Eddy Bainbridge

I am very grateful for the considered responses above but I don't think anyone has concluded, to my satisfaction, why we now have a short delay. Am I right that Biden will still be in office when the delay finishes? That sets up Carlson perfectly, and ties Biden more closely to 'Deep state' association, IF he allows continued non-disclosure. The Trump delay made more political sense. Mr Schnapf, do you know anything about how the length of delay was determined?

For reasons unknown Biden has further delayed full disclosure of JFK records. It is frustrating but also ridiculous. What difference to National Security can a short delay make? What work can the intelligence agencies do now that they couldn't do before? I wondered if anyone saw this as a positive development? What if the delay is a political one? A calculation that complete disclosure, of dramatic information, should be prepared for, and carefully timed.

Hi Lance, I think you've started a thread that is a strangely askance look at the last few days events. Can I ask you what I think is a more focussed question: Jefferson Morley alleges the CIA knew far more about Oswald prior to the assassination than they have disclosed. He has presented evidence that this is true. Do you believe this is untrue? I have seen no official attempt to refute this gravely serious charge.

I always enjoy the film Beetlejuice. Tucker Carlson is Beetlejuice; the uncontrollable, yet powerful ally, you aren't sure you want to deploy. His influence over 30% of Americans is unrivalled. It is unpalatable to me, but the connection between the JFK conspiracy and the morass of wacko conspiracies, may actually work in favour of truth! I think in the last few days the narrative has shifted. Assuming the Mockingbird is still singing, then it is now willing to accept a deeper agencies involvement with Oswald, and the guilt for failing to stop his actions. I don't buy that narrative, but there isn't any push back against it, is there?

The Deep State concept is a very potent media tool. Fox is about making money first, and Tucker has played the ultimate Deep State card. It's the ultimate card because there is no doubt the 'Deep State' is playing the elected representatives on the JFKA. The narrative will be that we need De- Santis to fight this and Fox to report on it.

Hi Vince, does your research into the limo stop extend to people stating that JFK slumped forward at this time? Dan Rather said JFK fell forward and I'm sure other people describe a slump. My view is that JFK's head injuries can be explained by the braking/stop forcing JFK forward and his face looking downward when hit by a second bullet excised from the Z film. I think his backward motion was caused by the accelerating car after the second shot.

I think DL's great legacy is that he posited a theory to resolve the incredible discrepancy in the state of Kennedy's head from Parkland to the Bethesda photographic/xray evidence. I think there absolutely has to be an explanation for the discrepancy. Although I firmly believe Lifton did not get to the bottom of it, I think he got closer than most.

This post is missing a plausible explanation why any witness would change their story. They could have been terrified. Dr Perry changed his story, it's documented ,and hearsay evidence suggests he was pressured. The HSCA discussion with Humes and Boswell is blatant pressuring to change their story. You say you are looking for consistency. That's not easy to find, but the large rear blowout is consistently testified to. By that I mean; the majority of medical staff who testified did , at many instances, testify to a large rear blowout. This consistent testimony far exceeds consistent testimony for any other stat of the back of JFK's head . Pat Speer has three arguments against. 1. The witnesses are mistaken because they saw the wound at the wrong angle ( like saying people's eyes can't judge the position of an object in 3D). 2. Individuals testimony can be brought into doubt due to inconsistency (a favourite of McAdams but see above) 3. The faking of evidence is not plausible ( I think this is the strongest of his arguements, I am open to fakery but it's not proven in my mind, I think the Z film has a bit missing)

We have a choice ; a strangely moveable blowout at the back/top, or some other solution. I believe the blowout you effectively refer to is evidenced in the Z-film and witnesses on the nearside of the limo. I believe the large rear blowout is unseen in the Z-film, as it has been masked and edited out. It is however reported by most witnesses. Most witnesses say so consistently, some witnesses say so inconsistently. Once the autopsy is carried out the two wounds are merged by shattered/altered skull. Humes and Boswell appear to talk us through this in the HSCA discussion.

As a starting point: I believe Kennedy's head had two entrance holes (forehead and above hairline in back) and two large exit holes ( back and top right) . My theory is supported by testimony, but the one wound many will debate is the rear entrance. Consider how troubled Hulme's was when this wound could not be seen on photos, and consider why he and Boswell repeatedley stated its location. It simply doesn't fit a cover-up that they were party to. The theory explains the wounds, but requires the Z-film to be missing frames. I am convinced the theory explains the apparent bodily reaction of Kennedy better than tangential wounding. It also allows for two large headwounds, which is Pat Speer's theory's weakest point. He relies on some unconvincing reasons why everyone who locates a large blowout at the back is mistaken. It really boils down to whether the Z-film is genuine around Z313.

David Joseph's looks at autopsy again! I'm looking forward to this. My current favourite anomaly is Boswell at the HSCA, stating they completed the small rear entry wound with a fragment that came later. WHAT????? A fragment that had been blown out!!!! Low in the back of the head!!!!

Interesting replies thus far but I'm not getting a clear answer to the question I put forward: When did Humes lie? (If at all). If answerable, it is important. He conducted the autopsy and was willing to defend it. The HSCA discussion he attended was as benign an interrogation of his work that could be imagined, and documented extreme fear on behalf of one or the attendees , in respect of discussion of locating the small rear headwound. If you believe Humes lied in totem, then what explains the JAMA article?

This post relates solely to alleged wounds in the back of JFK's head. 1. Is Hulmes honest in the autopsy report as to a small hole in the lower part of Kennedy's head? 2. Is Hulmes honest in his HSCA testimony; that he got it wrong in his autopsy report and the small wound was 4 inches higher? 3. Was Hulmes honest in the subsequent JAMA article when he returns the small wound to the original autopsy position? 5. Is Hulmes honest in his failure to countenance the possibility that, the large amount of disruption, generally accepted to have occurred at the back of the head, may have been caused by a further shot to the head? It is not helpful to state that Hulmes simply was part of the cover-up and lied. I think the questions above expose some dishonesty, but not specifically what statements/absence of statements are dishonest. I believe the medical evidence and the testimony of others, lead to an explanation of Hulmes reporting. I conclude: 1. At the autopsy Hulmes was told to ignore evidence of a rear blowout, and work down the head to the actual small rear headwound. For the sake of National Security. 2. During the HSCA Hulmes was bullied into moving the small rear headwound and stated so, in the televised hearing against his will. The reason was that; analysis of the extant Zapruder film could not make the angle of the rear shot match the 'snipers nest', and, the obfuscation of the frontal headshot debris (shown on the Xrays) to allege it was from a rear headshot was impossible with a lower entrance. 3. Hulmes was honest, and stuck to the position of the rear headshot. His fundamental dishonesty was the avoidance of a proper analysis and reporting of the mess at the rear of the head. What he did in respect of a wound in the upper forehead is unclear. The low entrance at the rear is evidence of a little bit of missing film, not dishonesty by Hulmes on this topic.

Hi Gil, I found your collection of evidence very impressive but I have a question. You propose that Hulme's manipulated the measuring to change the position of the back wound , but you also state he changed the story after the autopsy when he had spoken to Perry. Are you saying he changed his measurements after the autopsy? or are you saying he recorded the measurements in the autopsy knowing what he was trying to hide?

I think your essay is excellent Gil and I think there is another piece of indirect evidence for a wound of entry: Could someone confirm the timing of the Life magazine article stating that Kennedy had turned round in the limo, thus explaining a shot at his throat from the rear? I am guessing that article was written after the Perry press conference, and after the Z-film confirmed this to be a lie (To Life Magazine at least) BUT before the decision that the 'Kennedy turned round' lie would not stand scrutiny. If I'm right about the timing, it's glaring evidence of an incompetent start to the medical cover-up.

Hi Andrej, above you are making a strong assertion that I haven't seen the evidence for. If you look at the Mclelland approved sketch it is possible to believe stitching would close the hole. As far as I'm aware none of the recovered skull fragments had hair on them. This suggests the outermost layer of scalp did not leave with the fragments. I have seen no testimony from persons claiming the rear wound was visible after reconstruction. Your point about measurements being taken only during the autopsy is not supported.

Hi Andrej, what do you have against the simpler explanation that the BOH photo is after the reconstruction? If you read Hulmes reaction to the photo (HSCA) it pretty much confirms he had requested a photo to show the (small) rear headwound, but it didn't. It is my view that it didn't because the scalp sagged over the hole. The large blowout in the rear had been sealed with a piece of rubber and the scalp sewn up. I think its possible that what you are picking up is stretched scalp , where some follicles are further apart than before the injuries.

The consistency by which medical professionals locate the major visible headwound is striking. Other testimony and photographic evidence lead to doubt whether there was another large wound on the side of the head (a possible skull flap concealing it at times). Vince, do you think the remainder of your lost Zedlitz auditory testimony has any chance of professional recovery?

I am perfectly willing to believe witnesses are wrong if the preponderance of evidence indicates them to be wrong. I could believe that multiple eyewitnesses could be fooled by an optical illusion, particularly in a stressful situation. The location of the large blowout on the back of the head has multiple reinforcing pieces of evidence which appear along JFK's transfer from the shot, to the hospital, and to the autopsy. Group think - not very plausible Optical illusion - verging on laughable Witnesses genuinely mistaken - possible in one location, not multiple ones. In opposition we have : Film alteration - not ruled out but hard to fully demonstrate Autopsy x-ray alteration - some evidence but disputed Autopsy photo alteration - Almost certainly photos missing Witness tampering - a demonstrable fact. That summarises where I am, as of now. I'm not a researcher, I'm a reader and I lean very heavily towards a large rear headwound. The X-rays are not conclusive for me.

The Newman's would have agreed with Zapruder. I think the anomaly cannot be explained by making a case that all the medical professional testimony was wrong. I believe the only reconciliation in evidence possible is an initial rear headshot , seen by Zapruder and the Newman's. This was followed by a frontal headshot blowing out of the rear of the head. I think the Newman's had ducked and missed the second shot. Zapruder may have fixated on the first shot but I suspect his original film caught it. The autopsy evidence seems to tend towards a massive skull wound. I suggest the large wound is a compound of the two large blowouts, joined by fractured and detached fragments, that were dislodged during the autopsy

What interests me about the story is that, if true, it explains that there is a gap in the knowledge of elected officials, even at the very top. It's probably true that Trump knows nothing about the assassination, but was persuaded it was not in his interests to promote openness.

One thing for certain in my mind is that Greer did not accelerate immediately after Kennedy had raised his arms to his throat. I think the testimony hints at frame removal from the film: 1. The Warren Commission questioning made no effort to challenge the discrepancies in testimony. Having seen the Z film the Commission would have seen the long gap between JFK arm raising and reaction of Greer and Kellerman. This is possible evidence of deliberate avoidance by the Commission. 2. Had Greer and Kellerman been told ' The stop has been removed from the film, don't mention it'? The actors in the cover-up may have failed to provide enough further coaching, thus allowing the 'flurry of shots gaff' and the failure to acknowledge the first head turn.. There is a risk of over-coaching, and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

This is what I believe Michael. From a recent post by Pat Speer I think it is possible the triangular fragment had a piece of the entry bevelling for your second shot. I think the X-ray bullet track is from the second shot. I accept the tangential wound theory is plausible from some of the physical evidence, but overall your scenario is a better fit in my view. I haven't seen a detailed rebuttal of Horne's film alteration scenario. We need one to consider.

To me this post encapsulates the disagreement in the autopsy research conclusions. The 'McClelland' drawing comes with strong witness agreement. Pat Speer does not agree with the location and provides a detailed explanation. I am not persuaded by it. To me the witness testimony supports it too strongly, from casual observers, to trained medical experts who are not casually referring to the wrong place (in my view). What I would suggest is that you CAN have it both ways. I think it is possible that Hulmes peeled back a torn, matted scalp. Some of the scalp had returned to its closed position during handling of the body, and whilst Hulmes peeled downwards the loose skull fragments fell, obscuring/confusing the large blow-out. He stated he found no entry wounds during the peeling untli he came to the alleged entry (Rydberg drawing entry wound). That can be true, if what he means is he only found shattered scalp, with no evidence of bullet wounds. I would posit he didn't find any other bullet wounds because he never saw the Harper fragment. Why? because it had been blown out of the hole depicted in the 'McLelland' drawing and he claims he never saw this fragment.

Can someone confirm two dates please : The date of Phillips interview above, and the date when he debated Mark Lane (at USC?) and allegedly stated that Oswald probably was not in Mexico City (A recording of this debate may exist)