What is the best way to post a significant research item?

[James R Gordon]

I have been working on a major research item and I am ready to post one element of it.

However I am concerned how to go about it. Aside from significant text there are numerous images and a video of around 10 minutes.

With regard to video, what is the best format to use?

I don't want to cause bandwidth problems to the site and I am not sure whether I should break the post into its 4 recognisable sections

OR post as one item

OR how to post?

Not to criticise members, I have noticed some members replying to the complete initial thread and I imagine that takes up considerable space.

So what would be the best way for me to post this.

Thank you.

James.

[Guest Tom Scully]

...Not to criticise members, I have noticed some members replying to the complete initial thread and I imagine that takes up considerable space.

...........

James.

Yes, why on earth do they do that? Why not just post a link when replying to a large content post? Oh! There is already a link next to the left of the name, "James R Gordon" and... to be absolutely clear, why not simply (sparingly) click on reply, and :

RE: James R. Gordon post @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18985

Why oh why do members repost the whole damned thing, over and over... why?????

(And unfortunately, James, there is a limit of just two images displayed per post, and a limit to the number of quote tags, no more than 7 or 8 sets per post. No reason for either limit that I can recognize, certainly no reason for only two externally hosted images per post, and older posts were permitted more post tags, making them difficult to read at present and obliterating the links in them.)

Edited April 6, 2012 by Tom Scully

[James R Gordon]

Thanks for your comments. My mind had been working along the same lines of posting in sections.

I hope to post around the middle of next week. The topic is entitled “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory.” Although this is ground that has been gone over hundreds and possibly thousands of times in the 48 years since JFK died, I believe this will be a very different approach. I use the phrase “hope to post” very deliberately because, aside from the fact I don’t want mega “egg on my face”, I am conscious that there are very powerful interests that will not want this theory dismantled, even after 48 years. I expect them to “tag my tail” in a very serious way, because if I am right, I am well a ware it will not just be this theory I will be dismantling. Therefore I have to be sure I have correctly understood my facts. Even if I am wrong, and I don’t think I am, I believe there are going to be very serious questions raised that those supporting the SBT have never addressed - I am not even sure they are aware of them. I am not sure they will be even able to do so. I came across, last night, an issue that I had been aware of but had not fully appreciated that on its own is going to prove such a headache. I now have to re-do the videos today in order to introduce it. Sorry for being so oblique here but I am being ultra careful.

My study is in Four/Five parts. Part three comprises of around 4 short videos that examine in 3D the crucial elements of the theory. Luckily part 3 lends itself to being divided into sections and it might be better to divide that section rather than in one video.

On the issue of the video, does anyone know what codec should it be, flash, mov, quicktime?? As a Mac guy I always use Quicktime, but should I use another form.

Thank you.

James Gordon

Edited April 7, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Richard Hocking]

Thanks for your comments. My mind had been working along the same lines of posting in sections.

I hope to post around the middle of next week. The topic is entitled “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory.” Although this is ground that has been gone over hundreds and possibly thousands of times in the 48 years since JFK died, I believe this will be a very different approach. I use the phrase “hope to post” very deliberately because, aside from the fact I don’t want mega “egg on my face”, I am conscious that there are very powerful interests that will not want this theory dismantled, even after 48 years. I expect them to “tag my tail” in a very serious way, because if I am right, I am well a ware it will not just be this theory I will be dismantling. Therefore I have to be sure I have correctly understood my facts. Even if I am wrong, and I don’t think I am, I believe there are going to be very serious questions raised that those supporting the SBT have never addressed - I am not even sure they are aware of them. I am not sure they will be even able to do so. I came across, last night, an issue that I had been aware of but had not fully appreciated that on its own is going to prove such a headache. I now have to re-do the videos today in order to introduce it. Sorry for being so oblique here but I am being ultra careful.

My study is in Four/Five parts. Part three comprises of around 4 short videos that examine in 3D the crucial elements of the theory. Luckily part 3 lends itself to being divided into sections and it might be better to divide that section rather than in one video.

On the issue of the video, does anyone know what codec should it be, flash, mov, quicktime?? As a Mac guy I always use Quicktime, but should I use another form.

Thank you.

James Gordon

James,

Several years ago, I did my own reconstruction and graphical analysis of the SBT. I know that can eat up a big chunk of time.

One of the problems in much of the JFK research is the lack of solid information. This is not the case in the SBT.

We have the exact dimensions of the Limo; the positions of the occupants can be checked against several pictures and films; a timing mechanism in the Z Film; the exact location of several sequential events; the exact location of the lone shooter; the exact number of bullets fired in the WC/ SBT; known wound locations on the 3 wounded men; ... ect.

Regarding choice of video type: There are enough converters available on the web, it should not be a big issue. Everyone has Flash players available; mp4 movies are also universally playable on a wide variety of software.

I look forward to your SBT Post.

[James R Gordon]

[One of the problems in much of the JFK research is the lack of solid information. This is not the case in the SBT.

We have the exact dimensions of the Limo; the positions of the occupants can be checked against several pictures and films; a timing mechanism in the Z Film; the exact location of several sequential events; the exact location of the lone shooter; the exact number of bullets fired in the WC/ SBT; known wound locations on the 3 wounded men; ... ect.

Richard,

You are absolutely right about that. However that is not the subject of my study.

My study, with the aid of a professional 3D program on the human anatomy, looks at what goes on inside the body. I am examining whether the Criteria laid down by Commander Humes in his Autopsy report and testimony hold up when we see the bullets path and trajectory within the neck and upper chest area.

Put simply. Do the organs that are damage, do they still get damaged? And equally important, do the organs that should not be damaged, does the bullet avoid them.

The outside trajectories are relevant only in so far as they describe the exact path that the bullet takes inside the body. It is those paths that are being examined: not the outside trajectories. I know this may sound silly but the outside trajectories are irrelevant if the inside trajectory violates the conditions of the autopsy report.

If the bullet cannot do inside the body what the criteria laid down by Commander Humes states they should, then the SBT is invalid.

I contend it does not matter what angles & trajectories you have outside the body, if those trajectories create violations of the criteria inside the body then that invalidates the theory.

At that point, I suggest, it is an irrelevance what the trajectories outside the body are and indeed where the line of trajectory leads to. It is an irrelevance because body organs have been compromised that were specified in the Autopsy report as being o.k.

I have probably said too much already and I am concerned about getting egg on my face and I am delaying to double and triple check, however what I am seeing so far is going to cause some headaches and maybe the use of the term “Dismantling” in the title may well be appropriate.

I am adding some new videos to section 3. They will look at the application of the theory by a number of modern proponents of the SBT and by that I mean I take their theories inside the body and examine the implication of the said trajectory to the organs within the upper chest area.

Thanks for the comment on video codecs. I will try MPG and see how that works.

James.

[John Dolva]

You can ask for or ignore unasked for comments as you wish. Continue the presentation as you see fit with links of previous related posts so the end post, when we can chuck eggs (jk), open the floor. Whatever. Don't make a big deal of it.You'll find most pretty respectful of your wishes whatever they may be.

edit typo add: Not for the squeamish. Parents consider filtering and supervision dep on child.

This is helpful in many ways.

Office of Medical History - WOUND BALLISTICS

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm

Edited April 7, 2012 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

[One of the problems in much of the JFK research is the lack of solid information. This is not the case in the SBT.

We have the exact dimensions of the Limo; the positions of the occupants can be checked against several pictures and films; a timing mechanism in the Z Film; the exact location of several sequential events; the exact location of the lone shooter; the exact number of bullets fired in the WC/ SBT; known wound locations on the 3 wounded men; ... ect.

Richard,

You are absolutely right about that. However that is not the subject of my study.

My study, with the aid of a professional 3D program on the human anatomy, looks at what goes on inside the body. I am examining whether the Criteria laid down by Commander Humes in his Autopsy report and testimony hold up when we see the bullets path and trajectory within the neck and upper chest area.

Put simply. Do the organs that are damage, do they still get damaged? And equally important, do the organs that should not be damaged, does the bullet avoid them.

The outside trajectories are relevant only in so far as they describe the exact path that the bullet takes inside the body. It is those paths that are being examined: not the outside trajectories. I know this may sound silly but the outside trajectories are irrelevant if the inside trajectory violates the conditions of the autopsy report.

If the bullet cannot do inside the body what the criteria laid down by Commander Humes states they should, then the SBT is invalid.

I contend it does not matter what angles & trajectories you have outside the body, if those trajectories create violations of the criteria inside the body then that invalidates the theory.

At that point, I suggest, it is an irrelevance what the trajectories outside the body are and indeed where the line of trajectory leads to. It is an irrelevance because body organs have been compromised that were specified in the Autopsy report as being o.k.

I have probably said too much already and I am concerned about getting egg on my face and I am delaying to double and triple check, however what I am seeing so far is going to cause some headaches and maybe the use of the term “Dismantling” in the title may well be appropriate.

I am adding some new videos to section 3. They will look at the application of the theory by a number of modern proponents of the SBT and by that I mean I take their theories inside the body and examine the implication of the said trajectory to the organs within the upper chest area.

Thanks for the comment on video codecs. I will try MPG and see how that works.

James.

James, you may want to check out chapters 11-12C of my webpage, which totally dismantles the SBT. The internal trajectories are discussed in chapter 11.

Chapter 11: Single-Bullet Theory

[James R Gordon]

I contend it does not matter what angles & trajectories you have outside the body, if those trajectories create violations of the criteria inside the body then that invalidates the theory.

At that point, I suggest, it is an irrelevance what the trajectories outside the body are and indeed where the line of trajectory leads to. It is an irrelevance because body organs have been compromised that were specified in the Autopsy report as being o.k.

I'm curious as to how you can achieve this given that the path of the bullet was never established and the wound never dissected as it should have been.

Martin,

Excellent point.

However it is not required. That is because although the neck was not dissected in the actual autopsy, it was described in the Autopsy report. You are absolutely right that this area was not examined. However, Humes, and therefore the Warren Commission, have then gone and boxed themselves in by declaring in the Autopsy Report and in Humes Testimony what was and what was not damaged by the bullet as it passed through the neck area.

Although the path of the bullet was not established in the actual autopsy what the bullet had to do and what it could not do as it passed through the throat was established.

The supporters of the SBT are going to have to challenge the Autopsy Report and Humes Testimony if they want out of the fix I am about to place them.

James.

Edited April 8, 2012 by James R Gordon

[James R Gordon]

James, you may want to check out chapters 11-12C of my webpage, which totally dismantles the SBT. The internal trajectories are discussed in chapter 11.

Chapter 11: Single-Bullet Theory

Thanks Pat, I knew of your work but I had forgotten about this chapter. I will look at this.

James