Eddy Bainbridge

Thank you for Replying Greg. I am unconvinced by your arguments. The photo appears cropped at the left and the bottom. We don't know the chain of custody of the photo. Why is there a Minox camera case in the photo? Is that not indicative Oswald had a camera. What is the thing above the camera case? Its roughly the right size, could be the back of a camera showing the marking added by the Officer. If you are to successfully impugn the officer stating he found a loaded camera, it would assist if you provide a possible explanation as to why the officer was dissembling.

Can you explain why one piece of evidence is definitive (a photograph) and one isn't (Statement of officer as to what he found)?

A reasonably accepted view is that one discrepancy between the assassination scene and Parkland was that the flap of skull at the side of Kennedy's head had been closed, and stuck closed by congealed blood. If that is a plausible idea (I think it is), then similar issues may cloud other parts of the evidence. 1. Discussions are confused between skull and scalp. (Hulmes tries to accept his entrance wound was higher using this argument for the HSCA) 2. The autopsy surgeons, and the photographs do not give a clear picture of Kennedy's wounds prior to autopsy (An example being the triangular fragment seems to fit further forward than the hole in the HSCA diagram) 3. The skull was badly shattered by the bullet(s), so we cant' judge what came out on Elm Street, or fell out on autopsy, or was reconstructed after autopsy. A big area of disagreement is whether there was a blow hole at the rear of the skull (As per MacLelland approved sketch): Boswell claims in his HSCA interview that the skull was torn a long way down the back of the head. Could that tear be one side of the blow-out hole? Could the scalp flaps drawn on the blow-out diagram have closed somewhat? Could some loose fragments of skull have dropped down into the blow-out area, confusing the analysis of the autopsy surgeons? There are hints that this may be the case.

Thank you Pat, an essential ramble as it encapsulates the skull dilemma. I am not willing to accept that either Hulmes' or Boswell were part of a carefully coordinated conspiracy. If they were, their scripts are appalling. I am very glad to see your engagement. I don't agree with all your conclusions, but I admire your attempts to challenge some of the weak arguments.

This thread got me reading the HSCA interviews : showDoc.html (maryferrell.org) of the Autopsy Doctors and Dr Angel (Referred to above by Micah) I am sure someone has highlighted this before, but what Boswell states (uncontested by any other expert) is astonishing. (* Read for yourself as my version is not perfect as I used Optical Character Recognition software, so its not perfect) Volume VII Page 246 "Dr Petty - Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the margin of the hair in the back? Dr. HUMES_ Yes, sir. ....................................... Dr BOSWELL -„ It's the posterior-inferior margin Of the scalp. the posterior-inferior margin Of the lacerated scalp ? Dr. Boswell. - It tore right to that point, And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire—I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get Dr, Hulmes - To get to this entrance. right? Dr Boswell- But not much. because this bone all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here—there was a hole here, only half of which was present the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the bevelling was on the interior surface." - - - - The group in the discussion above had been looking at photos and xrays, including an xray of three fragments that arrived later in the autopsy. I didn't believe that Boswell was referring to a 'smaller fragment' that arrived later in the autopsy, but yes he was! Page 260 "Dr. Petty . Now. could you two possibly, thinking back 16 years. I know how difficult it is, but is there any way that you could show us where the entrance was in that wound? Dr. Boswell -I don't believe its depicted in that picture. Dr. Hulmes. How about here, Jay? Dr. BOSWELL.- Well. I don't believe so. As I recall the bone was intact at that point. There was a shelf and then a little hole, came up on the side and then one of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound." If its not obvious, why I found this astonishing its this : They are talking about an alleged bullet entrance location, the Warren Commission and the HSCA both show diagrams with a rear shot leading to a huge blowout further forward. Fragments that arrived later in the autopsy could not have come from the same entrance hole location, could they? What is Boswell trying to claim; that a piece of skull fell from the back of the head, into the limo, from a shot from the rear? In another segment of the discussion Hulmes describes peeling the scalp down to find the entrance wound. The hole in the scalp apparently had a matching hole in the skull. The scalp reflection process is very important to the hole location story, as Hulmes explains that no such entrance hole was found whilst peeling down the scalp, until the entrance hole was found. I am completely puzzled by Boswell's observation and grateful for any clarification.

I am undecided on Hulme's testimony. The problem of an alleged bullet entry location in the back of the head is absolutely not "semantics". If Hulme's original location is correct the Z film is incorrect (shot angle wrong) . If the HSCA is right, Hulme's lied originally and I believe he returned to that position. John Hunt demonstrated, that the HSCA Forensics Panel were not honest in their conclusions, particularly in their portrayal of Dr Angel's findings on fragment location. I know this is not a commonly held view but I lean to believing Hulmes' original location. I believe his embarrassing problem was that by the HSCA his evidence suggested film alteration. An untenable position, so he obfuscated the location. I think the back of the head photo fails to show a bullet hole because the scalp sagged over the hole. The autopsy surgeons were probably disturbed in 1966 to see an inconclusive photo.

Many thanks Pat. I am very naive. I had assumed that investigations subsequent to the Warren commission were honest,but hampered by previous events. I don't think that now. The HSCA was a most bizarre concoction. It's conclusions can be seen as just sufficient (barely) to calm the furore after the film, but satisfactory or convincing to noone.

Many thanks for replying Pat. I think I am misunderstanding what you believe. Are you saying the triangular fragment was hit from the outside? Do you mean by a tangential shot from the rear? or a frontal/side shot? Do you think Dr Angel got the position right? or that he got the general location right? In terms of the large bullet fragment next to JFK's eye socket; was that the result of the 'triangular fragment' bullet or another shot?

The article by John Hunt 'A Demonstrable Impossiblity' https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm is one of my favourite JKKA articles. It provides multiple pieces of evidence that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel were dishonest, even if one accepts their published report had been altered without their permission. Can anyone answer a question the article presented to me about the Triangular Fragment. It appears proven that the fragment is frontal bone (In front of the coronal suture). Hunt's article postulates a location (Figure H14) but his proposed location has the bevelling (suggesting a bullet impact point) orientated so the bullet/bullet fragment is exiting the skull. I want to know if it is possible that this fragment could actually be orientated to reveal a bullet entrance in the forehead? Clearly there is witness evidence to support this location. Thankyou in advance for any guidance.

No, that is wrong. That isn't a new claim. You are repeating the claim that the film hasn't been altered. I think your position is that people need to prove the film was altered. You are welcome to repeat that ad nauseum. I can present one piece of evidence, you can present another. Having seen your back and forth (above) I'd rather not.

To say the Z film hasn't been altered is one claim. To say it has been considerably altered is another claim. To claim the film has been altered somewhat is a third claim, and one I subscribe to. I see evidence from other sources (Witnesses,hospital, autopsy, documents) that do not align with the extant film. I see it is possible to create a strong narrative to explain the evidential problems, if you accept the film has been altered. As far as I can see there is no consensus view of what alteration has occurred. (I judge a black matte on the back of the head, frame removal around extant Z309-Z325, removing deceleration, pause, acceleration, in the range 1sec-2sec of film removed)) There is no consensus view of how the assassination occurred presented by the non-alterationists. The Tangential headwound appears a fairly weakly supported conjecture, and its sad to say, but some of the attempts to rubbish the witness evidence required by this theory (The position, size and shape of headwounds described by witnesses) and the limo stop witnesses is not strongly persuasive. I can only express an opinion, but I think if there was a thread asking 'did Kennedy suffer a tangential wound to his head?' then it would not stand up well to scrutiny. Multiple points would be made criticising the theory. I judge it unproven that there was not an opportunity to alter the film (Hawkeye works). I judge that crude alterations were possible and could be done in the time provided(Weekend after assassination). I judge that a sequence of events (removed from the Z film) provide the most likely scenario, when taking into account the evidence in the round, as opposed to rubbishing evidence that doesn't fit without the film having frames missing.

My disagreement with Greg is his emphasis, not on his reading of the facts. Yes, the evidence to me points to Mafia involvement. No, that doesn't provided a satisfactory answer to the mystery. Robert Blakey would not have been so furious with the CIA if all they did was fail to come out and agree the Mafia did it. If 'the mafia did it' is a partial answer, then we require the failure of the State ever since to face a reckoning, before I would begin to consider the case closed. In the proposed scenario parts of the State stand accused of the grossest of negligence. I think its culpability is worse than that.

Thank you Greg for part of your initial post. Not knowing Dallas, your explanation of the benefits of a TBSD location is very helpful in explaining the positioning of Oswald prior to confirmation of the parade route. I am also very interested in your attribution of significance to Larry Craford. In respect of convincing me that Marcello arranged the hit I am not convinced. Even if one assumes his confession is credible, I don't think it eliminates the possibility of a more powerful guiding hand sanctioning the action.

What if a shooter had two rifles with bullets loaded for firing before shooting? If the rifles were well positioned it might be possible to get off two shots in two seconds ,then reload the second rifle for a three second gap. Reversing the process - 3 second gap, 2 second gap (bang bang-bang) It sounds somehow ridiculous, but I think it shortens the time between 2 shots.

Using Pat's post (above) to make a broader point: On any contested issue we can refer to witnesses to observe trends, but cannot rely on one witness. For example ; state a question: Did the limo stop? There is an observable trend around this point; witnesses who expressed a view often stated the limo perceptibly stopped/slowed. What we don't have is a corresponding and persuasive set of witnesses who say it did not perceptibly stop/slow. Therefore a trend(towards the limo in fact stopping/slowing) is perceived in the evidence, with no countervailing trend contradicting it (There might be such a trend in observers who expressed no opinion). A disingenuous way of challenging the perceived trend is to challenge individual elements of the trend, perhaps by saying "that some of those who've written on this subject were unwell, dishonest, or both. " This approach clouds the evidence, but what it doesn't do is replace the trend with another one. It has another effect; which is to make us wonder what group of 'unwell/dishonest' people decided to act in unison, and why?

I think what Pat Speer is proposing is really important, and perhaps not enough of the Warren Commission doubters are aware where a more rounded theory of the assassination leads to with the assumption the extant Z-film accurately reflects events. To summarise: Two shooters, shooting from the rear, two head shots in close proximity. Tangential headwound. Without making a critique of Pat's theory (and others) it would be fair to say it hasn't received as much scrutiny as the provenance of the Z-film has.

I was unaware of some site history provided by Pat Speer from which he judged the Z film alteration debate had ended. I don't think that was an accurate assessment as the site does not portray such a consensus. Jefferson Morley has suggested he has become more persuadable of alteration. I try to read lots of differing views and I would say the non-alterationists have failed to seal a consensus, why? Because every theory needs too big a leap to convince the majority. I was not old enough to be shocked by the first showing of the Z film. Due to the circumstances of its release I can see it stamped an indelible impression on those watching. It had been hidden and the truth was revealed!! Or was it? Would it be fair to say that a lot of anomalies in evidence, other than the film (the survey plat, witness evidence, moving head wounds as some examples) have to be ignored if the Z film is genuine?

Egads, we have yet to receive a convincing case as to how Kennedy received his wounds and there is a residue of researchers who won't consider the film as potentially inauthentic. No problem, but I hope someone comes up with a shot theory that works with the extant film, and doesn't rely on unsupported tangential wounds or shooter locations without evidential support. Some of the criticisms of the 'stop/slowed' witnesses are edging towards McAdams territory. It is almost unchallengeable that the car accelerated rapidly after the shots. I can't see a rapid acceleration, and extant frame analysis shows a slow acceleration. The car braked before Z313 and I am convinced by analysis showing everyone in the limo reacted to that ...so we have firm deceleration followed shortly afterwards by rapid acceleration. Perhaps the interim was a stop, a crawl, or a brief 'pause'. Not seen in the extant film, and not explained by weak criticism of the wording used by the witnesses. You'll be telling me there wasn't a large hole in the back of JFK's head next.

In response to Jeremy Bojczuk: You are dancing on a pin with your slowed-stopped distinction. In my view the film does not show firm/hard braking or rapid acceleration. Both seem very highly likely to have occurred in front of Zapruder. You accept document tampering but skirt past the strange events at NPIC pointing to film tampering. What did Rather describe ?( I think three times) It wasn't what we see today and I find it implausible he either misspoke or lied. You have used a common method of rejecting film alteration which is to describe something MASSIVE when I for one believe in frame removal (Can't tell exactly where but in front of Zapruder certainly) and a crude black matte. I have read a lot of the proposals of researchers who do not believe the film was altered. They get pretty wacky about shot directions and tangential wounds with really minimal evidence to support their claims

Hi Pat, I don't really like your 'conundrum', because it a pretty enormous ask to suggest a group of people watching a traumatic event would conjure a stop. You are also giving us a false choice, so I'll give you a similar choice(perhaps also false) that aligns with Gil Jesus's initial post. 1. The conspirators view the original film, determine its suppression is impossible, and that the best course of action is alteration/frame removal. 2. Mockingbird is implemented (leaving the odd casualty, such as Dan Rather and a lot of other witnesses) including duff science (Luis Alvarez, Dale Myers) and crucially an unsolvable mystery : How can a shot from the front be proven, when a genuine recording of the events shows no evidence of a shot from the front? My 'mystery' is far too simplistic for the readers of this forum, but it isn't for the general public. Especially when they are confronted with a concerted effort to bolster the premise, that is; that the extant Zapruder film is genuine. Its not just me and other alterationists who can't make sense of the extant Z-film ;the Warren commission published the Rydberg drawing, the FBI produced a diagram showing a shot further down the street, and the HSCA failed to produce a conclusion on headwounds, that aligns with sufficient of the pertinent facts to convince anyone!

I am pretty convinced the Z film has frames with the rear head-shot blacked out (before and after injury) and has had frames removed which coincidentally remove the brief stop. Lots of evidence attractively meets this theory (Gil Jesus has summarised a lot of it). Another piece of evidence is that we know the limo braked (brake lights came on) at the right time. Mark Tyler on a thread here looked into the ear witness testimony and that points to two shots around the time of the headshot. I have postulated on another thread that what we now see is the remainder of a rear headshot (Rydberg drawing) causing the side blowout and a subsequent frontal headshot causing the rear blowout (excised). I suspect the Presidents bodily movements make more sense as a function of braking and acceleration (with removed frames inbetween). Gil Jesus has created a simple simulation to show the effect of frame removal. I suspect a more complex film simulation could be created to simulate the sequence I describe.

Hi Greg, many thanks for the enormous amount of new information you have provided me with. My observation on your lists is that most of evidence of guilt relies on faith in the evidence collectors. The same is not true of the innocence list. I believe the evidence collectors had a motive for tampering and there are concrete examples of this (Minox camera) I don't surmise from this he was innocent of the shooting. I find the Prayer man narrative quite persuasive as evidence he was a non-shooter.

Hi Joe, Kilgallen's murder looks suspicious and possibly connected to her JFK work.I don't expect any further significant evidence to flow from this because all leads point to the Mafia from Kilgallen. I think it is established that the Mafia worked with the CIA. There are multiple instances of Mafia semi-confessions, so Kilgallen likely had discovered this vein of information. Does your reading suggest anything else? At the time a Mafia lead would have been big. Not after the HSCA.

Mr DiEugenio , I don't wish to join a bandwagon focussing on any assumed failings of yours to reveal evidence. I certainly have no reason to believe that. What I do know is that I, and other people who post on the Ed forum have tried to obtain a recording of David Phillips in a debate with Mark Lane. Lane, in his book 'Plausible Denial' quotes from this tape to the effect that Phillips admitted Oswald was not in Mexico. I think that is significant evidence and Lane states he had a copy of this tape. Do you know how to get it uploaded to a public domain?

Just watched a clip of Carl Bernstein talking about his new book. He states he heard that JFK had died from a colleague, who was told by the CIA, shortly before the formal announcement. An interesting connection to the press if nothing else.