Jump to content
The Education Forum

James R Gordon

Admin
  • Content count

    901
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About James R Gordon

  • Rank
    Admin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

15,710 profile views
  1. James R Gordon

    JFK's Back wound

    Cliff, here is a clearer copy of the Face Sheet. I see DVP has yet to contribute to this topic. The impossibilty of any bullet traveling from the back - ignoring its trajectory angle from the Oswald window to JFK' back - and still exit out the throat seem apparent to all. However, I am sure David will rehash his already heard arguments. James
  2. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David. When I initially posted these values I believed I had made an error. Infact I had not I had meerly posted incorrect values. Therefore I stand by my initial position. My position is that the 17.72º trajectory would not strike the 5th rib,bit it may well the 4th rib. Link to File:-
  3. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David, I am certain you know exactly what I am saying. But I will spell it out here. A trajectory of 17.72º compared to am trajectory of 27º will ALWAYS will flow vertically upwards. I suggested that such a bullet is likely hit the 4th rib instead of the 5th rib. That is what I meant when I stated that two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination. The same destination being the 5th rib. Do you now understand my point?
  4. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David, It has nothing to do with my diagram which may or may not be incorrect, It has everything to do with Maths and Trigonometry. Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination.
  5. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David, It has nothing to do with the diagram. It is all about MATHS. One trajectory which is shallower than the other cannot possiblee reach the same target when the other trajectory is 9.28º larger. It has nothing to do with one party stating they dissagree. You cannot disagree ithe MATHS. Maths alwats trumps opinion. Please note I edited my post. When I talk about “game over” I am only referring to Connally's chest wound.
  6. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David, You wilfully distort what I said. Nothing in my post was “almost correct”: in describing CE 903 and Robert Shaw’s measurement, everything was precise. It is you who introduce the concept of approximation. It was you - it was not me - who stated that the bullet entered Robert Shaw’s shoulder at 17.72º and when it hit the fifth rib it changed its trajectory to 27º. You - not me - that said “the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 deg re e s.” All I said was that two trajectories - one of 17.72º and another of 27º - starting from the same point cannot both reach the same point. So unless you can explain how in your universe two trajectories with a difference of 9.28º can both hit the same destination point: - regardinng the chest wound to John Connally - it is game over. Avoiding to address a specific point is always seen as an admission of the point. Bluster is not the same as addressing the question and so far bluster is all you have engaged in. James
  7. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Michael, I have hidden your post. There is no need to get personal. James
  8. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    A little while back - DVP accepted that Robert Shaw had defined the angle of the wound through Connally's chest as 27º - However he insisted that the bullet struck Connally at an angle of 17.27º and only when the bullet struck the 5th rib it changed its trajectory angle to 27º. If the bullet did indeed struck Connally at 17-27º it would not strike the 5th rib. Reason it was now on a shallower angle and would miss the 5th rib. I suggested on P. 12 - in a quickly put together graphic - that if that was indeed the entry angle then the bullet would actually strike the 4th rib and the location of the exit wound would be different. No surprise DVP did not reply. James
  9. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    I agree James, though I doubt DVP will ever agree. I remember quite a while ago Gary Murr kept saying to me it is the steep angle of Connally's wound that gives you a clue to where the shot came from. I did trajectory analysis on this and was able to determine a source from that trajectory. Whether I am right or wrong is another matter. One of the great lessons that Gary taught me was to study the wound and see where that leads you. Of course this is blasphemy for DVP, but I always thought it was sound advice. It led Gary and me to determine where the Connally's injury to his arm came from. I never wavered from the identity of the source and Gary informed me a few days ago he is now also convinced that this location has to be the source. Ar some point I will have to share my sources for the assassination but for the present DVP would not appreciate it and use the information to mock. Something he enjoys exploiting. James.
  10. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    It is not a lie, it is a political statement. The problem with the SBT is that there was no serious thinking about the implications of the theory. Though I have agreed not to argue the point there is no way a missile could travel from JFK's back wound to his throat without encountering the spine. By the same token nobody took seriously the the steepness of Connally's wound. YOU say that until it strikes the rib the bullet trajectory is 17.72º As I pointed out that might work but the rib is likely to be the 4th rib rather than the 5th. And that is because you are starting with a shallower trajectory. A trajectory of 17.72º will not travel in the same places in the body that a trajectory of 27º. Soon I will address exactly how the bullet traveled through Connally's body. The WC dealt in generalities hoping everyone would not ask any annoying questions. Well too bad soon I will be asking difficult questions.
  11. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    So David if we are in agreement here what does that say about the SBT and the 17-27º trajectory? James
  12. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    And there I was thinking it was your your “very weak "The SBT Was Impossible" claim? ” The link between Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier is that each emphasise the very steep trajectory of the wound to John Connally. Their angles maybe different but each tells the same story: the bullet that was fired and John Connally suffered came from a very steep angle. First - even though Frazier worked on the clothes and therefore his angle was obviously not as accurate as Robert Shaw's determination both worked on primary evidence. Even though the angles are different there is a correlation between them. Amd finally I have only just brgun on Frazier's work. I cannot explain why, but a change has taken place within me and I am now going to see this discussion through to the bitter end. I have onlyjust begun, there is a series of topics I will hereafter be introducing. And in most cases I will be working from primary evidence.
  13. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Even David if you are right, when Connally is positioned as he believved he was when he was struck the trajectory angle is 27º. True Robert Shaw comments that is is not a large difference, but it is a difference. Even if Connally was seated the first time when he is seated correctly we get the TRUE trajectory angle of 27º.
  14. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    In the FBI SA Robert Frazier undertook most of the work on John Connolly’s clothes. The image below comes from Robert Frazier’s workbooks. The image below is from original scans gathered at NARA II, and is courtesy of John Hunt. These are not calculations that are not open for debate. Nobody here - and I include myself - is in any position to challenge Robert Frazier’s work. Frazier did a series of calculations. The one below was a trajectory angle for the bullet that injured Connally while he was in a seated position. His calculations for the trajectory angle - based on the the fact that Connally was seated - was 40º. So much of this argument has been focused on the WC 17.72º trajectory angles. Now we have two angles describing the passage of the bullet through the chest of John Connally that are beyond question. 1 Robert Shaw’s measurement of 27º. He was the surgeon who worked on John Connally and he was the surgeon who in front of the WC measured John Connolly’s wound. 2. Robert Frazier who had full access to John Connolly’s clothes and made measurements on them and calculated based on the holes in the jacket the angle of trajectory was 40º. The WC SBT is a political proposition. Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier were simply focused on what was the angle of the bullet through the body of John Connally. There is a world of difference between the WC and these two gentlemen. The WC were focused on creating an answer to what they thought had happened. That is very different to the work of Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier. In addition I assume everyone has noted that both real calculations are way above the calculation and supposition of the WC. Link to File:-
  15. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David. I have created a quick diagram to explain the change of initial trajectory fro 27º to 17.72º I have pulled the lines out a bit but they are close to the area of the body where the bullet struck struck Connally in the back. The Black line represents 27º. The Red line represents 17.72º. As I commented reducing the trajectory value will force the line vertically higher. As I suspected when the bullet hits a rib it will likely be the 4th rib. I suspect your scenario will work but the consequence will mean that the injuries received by Connally will be different. James Link to Image:-
×