quickly. 2. This urgency and these difficult primary goals meant that, at some point very early on, the opportunity to further alter the Z-film was lost. 3. The dilemmas left in respect of the Z film, after the film was 'frozen' were : How to manage a possibly evident early shot (earlier than Z205), obvious Kennedy hit (arms up), then an obvious(ish) Connally hit, too soon afterwards (Chuck Marler quotes Z276) then something around Z313(various possibilities), then a possible shot opposite the pergola steps (five shot options). My tentative conclusions, for the purpose of this post only stretch to where documentation (See Marler and Josephs) state shots were identified. I have my own extra-tentative opinions. I have not seen other posters split shot obfuscation in this way (Early film mods/ later evidence mods) and, if it is correct it limits wilder theorising, but also focusses the debate. A talking point that arises is the evidence of James Tague. The standard narrative is that the Warren Commission realised sometime in 1964 that Tague's testimony was a problem, leading to the single bullet theory. That thinking can be turned upside down: Was Tague's alleged hit the opportunity to provide weak evidence for the single bullet theory? If you look at my list of evidenced shot's (above) you see its really difficult to do two things; 1. State where only three shots hit ,and 2. Space them for a lone gunman with a Manlicher Carcano. Tague gave his evidence to a Policeman on the day of the assassination NOT months later. I am not arguing Tague's testimony is false, or that a bullet didn't hit the kerb in front of him. I am arguing that obfuscating Tague's evidence would have been possible, had there not been other evidentiary issues, solved by the single bullet theory. You can argue the Tague shot solves a WC problem, not causes one. The biggest puzzle for me is; how did the alleged late shot (after Z313) opposite the pergola steps get managed? The sequence of events are puzzling: If it existed, and had been removed from the Z-film, then why does it appear on FBI documentation into 1964? Was that a big mistake, in that they referred to a removed shot? is the shot actually there, but not readily visible in the film? Can we just assume the obfuscators (film modifiers/FBI) were not communicating well? I hope this long post is of interest to some, and that someone can provide some answers. Eddy

I would like to endorse Pat's analysis of the fragment and also urge all interested parties to read what he has written. He has yet to repeat on this thread an important part of his analysis : It is vital to understand the angle at which the xrays were taken. I think Mantik failed to take this into account and it means he misplaces the fragment. Mantik is backed by too many people on this. Its really bad for the research community. Read for youselves!

Could someone comment an actual process. It seems there are indications that shots were coordinated and possibly a signal given that the first shots were unsuccessful. Is this recognised as standard assassination procedure?

Hi Michael, I strongly recommend you read what Pat Speer has to say about this fragment on his website. I think it is extremely significant as evidence of a rear head shot. It also disappoints me that Jim DiEugenio doesn't appear to give credence to Pat's explanation of its location near the eye socket (not stuck on the back). They are two important views on the assassination and it does not reflect well on whoever is wrong about this (in my view Jim D).

I think the views expressed by Benjamin Cole and Gil Jesus above are pretty close to the consensus on the JFKA. They certainly align with my own thoughts. I think even Blakey probably isn't convinced by the 'Mafia did it' view. any more. I think the Mafia, even now, could probably provide useful information, from their own memory vaults of information, passed by word of mouth.

That's a tough set of questions! I tend to believe the Autopsy Doctors found an entrance headwound where they said they did . I think the location is challenged because the extant Z film doesn't make sense at that location, if Kennedy's head was slumped on impact then the location makes sense. The tangential wound theory to me is really weak. Yes I have seen the photos of tangential wounds, so I can accept the possibility, I can't see any other strong evidence. I find the blurry location supposedly identified for such a wound very unconvincing and the need to ignore swathes of eyewitnesses. The apparent skull flap doesn't aid the theory. On the Harper Fragment I am very impressed by John Hunt's work on this. The HSCA expert discussion on its location is entirely unhelpful, except that it shows the Harper fragment's location is not persuasively identified. Again referring to my doubts about the Z film; the location of the Fragment makes more sense if it was ejected from the rear of the head whilst JFK was face down. A good case can be made that the head explosion was forcefully upwards and back, with a shower of debris forwards. I would very much like to know your views on the same questions? My additional question is : What do you make of the apparent fragment trail from front to back on the head xray?

Following my previous post: Phillips may have stated that he believed Oswald made a 'mistake'. I have never come up with a view of what he may have meant until Larry Hancock's valuable recent words and his book Nexus. Was Phillips meaning Oswald made a mistake in associating himself (witting or unwitting) with the assassination plot? The plot being separate from Philip's propaganda op.

In my view, to establish the following statement as fact is a very high bar : ' Oswald travelled alone to Mexico City by bus to meet Kostikov, the 'wet ops' Russian Agent'. Every part of that statement is unsound. I used the statement to crystallise my thoughts. Phillips is highly likely to have used Oswald as part of the pressure campaign on Kennedy to change the policy on Cuba. Larry Hancock has led me to consider Phillip's motives : Kennedy was in a position to lead his nation. The right would have relished an invasion and the left would have broadly trusted Kennedy. JFK was the ideal leader to mount the invasion. Phillips may have aimed for that result. His hatred of Kennedy may have been akin to Tucker Carlson's for Trump.

Larry has got my brain whirring on Phillips. His attack on Morales is remarkable, and very hard to see as a CIA favourable spin operation. Comparing his actions with alleged ' limited hangout' of Hunt makes the idea he was defensive in his own actions more plausible. Was Phillips unhappy at the JFKA? Did his objectives differ?

Many thanks to Larry for taking the bait. That is extremely enlightening. The Morales information is invaluable.

Sorry for the provocative title, hopefully what follows gets me off the hook!. This is a quote from the back of my copy of Nexus by Larry Hancock : "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including American Intelligence officers" - David Phillips, July 1986 to Kevin Walsh, former HSCA staff member. I have just watched a presentation on Youtube by Larry Hancock (and Bill SImpich) on Staff D. In the presentation Larry seems to suggest that David Phillips may not have been as central to, and not as well informed of, Executive action, as might have previously been assumed. The presentation does not go further into this , but the issue fascinates me. David Philips, allegedly made a confession to his brother shortly before his death to the effect there was a conspiracy. He supposedly stated Oswald made a 'mistake' during the assassination. In a debate with Mark Lane he allegedly stated that he believed Oswald did not visit Mexico City. I have just read somewhere of a claim that his 'retirement' was in fact another CIA assignment. These are all strange snippets of information from an entirely unreliable source (not the Larry Hancock bits!!). Can we give ANYTHING Phillips said credibility? Can we make a case that his part of the plot was compartmentalised?, and that after the assassination, he suffered guilt at his unwitting involvement, and possibly bitterness towards the CIA and plotters? I hope you respond Larry, and forgive the association in the title.

Reading all the informed views above I can see some holes in my premise: There was evidence of continued pushback/support of the initial pretext (thankyou Sandy) but perhaps the premise overemphasises the power of the plotters. Maybe the failure to force through the attack on Cuba indicates a 'rogue' plan? One supposed to force 'authorities' to act, as opposed to one validated by 'authorities'. I can speculate that informed plotters had sufficient information to expect the 'commies did it' pretext to work: An implicated Oswald, favourable public opinion, an executive rehearsed in pretexts for war, and an executive with a pre-prepared plan to cover up provocative assassinations of officials. I am willing to be persuaded of a separation in motives between the assassins and the new executive.

The theory goes that JFK was assassinated as a pretext for invasion of Cuba. Following this into a further theory; it is suggested some sort of countermanding of this narrative, to be replaced by the lone-nut assassin narrative. I would be grateful if anyone can explain why there was not apparently any pushback against this changing of the narrative. At first blush, it seems extremely unlikely that, if a group desired the success of the initial pretext that they would meekly accept the lone-note theory. If a group had the power to set up the pretext , then surely they would have the levers to reinforce the message?

Hi Micah, thankyou for replying. My own view is that Pat Speer's analysis to demonstrate a rear headshot is very convincing. His view that there were two rear headshots gets sketchy , and his bouncing head theory is a very hard sell. If you are unconvinced by Z-film alteration then it is fair to say Mr Speers view is a fairly coherent explanation. I find too many plausible pieces of evidence that are incompatible with the extant Z film.