Eddy Bainbridge

My addition to this fascinating discussion is rather simple. I have always been struck by two potential events : The limo stopped (not in the film) and the limo accelerated immediately after the shooting (not according to Alvarez's analysis of the Z film.) I think more can be made of the Z film's failure to indicate acceleration immediately after Z313 . Alvarez's analysis tries to suggest the car moved at 8 mph from around Z305 to Z334. I am not trying to challenge his maths, but if that is what the film indicates it borders on the ludicrous: We can consider two possible actions of the driver; He was shocked, accidentally braked/let his foot off the accelerator and then reacted to his realisation, or, he braked, knowing the consequences and then sped away. To my mind there is no possible scenario where the events around Z313 would result in around two seconds of non-reaction from Greer. What is possible, is to combine Deceleration footage and acceleration footage to create constant speed.

Hi Micah, I find the concept of the contingency plan extremely persuasive, especially because Larry Hancock is confirming its existence (if not its significance). Your recent posting of an early autopsy (Dr Kemp Clark?) article also fits with the idea of a pre-autopsy to remove frontal shot evidence. I would like to know your view of the strength of frontal throat shot evidence. To me it comes in comes packages ; Evidence of a frontal shot, and highly unpersuasive evidence of a rear shot capable of exiting at the throat. Are you persuaded by a bullet hitting the neck and ricocheting into the chest and damaging the lungs (A Robert Prudhomme view I remember)?

I am battling to understand this : In the reconstruction, the height of JFK's head in relation to the street was one foot lower than JFK actually sat , correct? Converting this to a horizontal distance, it should mean a difference of '18.3 ft' in the films because the street was gently sloping downwards, correct? Your post shows the extant film along with the reconstruction film, and 'the horizontal distance between the two is approx 1.65ft' , correct? Thus you are asking which represents the truth more closely. I cannot understand the consequence of judging which is closer to the truth? Does it affect where the headshot occurred? If it indicates film alteration, what it the likely alteration it indicates?

Hi Chris, Please can you expand on these posts to make sure we all understand. Are you saying the head shot was at the frame we know as 327? and that this is demonstrated by the limo alignment to the lane markers?

I have just finished reading this book and raced to Kennedys and King for a review, alas I can't find one. A quick search on here and I can only find dismissive comments. My own judgment is that this is an extremely well researched and assembled book. I guess the majority of posters will find its conclusions unpalatable (Oswald was capable of having carried out the assassination alone, but the evidence does not foreclose on a conspiracy.) The book left me convinced that Oswald was extremely disturbed and that no intelligence agency would have, or did work WITH him. Painting Oswald as a harmless, ordinary guy is impossible after reading. In terms of his exploitation by Intelligence, I would conclude any such use would have left him highly uninformed and misinformed. The book suggests COINTELPRO as a link and I find it plausible Oswald's conduct after the assassination indicates a realisation that his anticipated liability had changed. The change was perhaps from a wrecker of the FPCC (Had the attempt been a pathetic and deliberate failure, with no injury to JFK) to an assassin? Does anyone have more information on Yaeko Okui? A very interesting minor character.

Hi Leslie, Not wishing to derail this thread but earlier you stated : "re: NBCYou may be aware, but a respected member of the JFK forensics community and author of peer reviewed articles for medical journals was in the NBC studio and was shown (briefly but long enough for certain details to register) a copy of the original Z film before it was tampered with." Please can you expand on this. Do you know who the 'respected member' is and what did they say about the 'certain details' of the film.

What was the 'main Oswald file' ?

The Murdoch's are in a very tight spot after the Dominion Lawsuit. To them , it won't be relevant who killed JFK. What is relevant is that they need friends. The CIA could become very helpful to a news organisation that agrees to shut up about the JFKA.

I have a view which matches the apparent trajectory of the fragment seen in the Z-film, the testimony of Hargis AND that of Nellie Connolly, who stated she was showered with matter, AND the overwhelming evidence of a large rear hole in the head. I suggest we are missing a few Z frames within which JFK slumped forward due to braking, was shot from the front, blowing out the back of his head. The back of his head was facing upwards! (see Brugioni) The main force of the blast would hit Hargis, while the fragment could still loop upwards and forward of the vehicle, having torn off the scalp (effectively changing the direction it would have headed without the scalp). I haven't seen another theory that matches the conflicting testimony so closely.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=68261#search=les beilharz The above article is relevant to the person with a 'stuck microphone'. The acoustic evidence is almost always mischaracterised, sometimes suspiciously so: 1. The evidence is predominantly about statistical analysis. This says that test gunshots fired from the TBSD and grassy are very accurate matches for the impulses found on the dictabelt in two respects : The acoustic waveforms match and the apparent position of a microphone recording these shots matches the movement of the motorcade. 2. An assumption (quite a big one) was made that the source of the shot sounds was the motorcycle mic of JB McLain. I have seen multiple rebuttals of this assumption and none rebutting the statistics, so it's worth reviewing the grounds of these rebuttals. Firstly the assumption is that the films can accurately place McClain. They can if you believe the films are unedited versions of the event. Secondly the rebuttals do not deal with the possibility of jumps in the Dictabelt recording. Don Thomas deals well with possibilities in that regard for those interested. So, in summary : Unchallenged stats. Weakly challenged assumption.

I think there are several reasons why we have not reached a definitive answer (not in any order of merit): 1. It has never been politically expedient to find out. 2. Disinformation has been expertly and continuously disseminated. 3. The research community is fragmented and often damaged by self interest (fame and book sales) 4. Rotten theories hang about like bad smells ( e.g the Hickey theory), seemingly forever. 4. Incompetence and malign intent seem to intertwined in the evidence. ( E.g were the autopsists malign or incompetent?)

Fox News may not lose the case. Murdoch is setting up virtually all of his presenters and news team as the victims. He adamantly denied Fox News was at fault, and freely admitted individuals culpability. I don't know how the prosecution brief is worded, but I hope it allows for multiple guilty parties. The bar may be high, but it has been reached with the facts as known. The issue is ; who is culpable.

Thankyou for your continued engagement Pat. Please can you give a view on the sequence of the photographs (Odd circular appearing forehead blob+ jagged throat wound photo V bloody/shredded rear head and forehead notch photo). Do you believe the body arrived at Bethesda looking like one, or the other? I think you have attempted to explain that the witnesses were largely wrong about what they saw/described, but are you claiming they actually saw the damage as portrayed in the bloodied photo?

I am reposting Pat's post so the two photos I reference above are together. This isn't the 'stare of death' photo sorry. That photo also has the troubling patch.

Hi Pat, I want to be absolutely certain you are surmising this apparent black circle is a hair? What I see is a near complete dark circle (about 320 degrees with the bottom right appearing to be missing). I also see a faint jagged circular hole below the centre and to the right inside the black circle. It's clearer at extreme enlargement. The further picture you posted does not match the 'stare of death' photo. The further photo has 'v' shaped notch above the eye. It is difficult to decide which photo was taken when. Would you leave a jagged throat wound on a body after preparation and washing for a funeral? Would you mask , with a black patch a forehead entry wound after it had been allegedly plugged with cosmetic wax? I wonder if one photo is on arrival at Bethesda (and needing the circular dark patch) and the messy back of the head photo is after alteration? Bear in mind JFK body was washed and wrapped at Parkland, so how could such a mess have arrived at Bethesda?

I would recommend anyone interested in this debate to read an article by Dr Riley (referenced by Pat Speer) in the Third Decade volume 9 chapter 3 (I think). It's one of the most credible articles I have read and you can see David Lifton's weak rebuttal in vol 9 chapter 5 (on Mary Ferrell). On a side note I think Pat Speer is being disingenuous about the location of the Harper Fragment. A more honest statement would read : 'it can't be where Mantik locates it (over the EOP ridge) His statement reads as if it can't be occipital bone, which stretches his medical credentials.

I was aware of this photograph but never studied it closely. I don't like overanalysing photos but this appears to show a circular mask that does not actually hide what is underneath. You can see what appears to be eyelashes or eyebrows that pass from outside the dark circle and continue to be visible behind the circle. Then there appears to be a circular but jagged hole, off-centre to the circular mask? Am I overanalysing this?

I think this issue is very important. I try not to judge analysis by the qualifications of the analyser. Why it's important: If Pat is correct, It evidences a shot from the rear, and if this is true we might be closer to a conclusion. Why I believe Pat is right; I have read both David Mantik's analysis and Pat Speers. Pat's is very plausible, largely because his interpretation of the front and side x-rays identify a matched location for the fragment. He lays out why, at first glance, these two views don't match, but do with more careful study. I encourage anyone to read Pat's analysis and judge it in its merits. I find Mantik's analysis simplistic and conspiracy biased in comparison. His efforts to describe the fragment as a mixture of a smaller fragment and some form of overlay are demanding of a far simpler explanation, open to anyone to provide ; the fragment varies in thickness, it's three dimensional shape is not a simple cylinder. Not everything in the evidence has to be fabricated. Jim D states it is implausible that the middle of a bullet could appear at the back of the skull. I find it plausible that a large fragment of bullet, to one side of the large side blowout, could lodge where Pat posits it did. A large enough fragment will have the outside features of the bullets profile.

I think in the discussion you refer to the 6mm bullet fragment that was not identified at the autopsy. Before Pat's analysis it was thought to be at the back of the skull. Pat puts it at the front.

Hi Mr Eugenio, I want to ask you about the bullet fragment part of your discussion. I have read Pat Speers explanation that this fragment is actually behind the eye socket. I am persuaded by his argument, are you?

I find the bang......bang bang evidence persuasive. I believe what it reveals can be overstated. It doesn't reveal there was only three shots, it doesn't reveal the timing of the shots, in my opinion the two shots together could be between 1 second and 0.1 seconds apart (or even closer). Its important to note that the ear witnesses often mention the difference between the first shot (a 'firecracker') and the others. If they mean it sounded more like 'Kerrrr- ack' then that could be two shots incredibly close together. Another point I have problems with is the idea of shots missing their target. I would suggest that, in the range in the Plaza, and at the speed of the Limo, no marksman would miss their target. A decoy shooter might just be firing over the car? I am very impressed with Pat Speer's analysis of witnesses to the shooting. I wonder if anyone has ever considered doing the same analysis with witnesses to the large BOH wound? (sorry Mr Speer)

Jim D's review of Kent's work emphasises to me the strange disagreement between alleged co-conspirators. The evidential development through the various bodies to re-align the rear head-wound makes sense : The new alleged location now matches the extant Z film and fragment trail (the trail goes in the wrong direction, front to back, and that is less easy to explain). The puzzle for me lies in the Autopsy Doctor's refusal to go along with the movement of the head-wound. Reading the HSCA discussion between the Doctors, I don't get the impression the Autopsy Doctors are describing a unified cover-up, that their interviewers are on board with. I get the impression the Autopsy Doctors are describing what they honestly did, and saw. This leads me to believe that someone else had sawn away the entrance wound in the forehead and cut through the scalp to make two large exit wounds (Side of head and rear, with shattered bone in between) into one. The autopsy Doctors may have been duped by pre-autopsy assurances of the direction of the headshots and by the crude physical removal of a frontal shot. What they weren't willing to do was to move the ONLY actual evidence of a rear headshot, a small hole low in the rear of the skull.

In terms of 'major shifts' I would be really interested in general views from well informed posters : Jefferson Morley I believe, is now looking at JCS as the source of the assassination , and the current John Newman thread looks like supporting this. My uninformed view finds two issues to support this: Firstly this explanation would, in my view fall into the category of information that is toxic to this day(USA planned pre-emptive strike on Russia). It falls outside the 'too old to matter' category. Secondly, probative information at that level of governance is unlikely to be gleaned from anything in the JFKA files available from NRA. What the remaining files may be, are an endless dangle, to keep focus off this shocking possibility?

The Oswald legend was certainly in MC, and that, I think everyone agrees on. A physical presence only really matters if the Warren report is to be believed. I believe the legend could have led to world war III. I think this is the prime reason for the CIA's ongoing cover-up. At least part of the CIA(David Phillips) set up a pretext for world war. I further believe the post-assassination cover-up was largely a pre-existing plan to avoid overreactions to provocations. Robert Kennedy was well aware of this pre-planning and assisted in its implementation during the autopsy of his brother. I believe there is some evidence of the pre-existing plan discussed elsewhere on this site.(Discussed by Larry Hancock)

I have just watched a documentary on Youtube concerning the RFK assassination. If one can make the argument that what 'people of interest' did after the JFK assassination is relevant (which seems a very small stretch to me) then some RFK papers may be relevant. The documentary I watch connected George Johannides to the RFK assassination story. I hadn't heard that before.