Eddy Bainbridge

Micah, does your research tell you anything about Burkley's actions prior to the formal autopsy. Did he have opportunity to look for bullets? ( Larry is saying above that Burkley wanted the autopsists to focus on this). Larry, I think your interpretation of Burkley's motives is very plausible. I was completely unaware that the direction of the HSCA would be an influencing factor.

I can see a 'middle way' with reference to RFK's involvement in the autopsy. If all concerned are aware of 'the contingency plan' for the assassination of officials, and RFK is part of that plan, then you can see the autopsy controllers deferring to RFK, in order to confirm the presidential family will go along with the actual procedures. In this scenario RFK is not running the autopsy, but he is influencing it, and associating himself with the cover-up. How is Burkley's conduct explained? Why did he appear to want to blow the conspiracy, but then back down?

I have a more cautious view of a 'Contingency Plan' . I think it is an extremely good way to explain RFK's conduct and also LBJ's. What I think Larry Hancock is indicating is that there is insufficient documentary evidence to call it a formal plan. At this stage it may not turn out to be no more than a thought process conducted by persons who engaged in actions that steered the narrative away from 'World war III' provocation. What was more important, preventing war, or determining who killed the president. I would say preventing war.

Many thanks for your engagement Larry. I want to push you a little on your dealings with Lamar Waldron. He is stating he has discussed with Bobby Kennedy's aid his involvement in the autopsy. Are you refuting Waldron's interpretation of these events? I think you are accepting of RFK's involvement of the contingency planning, but I don't think you are seeing this as quite as significant as Waldron is. I suspect the autopsy is an area you may not wish to specifically engage in, but I think the conflicting evidence allows of two possibilities ; The body was crudely and rapidly altered before the autopsy, or (my preference) the autopsy was conducted with direction from outsiders so that the large hole in the back of JFK's head (and the throat wound) was conflated with exploratory procedure during the autopsy(e.g brain removal).

Mr Hancock ,I wonder could you comment on the claim that Bobby Kennedy was involved in the Contingency planning, which subsequently included managing his brother's autopsy?

Treon says that Oswald provided the two numbers. That may be a significant fact. If this was not a genuine cut-out then he may not have been given a genuine, or any number. I would like to hear thoughts on the issue that this call was initially approved , then it appears the call was prevented, because of whom Oswald tried to call. Could the two men have been in conflict with each other? Or getting orders from a body with knowledge of who Oswald stated he wanted to call?

Just an opinion from reading. My judgment is that the most plausible explanation is that Oswald had been given the name John Hurt of Raleigh as a cut-out with the verifiable back story of John David Hurt. Oswald may have prepared himself by finding the two 'John Hurt' numbers and memorising them for future use. If indeed Oswald was not allowed to make the call, then I would suggest that someone monitoring the call did not want his remarks being heard by others on the call (operator, FBI, CIA).

" He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked(NOT IN EXTANT FILM). At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head(NOT IN EXTANT FILM). The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again. Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last.." - George Hickey Statement 23rd Nov 1963. Chris Davidson posits that the 'First of the second two' did in fact miss. I suggest that from Hickey's viewpoint in the follow-up car he did not see the full impact; a shot from the rear exiting from the side of the head (seen in frames of the extant film and by close-up witnesses, who are difficult to dismiss). I am also suggesting Hickey's perspective is perhaps slightly off; in that the first shot is accurately portrayed in the Rydberg drawing (impact during the president's slump). If I am right, there is a plausible trajectory for a rear shot from above( I see no plausible posited trajectories from the rear, other than above Elm Street), a low hole in the back of the head (per autopsy). The second head shot trajectory also seems plausible to me, IF JFK is sitting upright. I have not analysed the angles as Chris Bristow(above) has, but there is a pretty good analysis on a YouTube video (on another thread of Ed Forum) that I found quite convincing, that allows a South Knoll gunman to make the frontal throat shot, reload, and make the final headshot through the windshield. To repeat my earlier post, I think a significant amount of conflicting evidence makes sense if the two rapid headshots were in fact later than extant Z313. Think of Z312 as the start of a sequence of headshot events and Z313 as the end of these events. Between these two frames we have missed the car stopping, two head shots and the car accelerating. If this assessment is true, what we see in the extant film (from Z313) is the headwound appear , caused by the first rear head shot, the partial spray from the rear blow-out from the second frontal head shot and the bodily reaction from JFK from the car accelerating, which flings him back. The rear blow-out is blacked out, and the great Luis Alvarez is able to analyse the extant film and confidently state the car continued at a constant speed after Z313!

I believe that for a headshot, from the South Knoll, through the windshield, through the forehead and out the back of JFK's head he would need to be sitting fairly upright. This position occurs around extant Z313 but if you struggle to accept the Jet Effect you have to consider the reason for vigorous backward motion. I am suggesting the body movement of JFK is much more to do with observable braking and almost completely unobservable acceleration than shots. Most people have experienced rapid acceleration in a powerful car or plane. It throws you backwards. I think Kellerman describes the car as 'leaping' from acceleration. If it did, that has been cut from the film.

I am not convinced, but strongly persuadable that the head movement at 312/313 is due to braking. It is a significant coincidence that braking and movement align so well. My thinking goes further: I think there is other evidence to suggest a first headshot after Kennedy has slumped further, matching the Rydberg drawing and the final headshot when the car accelerates at the location represented by Z375 (The frame where evidence indicates another shot) The most significant evidential support for this theory is the witnesses who heard pow... Pow-pow, and the statements of Kellerman concerning the timing of acceleration (after the first headshot but before the final shot). In terms of frame excision I am suggesting frame 312 was actually followed by a sequence of a slump, a rear headshot, an acceleration jerking the President upright, a second headshot, and then extant 313 etc. The sequence explains the backward motion of JFK, a headshot through the windscreen to the forehead, and a rear blow-out.

Max Boot's article is really thought provoking to me. It rests on premises that have taken years in the making (Garrison unreliable, single bullet theory plausible, only 3 shots 'heard' presumably equally spaced?). To the casual observer its too tedious to try and distil the truth. What I do discern from the recent coverage is that honest commentators subscribe to the 'Jefferson Morley thesis'; that is the CIA has something to hide. Nobody talks Mafia any more, and the 'Cuba/Russia did it' argument is no longer gaining any traction. Pushing the Morley thesis is a terrific strong simple message. It may lead to some momentum for more openness and an increased scrutiny of future releases.

Mr Parnell says there were 7 to 8 volumes. We are mistaken. Nothing to see here.

This appears to a be very significant find. When are the 57 volumes (and bulky attachment) going to be produced? To me that absolutely nails the CIA for a cover-up of their connection to Oswald. Angleton presumably hooked this stuff.

Hi Larry, I suspect the FBI and CIA worked together on the relationship between reality and the Zapruder film, as witnessed and recorded by Robert West. Have you investigated this area at all?

Many many thanks Chris. That is a very helpful post. Eddy

Hi Chris, Do you have more writing by Tom Purvis when he describes his interactions with Robert West? I can find one article from the Assassination Chronicles and some of his posts on here but not really what West thought the intentions of the FBI were. I'm not good enough at maths to follow your logic, but I've known for some time your work is pretty exciting. Part of the problem I realise is a need to follow the chronology of events: The FBI made a conclusion (Three shots, one at Z375), and this conclusion changed, thus forcing a modification to the Survey Plat tabulations. Because we don't agree on the ACTUAL events, its not entirely possible to recreate what the FBI were actually doing. My guess is the issue was forcing the evidence to match three equally spaced shots, into the time and distance constraints of the assassination. You clearly believe the Limo stop can be revealed by use of the survey plat and extant films (which I assume you have some confidence in). Again I find this very confusing because the intentions of the FBI are at least twofold (Equally spaced shots + hide limo stop) and probably threefold (adjust for additional headshot). I can understand your posts better if I can understand what your vision of what the FBI's intentions were. Is this right : The Zapruder film was modified (cropped/altered?) primarily to remove an obvious frontal shot. Once the film was satisfactory to the forgers (not great but just about defensible) then the problems of time and distance dealt with in the FBI report needed to fit the film.

Hi Greg, Very reasonable. It is my unreliable opinion that we have yet to determine the culpability of Oswald. In your own analysis you have Oswald acting to avoid contact in the TBSD, so the obvious question is why? He almost certainly had links to intelligence and perhaps mistrusted the DPD when it came to blowing whatever cover story he was acting under. I find the idea persuasive that Oswald had a sudden realisation in the TBSD that, whatever he was doing covertly, was somehow linked to the assassination.

Hi Greg. I think your proposal is fascinating and from your previous posts I know you will have given this serious consideration. Can I ask about the acquisition of the rifle: It strikes me you are saying Oswald voluntarily lost control of his rifle and other actors took advantage of this. If the big event took planning, are you saying this was a lucky break for the planners? and does this exonerate Oswald?

Their seems to me to be an ongoing cover-up. It is Kafkaesque to believe those covering-up don't know why. I think people currently within the CIA need to know what is sensitive to discovery, and thus have an outline of the main actors.

Thanks Micah , I will read more testimony when time allows. Your collection of throat wound testimony provides for the possibiity the wound was expanded during the autopsy. I can't help but wonder how straightforward it would be to make wound alterations while all around think Hulmes is doing exploratory surgery.

Hi Micah, many thanks for your research.

Hi David, I am challenging your theory as I sense a far simpler alternative. It's possible your new book will dispose of my proposal but what you have thus far written does not. Your quote above from Hulmes has another interpretation to the one you are ascribing. He could be saying 'that is a ridiculous suggestion... I' d like to know by whom it was done etc etc' and not admitting that surgery took place, as you propose. Hulmes, as far as I'm aware, did not parade his horror at pre-autopsy surgery in any testimony, why not? What he did do, was accept, reluctantly, his evidence didn't match prevailing thought. I am referring to his HSCA testimony in the alleged rear entrance wound. He also minimised what he claimed was necessary to prepare the skull for autopsy. The Sibert and O'Neil report on his statement at the autopsy can also have an alternative meaning than the one ascribed by you. Hulmes may have been making a somewhat flippant observation, faced with massive head damage, that it looked like you would need surgery to create such damage. Thus the comment was descriptive of the scene, not an accurate description of what was required to create it.

Hi Micah, David Lifton posits surgery before the body arrives at Bethesda. I want to know if Hulmes altering the body In Plain Site is plausible as a theory. The time line seems confused to me. Witnesses talk of a food break ending at 5.30 as a reference point. That is a long time until 8.00 when my stomach would be referencing the next break! The testimony I have read makes it unclear what action had occurred before the room filled up. It strikes me that Hulmes could have altered the head wound by three cuts (Two for a notch and one front to back.) Have you studied the start of the autopsy timeline?

"The Archivist of the United States (Archivist), however, has reported that “unfortunately, the pandemic has had a significant impact on the agencies” and NARA and that NARA “require[s] additional time to engage with the agencies and to conduct research within the larger collection to maximize the amount of information released.” Quote off This part of the statement is the crux for me. The Archivist is having problems with the agencies. These will be of three types: 1. A valid reason is held for redaction. 2. The Archivist knows the evidence exists but the agencies are not supplying it. 3. The evidence is 'lost' but the evidence trail makes this an embarrassment (Its been clear from previous information from the Archivist that they don't hold all the unredacted evidence) The Archivist needs to make clear what categories are pertinent. I think, if your following the charade, then the list is something like: 1. Valid redactions - Nil 2. Agency breaking the law and not supplying clearly documented evidence - More than nil. 3. Supposedly 'lost' evidence, that certainly existed ( I think researchers have recorded this effect on some documents) - More than Nil. The Archivist is being abused in the weasel words above.

Many thanks David for commenting. I was trying to tempt you into providing more information from your new book, as I am persuaded that alteration was made to JFK's head above the eye, and I posit that the rear head wound could have been obfuscated with an autopsy incision. Perhaps your new book will persuade me alterations were carried out earlier.