Jump to content
The Education Forum

James R Gordon

Admin
  • Content count

    912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James R Gordon

  1. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    A member of this forum alerted me to the fact that one of our current members was essentially the opinions of a banned member - in this case Brian Doyle. What this issue has raised - and it is why I closed the thread till I could find an answer to it - is that if allowed to continue a banned member ( in this case Brian Doyle ) has now found a voice on our forum through another member. Whether witting, or unwitting, the current member has allowed himself to become the surrogate through which this banned member is now able to continue posting. This is not something the members of the admin team can allow to continue. In the next few hours the rules are going to be edited to reflect this change in what is acceptable on our forum. From this point on - even though the rules are yet to be edited - it will be an offence for any current member to voice the opinions and theories of any banned member. Any current member found to be doing that will immediately be place on “two posts a day” - which as everyone knows is actually a euphemism for being denied posting rights. The term of the punishment will be determined by admin. There will be no fixed term, the term therefore could be a short or long period as determined the members of the admin team. James.
  2. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Yes, this is a fair point. I am not sure how comprehensive such a list will. I am also concerned whether publishing such a list might not infringe rights. I will look into it.
  3. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Denis, James Fetzer is not a member. He may have been at some point, but he is not listed in the current membership. James
  4. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    I agree Ray. The operative phrase is that the idea is posted in the members own words. It is probably better if the source of the idea - the banned member - is not referenced. This way the member has found and idea they believe is interesting and shared it with the forum. Referencing the banned member allows interpretation that it is the banned member and his ideas that are being posted. James
  5. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Kathleen, I agree with the way you wanted to give credit to the views of Gary Mack. Gary Mack would never be affected by this ruling: he was never banned. But if - for example - you said X was the view of Brian Doyle that would be different. Because - unlike the late Gary Mack - Brian was banned and Gary was never banned. He just did not post because of conflict with his position. James.
  6. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Sandy, I can see what you are trying to distinguish between. The problem is that in either case you have become a surrogate for the banned member. The banned member's views - and why these views are considered to be important, have now been placed on the forum. In a number of instances it was these views - and how they were expressed - that was what got the member banned in the first place. I can appreciate why it could be argued that there should be exceptions to the rule. But the moment the forum allows exceptions then the rule will effectively disintegrate. So - I am sorry - but there can be no exceptions. James.
  7. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Eddie, Those are the conditions if you want to post on this forum. There are other forums that are not so concerned about this kind of behaviour, you might prefer to post there.
  8. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Paz, From what I know of you Paz, I do not see you as the kind of person who would agree to do such a thing. There is a difference between you and Brian Doyle, you have integrity. James.
  9. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Michael, Where earlier today your cross-posting with Tom Scully would not have breached any rules. Were you to post later today or at a point thereafter - then you would be in breach. Be assured you would be dealt with. The members of the admin team are not going to create a rule that punishes one member and not another. Such ambiguity in the rules allows breaching in the rules and for members to argue that what they did was not in breach. What you did with Tom Scully was entirely o.k before today. But as of my posting this thread - if repeated - it will lead to you being disciplined. James.
  10. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Jim, Until late today you were not breaking any rules. What happened is that you raised an issue the forum had not anticipated or had rules to cover. Were you to repeat in a new post now then you would be in conflict with the rules. But I know you to be someone who would not do that. Regards James.
  11. I am going to pause this thread for a period of time. I have a reason, but at present I do not want to make it public. James.
  12. 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
  13. 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:-
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Michael, I have hidden your post. There is no need to get personal. James
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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:-
×