Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

James R Gordon

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James R Gordon

  1. Seasons Greetings to all

    A very happy Christmas to everyone. I hope the new year that is fast approaching us, is a good and kind one to you all. James
  2. Robert. I have no idea why you should be confused. It was your words I was quoting. The post by DVP - that you answered and from whichI took a quote by you - pointed out that Connally never said that he heard a bullet fall from his stretcher. My post simply posted out that what you said - in the excerpt I posted - was oblique. It was not clear whether this comment you made referred to Connally stating he heard the bullet fall and/or that Connally made it clear that he believed in a conspiracy. If the latter, I have no idea why you should identify points towards the end of his life. Although John Connally never used the word conspiracy in the 60's and 70's by determined sticking to his position that he was never hit by the same bullet that caused JFK's throat wound he was clearly supporting a conspiracy.
  3. Robert Harris said: "So he waited until he was literally on his death bed to come forward and the nation was at a point where most people knew this was a conspiracy anyway. By then, no harm would come." Robert I am not sure what you are saying here. David's point was that there was never any statement from John Connally about hearing a bullet falling from his stretcher. Are you suggesting that towards the end of life John Connally did indeed mention to friends that he had heard a bullet falling from his stretcher? James.
  4. Robert, You are using a very poor copy of CE 842 and it is leading to make incorrect analysis. Up in the top left hand corner - and circled in red by you - are what look life two F's. Actually there are creases in that part of the document that have led you - because of the poor quality of the image - to believe that there were two letter F's. I suggest you contact Gary and see whether he will give the colour high res copy he has. James
  5. Robert, If I may intrude on this conversation I believe you are in error when you suggest that the envelope "clearly shows that this envelope had been scribbled on with the garbage partially erased. There is no way that Bell would have used an envelope like that." I am sorry but that is not the case. I have a copy of Gary's Connally book. In Chapter 29 there is a high resolution colour image of this receipt. On this image there are no such "scribbles" and "erasures." I can only suggest that you are dealing with a very poor image that is misleading you. The original is in yellow and the signatures are clear and show no sign of having been tampered with. I would post the original image but I agreed with Gary when I was given a copy of his work that I would release no such images without his prior approval. I would suggest you contact Gary and see if he will give you a copy of his image. That might help clarify this matter for you. James.
  6. Internal server Messages and other errors

    Well that was quick. Invision have just got back and have said that they have sorted the root cause of the problem. However, maybe a good idea if similar problem occur that you notify me and I can pass them up to Invision. James.
  7. Internal server Messages and other errors

    I have forwarded this problem to Invision. I'll report back to you when Invision get back to me. James.
  8. Appendix IX of the WCR: The Autopsy Report.
  9. David, You are right that the host of this site is not us but Invision. However - though I have not read all the small print - if a claim were made to Invision for copyright infringement I am certain there is something in our conditions of use where it is stated that in these cases the responsibility does not rest with Invision but the owners of this site. Further - the admin team - do not want to encourage the posting of commercial propriety material. Whether we would be chased is not the point. This site is not YouTube. Our central focus is the assassination of JFK and we have no wish to weaken that core of attention. You are also right that there are numerous linking of videos throughout the site. And I accept that we - the admin team - have been lax on this issue and allowed all kinds of video links to be posted. That will be coming to an end. This is a JFK research site and clearly videos focused on that subject - such as your collection - are acceptable. However videos that are not JFK focused - when noticed - will be removed. Finally, you claim that were a claim to be launched against this forum we would not be deemed liable. If a serious claim were to be made I am not certain that we would be free of responsibility. I am sure - within the small print of our rules of ownership - there is more than enough amunition for a claim to be made against us. Aside from the aesetics, the admin team feel it would be foolish to place the forum in such danger.
  10. Ramon, There is no way the EF is going allow itself to be open to a copyright infringement. The power of the "Greys Anatomy" studio would bankrupt the members of the admin. We are the ones they would first seek judgement against and we have no defence against what you want to do. We would be culpable for allowing you to post such copyright material on our site. I have removed the link to your video. I advise you not to re-link - there will be immediate sanctions against you should you do so. James.
  11. Inside the ARRB Vol 4

    I am wondering if others have yet had time to read “Inside the ARRB Vol 4.”and what their views are? I admit that I have fairly quickly read through chapter 13, in volume 4 of Inside the ARRB. I will return to it later for a more detailed read. I have found this work to be both a fascinating work as well as a disturbing one. William Kelly mentioned, in another thread that the book is “an easy read though it does get testy at times.” In a way Doug is very easy to read and, at the same time, very difficult to follow. To signal that he is moving onto a new sub-topic he uses subtitles in bold. The problem I found was that there was not always linkage between one sub-topic and another. I would have found it much easier to read had there been linkage to indicate he is moving onto a further aspect of the topic. The most glaring example is on page 1102. Chapter 13 is entitled “What happened in at the Bethesda Morgue (and in Dealey Plaza)?” So this chapter moves from what happened in Bethesda, then onto the Single Bullet theory, then onto the Vanishing Mauser, then onto Roger Craig witnesses the discovery of a .45 Caliber slug, then onto photos of Missed shots in Dealey Plaza and so on. I went back to the title of the chapter, because I though this one was about Bethesda and realized I had not appreciated that the chapter dealt with both. If there had been better linkage between the subsections I would have found it easier to read. For me the most impressive aspect of Doug’s work is his ability to criss-cross references to support a point he wishes to make. This aspect of his work makes it very clear we are following a person who is utterly in command with the intricate details of his subject matter. I bought the full set, though the other volumes have yet to arrive. And I am glad I did because this criss-crossing applies to the chapters in other volumes. On a number of occasions Doug said that this point he had already introduced in chapter X and Y and would not complete the point. So I am awaiting the other volumes because there is a lot of reference to other chapters. I preface what I have to say with the comment that this work demands a closer read than I have so far given it. But even though I have given this chapter a cursory read, there are aspects of what Doug has to say that I have some difficulty with. First the central role of Commander Humes to carry out the pre-autopsy in Bethesda from around 6:30 and then the main autopsy from around 8:00. This is similar to the point that Lifton made, though in his case the pre-autopsy was at Walter Reid. Throughout the chapter Doug details where Humes either lied or deliberately misled. I have no trouble with that I have always mistrusted Humes veracity. To be fair, I need to give this a much closer read as well as study the documents he refers to which are not in volume 4. It does give reason for Humes statement about surgery of the head area, in this case he is covering his own back. I always found Lifton’s two coffin’s theory a difficult one to follow. And the idea that it was Humes who went digging for the bullets is something I am having difficulty with. Second in this description Roy Kellerman plays a very significant part in the deliberate coverup of what happened. I always saw Kellerman as someone who was not involved with the assassination or its coverup. In this version it is he who ensures that the pre-autopsy is not witnessed or discovered. That puts a colour on Kellerman that I had not considered. Third in this version the damage to the Dallas coffin happened in Bethesda and not on Air Force 1. I always thought that it had been demonstrated and proved that the coffin was damaged getting it onto the plane. Fourth. One observation that Doug makes through a witness [and I think it was O’Connor] is that the damage to the to the head was so extensive that it seemed impossible that one bullet could cause that damage. That is something I felt had merit. I have always been curious how one bullet could cause that amount of damage. Doug’s answer is that three bullets caused the head wound. One from the back followed by two from the front. He even suggests that there could have been a fourth fired by Bill Greer. My jaw dropped when I read that. Anyone who reads this work will soon acknowledge they are following a master who is totally in control of their subject matter, and yet he introduces an idea that has been rubbished by the JFK research community for years. I acknowledge that he has raised a serious point when he questions how on earth a single bullet could cause the kind of damage seen at the top of the head. Part of the damage is explained by Humes and the pre-autopsy but the rest is the result of 3 to 4 bullets hitting JFK. I have questions that more than one bullet hit Kennedy in the head, even though I have no idea how it could cause all that damage. I accept that I have not given this work a detailed study. I acknowledge that if this was written by a lesser writer I would quickly dismiss this work. I have difficulty in believing all this, but the quality and quantity of referencing is such that I leave this chapter not knowing what to think. If others have read this chapter, what are their views? James Gordon
  12. Sherry Fiester Has Passed Away

    I am very sorry to hear this news. I also send my condolences to Debra and Sherry's family.

    Terms of Forum Use General Posting Behaviour:- No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions. Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable. Solicitation of goods and/or services is not permitted. This is a Forum for discussion. No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying Members are responsible for what they post on this board. A member will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Action:- If such behaviour is detected the member will be reminded through a PM. If behaviour repeated there will be an instant withdrawal of a weeks posting privileges. If after returning there is a further insurance then there will be an immediate indefinite withdrawal of posting privileges. Racism:- Racism will not be tolerated on this forum. Action will be taken whenever and wherever it is seen on the forum. If the racism is particularly offensive the member will be expelled immediately and without warning. Chaotic Threads:- Threads which descend into chaos may be completely deleted. Accusations of Member Credibility:- Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum:- Action:- Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum. Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members:- Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may loose their posting privileges or indeed be banned. General Comment:- Having posted these Terms of Forum Use, no further warnings will be given. If members need to consider if a link, a word or sequence of words will be acceptable - to post or not post before posting, - then we would advise not to post such words or terms. Membership in The Education Forum is voluntary, subject to approval by the owners of the Forum. Suspension of member, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum. Limitation of Liability Posts on the Education Forum are owned by the individual members who post there and who are SOLELY responsible for the content of their posts, and that the Education Forum, as an entity, is in no way responsible for the content of the posts. THEREFORE IN NO EVENT WILL THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES RELATING TO LOST REVENUES OR PROFITS, LOST DATA, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION) RESULTING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON OR MADE AVAILABLE IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS OR ANY OTHER WEB SITE TO WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED OR ON WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED TO THESE DISCUSSION FORUMS, EVEN IF THE ADMINISTRATING TEAM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY ON WHICH SUCH DAMAGES ARE BASED.
  14. Sandy, I have no idea why you mention Doris Nelson. The only people who were in Trauma room 1 while JFK's clothes were removed were Charles Carrico, Diana Bowron and Margaret Hinchcliffe. Of those three the only person who testified that the bullet entered above the shirt collar was Charles Carrico, and it is clear you do not believe him. Doris Nelson may well have entered trauma room 1 at a later point, but by that time JFK's clothes had been removed. I have not the slighest idea why you would suggest that the bullet fired from a Mannlicher Carcano would travel slow enough to cause tears to JFK's shirt as opposed to a penetration hole. I assume you have seen the research by Michael and Lucien Haag for "Case Cold." Their presentation proved that a Mannlicher Carcano bullet could travel through 46 planks of pine creating a small round hole in each. But you state that this bullet can only tear the front of JFK's shirt. Can you comment why this same bullet created: a) a hole in the back of JFK's jacket. b a hole in the back of John Connally's jacket c) a hole in the back of John Connally's shirt. d) a perfectly round hole on the front of John Connally's jacket. How was this bullet able to do all that and yet only tear the front of JFK's shirt? Assuming that this tear as a bullet exit JFK's body ( which I do not subscribe to ) this exit hole is below the collar line. That places the wound at approximately at the level of the Clavicle. That is nowhere near Vertabra's 3 and 4. The bullet cannot be in two places at the same time. If you are stating that this tear is evidence of the bullet's exit, then this exit wound is nowhere near Vertrabra's 3 and 4. JFK's shirt does not present the ambiguity of FOX 1. Because of the position of JFK's head on the table it is possible to argue that the wound is consistent with Vertabra's 3 and 4. the damage to the shirt is very different. There is no way to argue that this tear is not close to the Clavicle. The position of this tear is nowhere near vertabra's 3 and 4 and yet there is clear testimony that the exit hole in JFK's neck was adjacent to vertabra's 3 and 4. James
  15. Sandy, What kind of Scalpels are you accustomed to? "hacked away at the tie." James.
  16. Sandy, Harold Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico. (Post Mortem P. 598) He infored him that the nurses who were initially with him in Trauma room 1 ( before everyone else entered the room ) made those nicks on the shirt. He witnessed these cuts being made. I believe it may have been Diana Bowron. I understand a scalpel was used. It does look like a scalpel cut. When cutting the tie the scalpel also cuts into the button hole part of the shirt and mekes it deepest cut there. The scalpel continues to damage the button side of the shirt, but this time it is a lighter and smaller cut. I understand scissors is now the preferred method for removing clothes, but these do not look like scissor cuts. Like the damage to the shirt, it looks more like a knife (scalpel) has been used to cut it. Bottom line. Unless there is reason to contradict Carrico - he states the these cuts were made under his supervision. James.
  17. David, From what I can see you blue circle is way out. As I remember it the cut is on the button side of the shirt - not the button hole side. Your circle - if anything - should be on the other side. However - as I recolect - when the shirt is buttoned up the hole is essentially in the center of the shirt. Fropm what I can see if this nick was caused by the bullet then it appears to me that in order to create this damage the bullet has to pass through the knot of the shirt. James
  18. David Von Pein quoted: An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89–90; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).” -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote) I had not been aware that Bugliosi had made that comment. All credit to him, the usual description is a through-and-through whole. However it does raise a problem that I would like you to address David. The slit in the shirt - which I understand is the exit point for the bullet - is acutally behind the tie. It is just slightly to the right of the shirt's top button when the shirt is buttoned up - as JFK's top shirt button was at the time of impact. ( I am referring to JFK's right. ) My point is that this slit is behind the knot in the tie. And so if there is no through-and-through hole in the tie ( as you have reported Vincent Bugliosi stating ) then how can this bullet continue its exit path after the tear in the shirt if it does not continue its path through the knot in the tie? I can see no means for it to do that. James.
  19. Another look at the back wound.

    Michael, I am less qualified on the wounds to JFK, than I am to those of John Connally. However the suggestion that the doctors that treated JFK would make such a mistake is - in my view - insulting. Regarding the wounds to John Connally I am on sounder ground. The wound that Connally received ran down the outside of his chest wall. It actually ran down the bone of the fith rib. Around the waist area the bullet came into contact with the fifth rib itself and created a "slapping" wound/impact as described by Robert Shaw. This impact shattered the rib bone matter. I am still not sure whether a gap was created in the rib or it was fragmented: i.e. there were holes all over it. This shattered bone matter was pushed inside the chest cavity and damaged Connally's right lung, whereas the bullet carried on its journey outside the chest cavity. Yes it exited just below the right nipple but it did so following the track of the fifth rib. In addition these bone fragments also exited through the wound below the right nipple. It is my belief that that the extent of this wounnd was a combination of bullet impact as well bone fragment exiit. These fragments created a diagonal series on holes in Connally's shirt from the level of the pocket down to the waist. These holes are visible on the 1964 FBI colour photo of the shirt. In number they are well over a hundred holes and piercings. The bullet - contary to all the wise men of the Warren Commission - ran under Connally's skin ( or just a little inside the muscles ). It never entered the chest cavity. Had it done so and had it exited beneath the right nipple ( from within the chest cavity ) that would have placed the bullet tract very close to the heart. That would probably be a fatal wound - or certainly a life threatening wound. James
  20. Another look at the back wound.

    Michael, You commented:- Could some doctors, technicians and nurses been led to, or "encouraged" to believe that they were working on, seeing, x-raying, and viewing wounds to Conally's back, rather than Kennedy's back? Could perp-doctors have, while operating on Connally, actually created evidence for the wound that passed-through Connally's chest? First with the greatest repect Michael, you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. To suggest that Perry et al would have made such a mistake with regard to the wounds they knew JFK had suffered is an insult to these doctors. Second to suggest that Robert Shaw, Red Duke and Charles Carrico were "perp-doctors" demonstrates how little you know about those surgeons who worked on Govenor Connally. Third No bullet passed through Govenor Connally's chest. Only bone fragments entered his chest cavity. Parkland hospital in November 1963 could boast they had on staff some of the finest surgeons in America. James.
  21. Paul, I agree and you comment about his "meticulous research" is for me the critical point and the reason I can accept ( or at least reserve my opinion ) on what would otherwise be outrageous theories. Those - and especially LN's - who openly criiticise his opinions have not undergone the nearly 50 years of primary research that he has conducted. That work deserves an unbiased hearing. And James, I agree the absence of the new volume is a mystery. I am assuming David is working on further evidence. However - that said - it is one of the books I am most looking forward to. James.
  22. Bernice Moore

    I am sorry to hear that news. I am also very grateful for the number of times Bernice helped me with images I was trying to acquire. I found her to be a very positive person and a great contributor to this forum. She will be sadly missed.
  23. Admin has decided to close this thread. It is clear - that after 76 pages - the debate is going nowhere. The proponents of PrayerMan are so grounded in “their truth” that any alternatives suggested are quickly dismissed. There does exist a forum that supports this theory and - maybe - that is where the supporters of this proposition should now congregate and endlessly repeat their views to the like minded resident there. The Education Forum stands for thoroughly researched evidence and theories and although serious attempts have been to introduce logic and discipline into this topic the supporters of PrayerMan have made that impossible.
  24. Over the last few weeks the administrators have become aware of the weight that the present forum is required to carry. The JFK Assassination Debate forum is clearly the most popular of the forums on offer and it is understandable that all discussion is now fed into it. It is understandable why this has occurred, however we feel the time has come when we really need to tidy up the forum. A fellow member suggested we might think about widening the present forum in order to better focus member posts. We agree and therefore we propose the creation of a new JFK forum category into which this forum and five new forums are placed. The five new forum are:- JFK Research This is a seriously overdue venue for new discussion. This forum is limited to new research and analysis, documents, testimony, oral history, and physical or photographic evidence. Threads would be limited to new findings specifically - and narrowly - related to the JFK assassination. Note the imperative description is “New Research and Analysis, Documents, Testimony, Oral History, and Physical or Photographic evidence.” This forum is not be considered another avenue for the present debate that continues on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. The intent of this forum is allow members to share genuinely new research or access to new documents and other resources. JFK Questions We see this Forum being helpful for newcomers. It will allow them to post questions about resources, previous investigations, evidence and "factoids" which they have found on the internet or in books and which they want to have validated or exposed. JFK Discussion We see this Forum being limited to threads discussing the Kennedy administration, personalities of the era and theories/speculation/opinions pertaining to his assassination. It is becoming apparent that this is a growing interest on the forum and now deserves its own forum. There are number of present threads on the JFK Assassination debate forum that would be ideal for this new forum. JFK Book Discussions This Forum is limited to posts on specific books or specific author Deep Politics We see this Forum being limited to threads discussing broader topics ranging beyond just JFK and can include opinions and dialogs on both historical and contemporary events. The False Flag thread would be an ideal candidate for this area. We feel that these kinds of threads - interesting though they are - need a better home than the present forum. JFK Assassination Debate:- With this kind of reorganisation we see our present forum returning to it’s primary function as the place where a more generalised JFK assassination discussion can take place. Moderation:- For understandable reasons members may innocently choose the wrong forum for their topic. As a consequence, in the early days, the administrators may need to move topics threads into their correct Forum. Hopefully that will not happen too often. But the point about moving topic threads - should that indeed be necessary - is that this forum needs a tidy up and clearer focus on topics. Fellow members opinions:- We would be very interested in what fellow members think about this proposed action. James
  25. Hi all, I thought I would share where we are with the Lancer Upgrade. The Home page is now complete, with one error correction to be made. There was a tab that linked with the latest Lancer books for sale. Unfortunately the developer believed I wanted that link removed and not the two books highlighted on the Home page. The proper link will be restored shortly. Since posting I see the site has been updated. The links to JFK Lancer are deliberate and reflect the history that JFK Lancer has had on the JFK research community. Assassination Magazine. Lancer used to have a magazine called “Assassination Chronicles.” When the developer put that link in I had not anticipated it. However I decided to leave it and see whether we cannot collectively put together - say - an annual research magazine. After all there is a massive combined resource within this forum. The Assassination Links and Resources are again a reference to the mission of JFK Lancer. When you click on Login you get a choice to either go across to JFK Lancer or continue onto the Lancer rebuild. When you click on Lancer Forum you get a choice between the two essential aspects of the rebuild. The Lancer Rebuild itself. Presentations and Seminars. Presentations and Seminars is essentially a video based forum. This is a site where members can make major video presentations / etc. I am hoping - and I understand the site will be able to support it - that maybe once a year we can run a live seminar/conference. What is happening now is the actual Lancer rebuild. I an still living in hope that the site can be launched for the assassination weekend. The link to the present rebuild:- http://asp.wcukdev.co.uk/designer3/JFKLancerArchiveRebuild/html/index.html I am interested in suggestions and thoughts. James.