Jump to content
The Education Forum

James R Gordon

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James R Gordon

  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
  16. Ron Bulman said:- I've wondered a while about this. The angle of the shot through his nipple. It damaging his wrist badly before exiting, then imbedding into his thigh. More lead left behind than was missing from the magic bullet. Which in addition to causing all of Connally's injuries went down from the TSBD into JFK's back at T3, turned upward to exit below his Adams Apple. THEN turned downward to enter JC's arm pit unless he's bent over, which he's not . The angle. Yes, the limo was headed slightly down hill, but a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD does not go in JC's arm pit, traverse and breaking a rib, then out his nipple. As there was no magic bullet, a shot from the TSBD 6th floor going in his arm pit would most likely have destroyed his bowels. So the shot came from behind, much lower. Dal-Tex, second floor, miss of the back of the right of JFK's head? Necessitating frontal shots, arm and umbrella up? Ron I have felt for a while that it is time again to look at John Connally’s wounds. The expert in this area is Gary Murr and you ought to read the two volumes of his work on John Connally that he has publicly released. I am not aware part 3 has been published for forum members. I write these words having been outside Connally research for some time. In my view the Connally wounding is the key to the SBT. In Gary’s fourth appearance at Lancer he described the path of the bullet through Connally’s Thorax. His description suggested - and it compliments what he says in chapter 1 of his book - that the bullet was very shallow through his muscles. I remember thinking - when watching the video - the path of the bullet must be close to skin depth. I contacted Gary and he was pleased I had noticed this. In our many email conversations Gary constantly reminded that that you cannot understand Connally’s wounds without first understanding his position in the car when he was wounded: it is Connally’s position that explains the wounds. In an email exchange Gary made the following point: one factor that to my way of thinking most influenced the flight path of the striking missile that generated the thoracic wound site is the anatomical position of the Governor at impact. I feel that it is virtually certain that he was not sitting anatomically erect, nor for that matter, erect and anatomically turned to his right - but that is my opinion. I do feel that the preponderance of physical evidence leads me to believe that the Governor was turned to or virtually on his left side at the moment he was struck in the back - but again that is my opinion. One point about this description is that it explains a point Gary constantly said. He maintained that this trajectory of the bullet was acute. Such a description also takes you away from TSBD sixth floor west window and - possibly - to the east window. A bullet fired from the east window would indeed create an acute trajectory angle. In Gary’s book he publishes a picture that shows - at mid-day on the 22nd - there actually was a corridor between the east and west windows. It was easily possible to move between positions of the east and west windows and - remember - the east window was open throughout the assassination. Like Gary I believed as a truth that however this wound was created in John Connally it had nothing to do with the SBT. However - and I am happy to explain it in another post - I tended to agree with Connally as to when he was wounded. I could not get past the Z190 period when Nellie pulls John out of danger. In my view Connally had to have been wounded by that point. However I am now re-thinking. This acute bullet trajectory would not be possible at Z234. Gary’s fourth Lancer presentation has really forced me to rethink my old assuptions. I was shocked at how shallow this bullet’s wound was and it has made me re-think. Ron Bulman said:- I don't recall in Zapruder JC ever lifting his wrist high enough to be hit with a shot from his arm pit/nipple, from Dal-Tex, then his his thigh? Maybe a separate shot, from a different angle? Kellerman did mention a flurry of shots. Gary and I are in perfect agreement to Connally’s radial wound. And as you will know, I have felt for a very, very long time that the radial wound was not a part of this thoracic impact but rather a result of a very irregular fragment from the fatal head shot. People may not readily realise that Z 313 and 314 are moments when Connally’s right arm is seen to be raised. The debris form JFK’s head wound moves in a downward trajectory towards Connally. We both believe that what damages the radial is a fragment and not a pristine whole bullet. There is only one moment when bullet fragments are present in the car and that is Z 313 - Z 314. I refer you to chapter 2 of Gary’s book where this wound is fully described. That leaves the leg wound. As Gary describes in chapter 3 this would caused much perplexity. In my opinion it was probably caused by a fragment but from where is another question. James
  17. Sorry Micah, I thought the reference was from the Bowron interview. Om P. 598 of Post Mortem Weisberg says Carrico confirmed to him that the damage to the shirt and tie was caused by nurses when they cut the necktie off. Carrico says the cutting was done under his supervision. Though scalpel is not mentioned - it had to be a scalpel scissors would not be able to create that damage.Also Carrico the cutting and removal of the clothes were done un his supevision. James
  18. I believe it was in the interview that Harrison Livingston conducted with Diana Bowron in London. You will find the interview in his book "Killing the Truth." James
  19. Fair point Ron. With regard to the tie, Diana Bowron is on record saying she cut it with a scalpel. In doing so she also nicked the knot in the tie. Looking at the picture a scalpel could have been used, but it is also possible scissors were used or even a combination of the two. Three nurses accompanied Carrico into Trauma 1 I forget the name of the third nurse. So the cutting away of JFK's clothes was nnot the work on one nurse. James
  20. Ron, You make a number of interesting points that are worthy of being explored. First. The shirt. We are not seeing the shirt - as it was on the 22nd. The shirt was in the hand of the FBI - and others - so we do not see the condition of the shirt as it would have been. The ragged condition of the back wound entrance is not quite as it would have been seen on the 22nd. That is partly a consequence of age and FBI examination. Second. Dr. Berkley stated the back wound was at the area of T3. To my mind this image of the shirt suggests he is probably right. Third. The picture of the entrance of the back would would appear to be about once inch right of enter. [ JFK’s right ] Fourth. Two doctors, Charles Carrico and Malcolm Perry were asked to point on their own necks where this entrance wound was. Both did so, but the Commission only indicated where one of them, Charles Carrico, was pointing to. Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was? Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be. Mr. DULLES. Where did it enter? Dr. CARRICO It entered? Mr. DULLES Yes. Dr. CARRICO At the time we did not know - Mr. DULLES I see Dr. CARRICO. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here. Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie - Mr. DULLES. A little bit to the left. Dr. CARRICO. To the right. Mr. DULLES.. Yes; to the right. Dr. CARRICO. Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. H3 361-362 So Charles Carrico states the the entrance hole was just above JFK’s shirt and tie. In addition the wound was a “little bit to the right” of JFK’s midline. Fifth. Diana Bowron and Margaret Henchliff attended with Charles Carrico when JFK entered Trauma room 1. It was they who undressed him. I believe Diana removed JFK’s shirt and tie. She is on record saying she used a scalpel. Apparently the cut on the shirt came about as she cut too deeply to remove the tie. The cut went also onto the shirt. I have thought about this image since I posted it. Initially I posted it as information for fellow members. Now I am beginning to see that this document destroys the SBT. The WC and SBT supporters have been able to tie us all in knots. The WC volumes as well as Report provided for WC supports with a gold mine of distractions to counter legitimate argument. E.g the Ryberg drawings, the autopsy report and other similar documents. In my view this picture destroys that. For the first time we can clearly see the position of the entrance wound on JFK’s back. Unlike other pictures it is not a blurry picture. This is not the blurry blood splattered shirt where it is difficult to see the entrance. The 1964 B&W picture of the shirt has the shirt closed and so it was not possible to see the back would. Now we can clearly see the back wound and it is clear that this wound is somewhere around T3. Off hand I do not know the angle of climb from T3 to the neck would. I understand the angle of descent from the Oswald window to JFK is around 41º. Logically it is no longer possible to argue that a wound - that we can clearly see has struck JFK around the area of T3 could possibly exit through the throat,
  21. I came across this image - I am sure fellow members have seen this image before. However it is the first time I have seen the tear in the back of the shirt as well as the scalpel cuts on the front. I do not know whether Getty - by linking the bullet damage to the back of the shirt and the damage to the front are suggesting how similar the two tears are. I find it useful to see both damaged areas of the shirt together. It is the firts time I have seen that. Thought I would share this. James
  22. Sorry to all. I misunderstood this thread and moved it. I have returned it back where it belongs. James.
  23. Well, I see some people do not listen. I have just suspended one member - without any warning - and I am monitoring another. To repeat, if the membership is significantly reduced in order to get this message across. So be it. There are other forums who are happy to allow that kind of behaviour. This is an education forum. It is not a forum where members can use their position to either preach to fellow members of insult them. We are all equal in this forum. If I receive more reports I will act. Those to whom this applies - you have had all the warnings you are going to get. I will leave this thread open, this time. James/
  24. I have had some complaints regarding members voicing their opinion of other members views in a derogatory fashion. Through this criticism the criticism of the members's opinion is also neing made a criticism of the member themselves. Stop preaching to other members that your opinion is all that matters - and is the truth. I understand other members are tired of being preached to by other mebers who believe they hold the truth..One thread where this is going on is The Beckley Bunch If members continue with this I will immediately suspend the member - without being forewarned.If that means halt the membership is suspended SO BE IT. I am not leaving this thread open to debate. There is no debate!!! This will stop or we will have a reduced membership. James
  25. I bumped this thread. David Andrews had wanted to comment on it, but since the thread originated in Political conspiracies, anything said was only seen in the Political conspiracies thread. If members have opinions they want to make I moved the thread so it is now on the JFK Assassination Debate forum.
  • Create New...