Jump to content
The Education Forum

James R Gordon

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

20,791 profile views

James R Gordon's Achievements

  1. Jim, I feel insulted, I understood we had an agreement, but clearly we did not. A member complained about you and I read the thread the member objects to. You use the phrase “deuterium cover ups are serious Human Health Crimes” when responding to James Di Eugenio.Deuterium is also known as heavy hydrogen. When you respond like this to James - What exactly are you saying about Jim ?? I suspect it is nothing good. I believe I know you are using the phrase to insult James Di Eugenio. Nor is this the only reference to deuterium cover ups - references are all over this thread. I believe each and everyone is an insult to fellow members. In one reference you suggest it was employed by the CIA to kill Casto - but the use of the phrase is too widespread to be limited to that single issue. You refer to James as “deuterium-Eugenio.”Really! You can make such references. This insult to James Di Eugenio is unacceptable.Jim is well aware of your insults and makes that clear on the thread “Finally! A Good Review of Oliver Stone's "JFK Revisited” but has not involved himself what would have ended up as a “bun fight.” On Page 2 you accuse Oliver Stone of having secret financial backers in the UK. Unless you have evidence to prove that then you have slandered Oliver Stone and that is a banning offence. It does not help that on the same page you say of Oliver Stone “If anything, Stone is now right in bed with the criminals now. “ To say Oliver Stone is working with criminals is outrageous. In a response to Ron Bulman - on Page 3 - you say “Well---you do make a model for Asparger's Syndrome---drunk on heavy water perhaps !!” It is clear your response refers to Ron. I felt I knew what the term Asparger's Syndrome meant , but I checked to be sure. Asparger's Syndrome is related to Autism. You appear to accuse Ron of being autistic as well as being someone who is infected by Heavy Water. Nor is this the only reference to Asparger's Syndrome in this thread. What makes you feel you can say these things? This is personal with me. on my own without reference to the other admin members - I released from moderation - even though I did not place you on moderation. I felt you had been on moderation for long enough. I emailed you and I note you did not even respond - if only to thank me. I did make it clear that I expected you to uphold the rules of the forum. In just three pages - of a thread that you created - you have numerous times breached the conditions of this form,. At present I have removed your posting privileges and I may - on further reflection this issue - remove your membership altogether. James
  2. Mervyn, Holding personal opinions about JFK or indeed Donald Trump are allowed on this forum. Deriding and insulting fellow members opinions and beliefs is not. Suggesting that JFK and RFK were two-faced and liars is really not acceptable on this forum.You are an established member of this forum and should know better. Having fellow members complain about you is not something you want. When that happens my attention is always drawn to the person being complained about. James.
  3. I have referred this problem to Invision. Hopefully they will quickly correct what is causing this. James.
  4. I appologise that this is Public but it appears the only to get through.I want to make public that in general members have been well behaved in a topic that could easily have led to "wild fires." That it has not done so is a reflection on members behaviour. I see kathy has made some comments about posting conduct. I agree with all she has said. I appreciate this should not be public but that said admin is fed up with complaints about Jim Harwood. Last night I deleted and hid a number of his posts. This morning I received a further complaint about Jim insulting Sandy. I had expected that deleting a number of posts wold have delivered a message - clearly not. Kathy's post I am sure was also directed JIm Let me now make something clear: Another substantiated complaint about JIm Harwood and I will ban him. Not all your posts are objectionable but like everyone else Jim you know what is expected in a post - and what is not acceotable. And therefore admin see your insults as deliberate. The next one and you are gone. James.
  5. Kirk, A great post. Last night L watched the TV movie "Recount." For resons I cannot explain I kept thinking what if the movie is a premination for this year and it the case goes to the Supreme Court - what if the outcome is also the same? James
  6. I am sorry I was wrong to criticise you and I am very disappointed the admin team have already had to hide some of Jim Harwood's post.
  7. Please Take Note:- An hour ago W. Niederhut - replying to a post by Jim Harwood - said “in your wing nut "history" of Kamala Harris's family, I notice that you managed to omit any substantive….” Ialso noted that Joseph McBride made a comment elsewhere. I am no fan of Donald Trump but it appears Jim Harwood might be. In posting his comments about Kamala Harris Jim broke no rules at all - yet one member considered he had the right to refer to Jim as a “nut.” No one has the right to insult a fellow member , even if they feel the said member has not included all the facts. Members have a perfect right to feel aggrieved when referred to in this way. For the last few years the admin team have either hidden or moved threads regarding Donald Trump because the subject can sometimes bring out the worst in us. With it being so close to the election I would prefer not to not to take action regarding this thread or others on Donald Trump. I am conscious that this US election may be somewhat unusual and may well excite us to voice our opinions. This may be a difficult few weeks ahead and members - regarding this subject - might feel tempted to be intemperate with their opinions. Feel free to voice your opinions but - at all times - be civil to one another. I will deal with any thread if we cannot be civil to each other. James.
  8. To all, Robert Card is an active subject for the admin. I have just now stopped him posting. Whether further measures are taken against him will be made clear later. As members of the admin team we felt our action in closing a previous thread would have given him food for thought. Clearly not. As a member of the admin team I apologize that fellow members have had to read his thoughts. James.
  9. Ron The wrist wound - and many other things - are described in the video. James
  10. Ron, Again I apologise for the 40º error, that’s what comes from talking of the top of your head. I still suggest you contact Gary for a copy of his book. CTP – Controlling The Past – is an encyclopaedia on the Connally wounding. I was never focused on the full picture as Gary is, my focus was on destroying the SBT. My interest in Connally came about because I saw it as the weak link in the SBT. This conversation between Robert Shaw and Alan Dulles – which Gary quotes – became the essential truth of the Connally wounding. When both Robert Shaw and Connally were before the WC Shaw was asked to measure the angle of the bullet’s trajectory down Connally’s body. He got a measurement of between 25-30º taken with calipers. Shaw is asked to measure Connaly if he would position himself as he believed he was seated when he was struck. Mr. Specter. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor? Dr. Shaw. We are talking about the angle now, with the horizontal, and I would say - - you don’t have a caliper there, do you? Dr. Gregory. Yes. Dr. Shaw. I was going to guess somewhere between 25 degrees and 30 degrees. Mr. Dulles. Sorry to ask these questions. Gov. Connally. That is fine. I think it is an excellent question. Dr. Shaw. Well, this puts it right at 25 degrees. Mr. Specter. That is the angle then of the elevation as you are measuring it? Dr. Shaw. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the posterior wound over the anterior wound. The Chairman. The course being downward back to front? Dr. Shaw. Yes. Gov. Connally. Back to front. The Chairman. Yes. H4 137 This was the argument I was having with DVP. He was arguing that SBT trajectory angle was 17º and I was saying since the bullet – traveling through Connally did not meet bony material until it slapped into the 5th rib – how come the bullet changed its angle by 8º from 17º to 25º? DVP never answered the question. However it is THE question about the Connally wounding with regard to the SBT. It is clear to me that the shot that wounded Connally came from a different location. Now this was a really stable bullet. Each rib has on both of its sides material called “intercostal muscles.” So if the bullet was wobbling around as it travelled down the ribs these muscles would have been damaged. Robert Shaw testified that they were not damaged. The SBT has the bullet tumbling, something that would have destroyed the ”intercostal muscles.” So this bullet entered Connally on the tragetory angle of the 5th rib and it followed that path all the way down – including slapping into the 5th rib and and damaging around 10 cm of the rib. As I understand it there was not a 10cm hole in the 5th rib but there were pieces broken off that 10cm area that flew all over the place. The coloured picture of Connally’s shirt shows around 30 small fragment holes caused by these bone fragments as they escaped his body. Although some of these fragments went into the chest area and damaged the lung - a large number clearly followed the bullet as it exited Connally. Although my research looked at other areas in the Connally wounding, this was the key moment that proved to me that the SBT was rubbish. Whatever caused the Connally thorax wound it was a separate bullet from the SBT. It was also fired from a different location. If you look at the JFK Shirt thread there is the whole problem that this SBT bullet entered JFK at T3. Sorry to be so contradictory, but in looking into the evidence to explain my position I was reminded why I chose Z230 as the moment I believe Connally was wounded. I know earlier in this thread I suggested Gary’s point of a late wounding was making me re-think but there is an impediment to that. It is fully discussed in the video. In my view Connally was wounded before Z 289 and later than Z223/4. I describe in the video my reasons. I have PM’d you with a link to the DPUK presentation I made which goes on to describe other issues I have with the Connally wounding. I acknowledge Gary is the expert in this area and I encourage you to contact him for a copy of his work. However the Z 289 moment was the reason I digressed from his view. That said all the details of Connally’s wounding that Gary describes I subscribe to – aside from the moment of impact. Hope this clarifies the issue better for you. James.
  11. Ron, I will give you a more detailed comment later.nut I have no idea what I was thinking about when I said 40º. What I was talking about was the angle of the bullet down Connally's rib cage. The angle was 27ª and not 40º. I know I was remembering a discussion with DVP I will try and find this discussion. What I was arguing was that the trajectory angle from JFK to Connally was different. I was basically arguing why on earth the bullet would change its angle of trajectory from JFK to Connally - the SBT - to the actual angle down Connally's 5th rib and here I suggested that angle wa s 40ª. That is nonsense it was 27º, I will give you a thought out response tomorrow. I just wanted to correct mt mistake. James
  12. Joe, Only Connally's 5th rib was damaged - damaged when the bullet bumped into it as opposed to going through it..After contactthe bullet continued down the path of his ribs and exited below his right nipple.The bullet never entered his thorax - i.e. his chest area. A portion of the fifth rib was shattered. Most of the particles followed the trajectory of the bullet exiting also below his right nipple. Some of the rib fragments entered into the chest and created damage to his right lung. You can still see the holes - tiny holes - in the shirt that they made when exiting. The thigh fragment was removed on the 22nd. It is a while since I read Gary Murr's book. I think it was in Gary;s first Lancer presentation that he discussed this. It is also dealt with in his book as well. There is confusion between what metal fragments were discovered and documented on the 22nd and what the record now demonstrates. Gary demonstrated there are real real issues between what the Xrays show and what is not in the evidence. There were tiny fragments left in his arm. They were not considered threatening. They were buried although there was attempts to have them removed. James S
  13. Andrew, I am quite busy at the moment but your argument I do not believe fits the facts. Point 1. If you look at the JFK Shirt thread you will see that there is definite proof that the bullet entered at T3. It is slightly right of centre and if you look at the Stare of death picture the exit - if you support the SBT - is also slightly right of centre.The route between these two points would require the bullet would require to damage the spine. But worse - as I am sure Cliff will remind you both distance between back and throat and angle of trajectory would have to climb would create an impossibility. Point 2 Have you looked at how Connally is turned at Z 223/4. He is turned to the right and there is no trajectory that would allow a bullet exiting JFK to strike JBC under the shoulder If Connally were seated facing forward then it might be easier - even though it would not fit the facts of the case. But the way he is turned it is not possible unless you are Dale Myers Point 3. I believe - though correct me if I am wrong - the angle of trajectory between JFK and Connally was 21º. However the angle traveling down Connally's rib cage is somewhere around 40º. Until the bullet smacked into Connally's 5th rib the bullet came in contact with no bony structure. So what changed the trajectory of the bullet - giving you the benefit that the SBT is possible at all.? Maybe you want to think about these points. And they are not the most difficult points. James.
  14. Ron the work is called "Controling the Past." It is actually a three volume set. I am not sure Gary has made the final volume public to the Forum. He did make pasts 1 &2 public. I was busy on other things and I forgot to download copies. There must be members who did download parts 1 & 2. You are probanbly right, Gary most likely did make his links time sensitive, P.S. If you do a search for "Controlling the Past" you will find the links. However I checked and the links are no longer active. PM Gary, he will most likely give a new link. It looks like I am right that Gary did not release Vol 3. James.
  15. For a long time Mark that was my view. During that Z 280 - 312 sequence - after being wounded - I was convinced Nellie turned Connally away from danger. And at 313 - while still being turned and Connally also had his right hand raised - he is injured in his radial from a fragment of the head shot. Now I am not sure when Connally received the thorax wound. What I will say is that I am still convinced the radial wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. Gregory was very clear that whatever caused the radial would was not a pristine bulled: James
  • Create New...