James R Gordon

Good point Ron. DVP will, of course, inform you that the 26 Volumes can explain everything.He will also tell you that only one fragment was found and retrieved from Connally's hand. Actually 4 lead fragments were retrieved.I have the NARA official picture of them.  For quite a time these items were described as "fragments" inclufing the hand written doctors hand written on the afternoon of the 22nd describing of what was done to the arm and what was retrieved from the arm. until at a point when "fragments became "fragment."  I believe in July/August 1964 these four fragments arrived at the Atomic Commission for analysis. I do not yet. know what their conclusion was. I do believe their report never went to the Commission and so you will get an appropriate 26 volume response from DVP.

At some point DVP will come across the drawing of Connolly's right hand and I await how he can explain that the graphical description of the entry wound could be caused by CE399.

James

David Von Pein said:

Since it's been established by Connally's doctors that JBC was struck by only ONE bullet, it's obvious what ultimate path that ONE bullet took (regardless of the PRECISE angle through the chest) --- i.e., from upper back, through the chest, exiting below the right nipple, striking the right wrist, and then ending up in the left thigh.

You really do not know Connally's doctors opinion. Yes that is what the 26 volumes say, but it is not what the doctors said.The doctors were not convinced only one bullet had been involved. If you had a copy of the hand drawing you would see why they had concerns. But your problem is not just how could the SBT cause the wounds to the hand. One of your problems is that whatever caused the hand wound would not be able to cause the leg wound. It was moving in the opposite direction. I might have supplied you with what the Connally doctors believed and why they believed it.. But I am not going to. I will leave it for you to research into. The truth is not always what is in the 26 volumes even though you keep telling us so.

David Von Pein said:

If I were you James, I wouldn't be scolding another person for being "an embarrassment to JFK research". Not with this "embarrassment" of yours archived for all to see.

Absolutely great news. But do not be so sure that it will be me who will be embaressed.

David Von Pein said:-
“We’re only talking about a 2-degree difference.”

Do you actually read what you write? “We’re only talking about a 2-degree difference.” Suppose CE 903 was configured to 19.72º are you seriously suggesting that would have no affect on the SBT. I mean after all we are “only talking about a 2º difference.” You are an embarrassment to JFK research when you can make a statement like that.

David Von Pein said:-
John Connally's hand was a MOVABLE object, James. And we can't (and don't) know EXACTLY what position his hand/wrist was in when the bullet smashed into it. Therefore, neither you nor I can say precisely what angle his hand was in (in relation to the descending bullet that was coming at him) at the exact moment of the bullet's impact.

Yes maybe we don’t know precisely where the hand might have been - but we do know three things.
1. We know where the exit wound is
2. We know the shape and position of the wounds on Connolly’s right hand
3 We know the direction of the bullet as it exited Connolly’s chest.

From these three facts we can make conclusions.

You say “Therefore, neither you nor I can say precisely what angle his hand was in (in relation to the descending bullet that was coming at him) at the exact moment of the bullet's impact.” Really I do not mean yo be insulting, but what kind of researcher are you?

You know the trajectory of the bullet as it passed through John Connally. You have a visual drawing of the shape of the entrance wound on John Connolly’s right hand. Drawn by the surgeon who had attended to him and created at approximately 4pm on Friday 22nd. And you have a chart describing the position of the exit wound. Maybe you are not the kind of researcher that can look at these facts and judge whether the injuries on the hand could have been inflicted by a bullet travelling through Connally’s body at an angle of 27º but the rest of us are.

David Von Pein said:-
And you feel comfortable concluding these things even though you really have NO IDEA exactly what position Mr. Connally's right hand/wrist was in at the moment the missile struck him, right? That's incredibly silly, James.
No, what is really “incredibly silly” is someone who is deaf and blind to anything that is not in the 26 volumes. The 26 volumes are filled with a great deal of exceptionally pertinent info and facts. Most if not all of us are dependant on the 26 volumes for our research. But unlike you, we are fully aware that the 26 volumes are also a political document with a particular view of the facts contained therein.

David Von Pein said:-
Maybe you should read Page 107 of the WCR again....
And maybe you should get a hold of the complete Parkland medical document on John Connally and see what actually happened and what his doctors really said. Some of that is probably on page 107, but I can guarantee some was deliberately excluded.

James.

David,

25º was the trajectory angle when Connally was standing. Did you not see I stated that 27º angle was taken when he was seated in the position he believed he was in when he was shot. Did you miss that??? 

As regards the entrance and exit point of the arm wound you have no idea what you are talking about. The entrance to the wound was slightly above the right thumb and on the same side of the hand as the right thumb. The exit was on the palm of the hand above the wrist. If you are considering the SBT as the cause of these wounds then because the entrance and exit are essentially horrizontal even your estimate of downward trajectory angle of approx 17º could not cause these wounds. The SBT might be able to inflict a wound of entrance where the entrance wound is, but it could not replicate it. The actual would of extrance is a channel left to right wound. And if the SBT was able to strike JBC in that location the exit wound would be on the opposite side of the hand. It would not be on the palm.

Until the bullet struck the 5th rib it simply was muscle it encountered. So on entering Connolly's body there was nothing to change its trajectory. It stuck no bone on entry. Yet it changed its direction by 9.28º. Something caused that bullet to have a different trajectory and that something was because it was a different bullet. If it was the same bullet - i.e. the SBY - why is its trajectory angle not 17.72º

James

David,

Two questions I would like you to address.

Q1. On page 2 of this thread you comment:
The SBT bullet path is pretty much "explained" right there within CE903. It's right there in the picture. All you have to do is look at it and comprehend what it's telling you.
And even though a little "margin of error" must be granted Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission with respect to what we see in CE903 (because the 17.72-degree downward angle is, indeed, just the AVERAGE angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, plus there's the fact that the car being used in CE903 is not the SS-100-X limo), there are two things seen in CE903 that don't require any "margin of error" --- the "tie knot" exit wound location in JFK's throat and the entry hole in John Connally's back (with Specter's metal rod being inserted directly into the bullet hole in Connally's jacket---a jacket which the stand-in is wearing in CE903).
So you make it clear that at Z 210-225 CE903 demonstrates that the trajectory angle of the bullet from Oswald window to JBC’s back entrance was 17.72º.
Accepting that as fact. When the bullet traveled through John Connallly why was its trajectory angle 27º? This angle was measured in May 1964 before the WC on John Connally himself while he was seated and Connally explained he was in the exact position he was in when shot. From the Oswald window to Connally’s entrance the angle never changes. You have stated to everyone that the trajectory angle was 17.72º. Now it changes by 9.28º. Why is the trajectory stable until it reaches John Connally? Why is John Connally’s internal trajectory different by 9.28º from John Kennedy’s internal trajectory?

Q2. You claim that the SBT occurred between Z210 - Z 225. Part of the SBT is that John Connally’s arm is stuck. Some people think it was his wrist that was damaged. It was not his wrist, it was his arm at the Vista 4th at the bottom of the right radius.
Just before the film totally blurs at Z 187 John Connally’s arm is seen folded over his chest and very close to where the bullet will exit and with the palm side towards his chest. From Z 222 - Z 229 we do not see John Connally’s right arm and hand.
Qa. If we cannot see his arm and hand during these frames how are you able to prove it was struck then? I am not asking for assertion. I am asking how can you prove it.

Although we see John Connally’s right arm against his chest at Z 187, John Connally was not stuck in the arm on the palm-side of his arm. He was struck on the other side. The bullet’s internal trajectory traveled from the outside of the arm towards the palm side of the arm.
Qb. Now please demonstrate how anyone can physically twist their arm around so that the outside of the arm is now facing the chest exit wound and in position to be struck by the bullet.

James.

David,

Two questions I would like you to address.

Q1. On page 2 of this thread you comment:
The SBT bullet path is pretty much "explained" right there within CE903. It's right there in the picture. All you have to do is look at it and comprehend what it's telling you.
And even though a little "margin of error" must be granted Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission with respect to what we see in CE903 (because the 17.72-degree downward angle is, indeed, just the AVERAGE angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, plus there's the fact that the car being used in CE903 is not the SS-100-X limo), there are two things seen in CE903 that don't require any "margin of error" --- the "tie knot" exit wound location in JFK's throat and the entry hole in John Connally's back (with Specter's metal rod being inserted directly into the bullet hole in Connally's jacket---a jacket which the stand-in is wearing in CE903).
So you make it clear that at Z 210-225 CE903 demonstrates that the trajectory angle of the bullet from Oswald window to JBC’s back entrance was 17.72º.
Accepting that as fact. When the bullet traveled through John Connallly why was its trajectory angle 27º? This angle was measured in May 1964 before the WC on John Connally himself while he was seated and Connally explained he was in the exact position he was in when shot. From the Oswald window to Connally’s entrance the angle never changes. You have stated to everyone that the trajectory angle was 17.72º. Now it changes by 9.28º. Why is the trajectory stable until it reaches John Connally? Why is John Connally’s internal trajectory different by 9.28º from John Kennedy’s internal trajectory?

Q2. You claim that the SBT occurred between Z210 - Z 225. Part of the SBT is that John Connally’s arm is stuck. Some people think it was his wrist that was damaged. It was not his wrist, it was his arm at the Vista 4th at the bottom of the right radius.
Just before the film totally blurs at Z 187 John Connally’s arm is seen folded over his chest and very close to where the bullet will exit and with the palm side towards his chest. From Z 222 - Z 229 we do not see John Connally’s right arm and hand.
Qa. If we cannot see his arm and hand during these frames how are you able to prove it was struck then? I am not asking for assertion. I am asking how can you prove it.

Although we see John Connally’s right arm against his chest at Z 187, John Connally was not stuck in the arm on the palm-side of his arm. He was struck on the other side. The bullet’s internal trajectory traveled from the outside of the arm towards the palm side of the arm.
Qb. Now please demonstrate how anyone can physically twist their arm around so that the outside of the arm is now facing the chest exit wound and in position to be struck by the bullet.

James.

DVP said:- I don't see anything magical about the bullet proceeding on a slight Right-to-Left trajectory and being able to strike all three items in question ---
1.) JFK's upper right back (14 cm. below the tip of his mastoid process),
2.) the left side of JFK's necktie,
3.) and John Connally's far-right upper back.
See image above a frame from Myers Animation when the bullet struck JFK and JBC

Creating the red line from mid-point of tie to JBC is a very clear Right to Left trajectory.
You now admit that the SBT was acceptable even if it had a slight left to right trajectory. The top of the blue line -above the wound onJFK’s shoulder - is an approximate. You agree that the bullet must nick the left edge of the tie. That is now one of your criteria for the SBT.
You might ask why can the blue line not start at the same point as red, because I am trying to identify the slit. The red line is from the middle of the tie.

The difference between the angles is that with the red line I am lining up the tie exit with the point it struck JBC. I am not looking at any trajectories. It is a simple point to point line.

The Blue line is not trying to match these two point. The purpose of the blue line is to replicate the trajectory angle from back wound to nick on tie.The left to right trajectory.

You mention that JBC was turned to the right. Well Myers has done that.

You have accepted the bullet exited on a left to right trajectory. The difference between the end point - JBC’s back wound - and any bullet exiting on a left to right trajectory could not strike JBC’s back. Myers raises a serious issue that I had not previously considered. The angle from JFK’s throat is much larger than I had appreciated especially when you take the point of origin: the Oswald window.

I can see no possibility that a bullet leaving JFK’s on left to right trajectory - that you now accept - has any chance of striking JBC’s back.

James.

Thanks James.

I acknowledge that DVP has a wide encyclopedic knowledge of the evidence. However I sometimes find he does not always analyse the implications of evidence he cites - like CE 903.

He has yet to respond to my inital post about the SBT trajectory through JBC and I hold no hope that he will even though he will still argue that the SBT exited through JBC's chest. . He does not always think through the consequence of points he makes. Citing the damage to the tie, he comments that it was caused by the bullet as it passed on it way through. You and I both know it was the result of damage caused by nurses as they cut JFK clothing off him.

However accepting DVP's view of the SBT it suddently dawned on me that if DVP stands by his position he has some explaining. It is one thing to suggest that damage was caused by the bullet and quite another to explain how, Reflecting on DVP's statement I realised something I had not thought of before. The back wound is right of centre and the nick on the tie is left of center. At guess I would think the angle would be betwee 5-10º. That might actually miss JBC altogether or at best strike his left side. And that ignors the problems of the entrance wound being lower than the exit woind or how a bullet moving between these two points is able to avoid damaging the spine.

DVP is able to quickly cite all sorts of evidence but I am not sure he understand the implications of the points he sometimes makes. I had not - until now - realised the implication of the nick on the tie with regard to trajectory analysis. If DVP continues to stand by this aspect of the SBT I will be interested how this bullet was able to return to a left to right trajectory.

James.

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The word "approximating" is a two-way street, Ron. It applies to CTers as much as to LNers.

And, again, since CE903 is showing only the average angle between Z210 and 225, then quite obviously the 17d43m30s angle depicted in CE903 is NOT 100% accurate (unless you really do want to believe that the SBT shot occurred at precisely Z217.5). It's an "approximate" angle. And yet that "approximation" has two things that we know are spot-on accurate in CE903 (even though it is just an "approximation" and an "average angle") --- the exit wound location in JFK's throat (right at the tie knot) and the entry hole in John Connally's suit coat.

But, for some reason, those things being PERFECT (even via the "approximation" we see in Commission Exhibit 903) don't faze an anti-SBTer in the slightest. Go figure.

Really David I had expected better analysis from you.

You comment that the bullet made "exit wound location in JFK's throat (right at the tie knot)" One thing is certain the bullet never went through the tie. All there is, is a grazing on the right hand side. That was damage caused by the nursing staff - I believe it was Bowron - even though I know you dispute that. Aside that CE 903 takes no account of the trajectory from the Oswald window, if the bullet does indeed nick the tie on its journey then it is traveling in a right to left trajectory. Although JBC is sitting inboard there is no way such a bullet would strike him on the edge of the right shoulder - as you contend. It is more likely to strike JBC towards his left shoulder.

By all means argue for the SBT which I know you sincerely believe in but it is not permissible to distort trajectory analysis in order to do so. Straight lines are straight lines and if the bullet did indeed nick the tie on its journey it is now traveling in a left of centre direction - the bullet originated on JFK's right back and exited on the left side of the knot  on his tie - and yet you claim it will still manage to strike JBC on the edge of his right shoulder. 

That is some bullet!!

James

Cliff,

You are quite right. As I recollect there were many examples of Myers misinterpretation of the data.

My argument was to point out the weaknee of using CE 903. In 2D anyone can claim anything. For Dale Myres SBT it has to be a straighr line - which indeed he proves from his position of JFK's back wound to the Oswald window. It is even possible - if you accept all Myers says about the throat wound - which you and I do not accept -that Myers is able to get a straight line from the Oswald window to JBC's back wounf. However when Myers attempts to contine the trajectory through JBC's chest he has to ignore completely JBC's medical evidence. Were he to record JBC's wounding as the record records then he would not only no longer have a straight line his line wuld have to swerve to the right and then to the left to strike the corect locattion.

I do not know what is worse, continuing the trajectory line and have the bullet strike JBC's heart or creating a trajectory that zigs and zags and then strikes the correct location on JBC's back

James

David,

    Cliff’s criticism of your image is quite right. Put simply it tells us nothing. I am happy to admit that I do not believe or agree with the WC’s position. However lets look at this theory.
    Serious debate cannot be carried out in 2D. We cannot verify what any person has to say if our reference is CE 903. Although I do not agree with some of his data manipulation, Dale Myers 3D model is – in my view – as close to reality as it is possible to create.
    I know there have been discussions about Myers models of JFK and JBC, but for the sake of this discussion I am going to accept them as portrayed by Myers.
    What I want to discuss is the accuracy and consequence of his representation.  So using Myers images lets look at his theory.

Image 1:- Bullet Entry point on John Connally’s back:-

To be fair to Myers I believe his placing of the entry wound to Connally is reasonable. Because I cannot get a high res close up I cannot be precise. What I can say is that the wound placement is certainly in the correct area.

Image 2:- SBT Trajectory from JFK to JBC:-

In this image Myers creates a direct line from JFK’s exit point. Later in the video he is able to extend this line back to the Oswald window. There are all sorts of assumptions that Myers has made.
He assumes the throat wound is an exit wound.
He assumes that the shirt tear is an exit point.
He assumes the bullet went through the knot in the tie.
All three of these points I disagree with, however for the sake of discussion I will accept these points.

For me the main problem with this image is that we do not see the exit point on Connally’s chest. Agreeing that Myers has a reasonable entry point on JBC’s back and the position of the exit on JFK’s throat is in keeping with what the WC have argued it is important to see what the consequence of Myers trajectory would have on this theory.

Image 3:- Continuing Dale Myers SBT Trajectory Line:-

The red line is my underline of Myers own line. The direction of that line is Myers, I have just emphasised it. I have not changed it.

The blue line is mine. I have extended Myer trajectory.

The Yellow line is the trajectory of the wound that Connally suffered. The angle of the line is based on the position JBC is at this point: Z 223/24. If Connally had been sitting forward at this point the line would be more close to the SBT. Because he is not seated facing forward that is why the line is angled that way.

Extending Myers line introduces two consequences that are not in keeping with the evidence.
That exit makes very clear that this bullet exits around the middle of JBC’s chest. Because the line has the bullet exit at this point the bullet would pass very close to Connally’s heart. Such a wound would probably be fatal.
This trajectory contradicts the medical evidence. The bullet never entered Connaly’s chest. Rib fragments did, but the bullet did not. Myers representation of this trajectory passage breaches everything we know about the medical history of Connally’s treatment

Going back to CE 903 that David produced – and which is a legitimate piece of evidence - because it is in 2D anyone and everyone can argue as they wish without the fear of serious contradiction. However looking at Myers 3D images – and Myers is a serious and respected WC supporter – we can see the weaknesses in the SBT. Only when we extend Myers trajectory do we see the weakness which collapses the SBT. CE 903’s exit point on John Connally is fairly accurate. But then – as cliff has pointed out – the entrance is wrong. Correct the entrance point and the resulting trajectory would have the bullet exit on John Connally right side and not just under the right nipple.

James

I have hidden a few posts that contained unacceptable material - which also had nothing to do with this thread and those members should have known that

I suggest - to those who are trying to de-rail this thread - that they leave this thread. Taunting and irritataing fellow members is breaking the spirit of the rules of this forum.

James

I should have mentioned that, at present, I am only placing members on Two Posts for a week. The previous two members will be realeased on Sundsy.

A further member - who had a member of the admin team hide an earlier bumped post - ignored what should have been a clear warning and continued to make two further bumps. He has been placed on two Posts today and will be released next Thursday.

James.

He has not been banned. He has been placed on Two Posts a Day. He has simply has had the number of his posts limited.

Like everyone else he was warned about behaviour and he was warned what would happen were he to ignore that warning.

James.

I am pleased that within the last few weeks there has been a much more considerate mode of discussion.

That said I have already edited a number of member's posts and have already placed two members on "Two Posts a Week."

Where before I seldom read member's psosts, now I essentially read everything. I am pleased there is a more constrained mode of discussion but I alert those who thoink they can return to old behaviour. I will find you and I will deal with you.

On a positive note. Thank you for the change that has takken place over the last couple of weeks. It really does show respect for the President we all remember.

James.

Thanks Sandy,

Hopefully that will help those mebers who are having problems with their attachments.

That device - if it works - should still come from your storage limit. At present you have used 99% of your limit allocation.

Provided the device is not over used we can accept the occasional bumping. Where a member bumps all the time that is a different matter.

Regarding attachments I had hoped this was something admin could do: i.e. delete attachment cache. However that is not possible. You require to search for your previous posts and delete each attachment. What I advised Mervyn was to use a storage company like Photobucket to store your images and - rather than post the image - post the link to your image. These companies provide a free service. However if you intend to post  large numbers of images then probable the free s. service might not be sufficient for your needs.

Thank you all for the support.  

This minority - and I stress it is a small minority - have played us for far too long. This is not their forum it is everyones forum and it is time this minority - who will on all sorts of occasions pledge to behave and just as quickly forget their promises - it is well beyond time they are dealt with. And this time I intend to deal with them. They need us much more than we need them.

Members would be advised to take this warning seriously.

We know this refers to a minority of members but a noisy minority all the same. Members of the admin team are fed up with fellow members fighting each other on the forum. Personality clashes – for this minority – seem to be the new status quo. I had detected after my considering to no longer fund the forum that a new and positive tone had been born on the EF. Well for these members that did not last long.

The subject matter of the forum is the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If you have nothing to contribute to that, then take a rest until you do have something to contribute. However one thing is certain members of the admin team have had enough of your in-fighting.

Today I created a new membership class called Two Posts a Day. Members who continue this infighting will be placed into this membership class. You will get no warning, you will only be aware when the system informs you that you have used up your daily posting allocation. And if offending members continue their personal grievance they will be moved to another class called One Post per day.

If you wonder to what I refer the look at Page 7 of If Oswald was prayer Man - as just one example of this nonsense. I noted a member of the admin team commenting that this thread was now contributing nothing new. I also noted another member reminding members of the EF rules and being criticised for doing so.

I intend to continue funding this forum and if members are upset with such conditions then I invite you to go elsewhere. The admin team would be delighted with increased membership. We would also be delighted with increased and serious JFK discussion and research. However if portions of our membership are intent on infighting then we would prefer you to take your personal grievances elsewhere.You can forget your promises - promises mean nothing for this minority we have heard them all before. You are going to change or I will deal with you.

Thomas the link is still there and it works.

Once the person has completed the requirements they are required to email their wish to register. The address to email is provided.

I thought that Richard Trask might have known. But although Jimmy Darnell is mention numerous times Trask has no information about what camera he used.

Gentlemen,

This is not the normal practice to discuss a fellow member on the public forum, however since a number of you wish to raise Brian Doyle's membership I will address the issue.

I had to look back into his history and why he was disciplined. Aside from his indiscipline while on the forum that resulted in several complaints, he was extremely insulting to the entire admin team. In several emails to the admin team he referred to the complete team as "incompetent." From the emails it was clear he was not prepared to compromise his behaviour and suggestions that were made to him were ignored and the admin member who raised the issue with him was verbally abused by him.

Brian's case focused on the essential point that he was not prepared accept the terms of membership and in the end - after a long series  of emails - it was decided to delete his membership.

Therefore if Brian would like to again to be a member of the EF then he will need to re-apply for membership. It appears that Brian has not made clear to those who are advocating his case that he is no longer a member. So options like restoring posring privileges etc do not apply, because he is no longer a member.

I believe Brian was the only member who's account we have deleted. Yes we have deleted accounts, but on those occasions the member has requested we do so on their behalf. Brian I believe is the only one whose membership the admin team decided to delete.

James.

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

So will we be posting here in a few month's ?  Should we be donating?

Yes it probably would be a good idea to create a donating system. I have tried but I keep getting lost and place the idea onto the back burner since I have more pressing concerns.

The question of membership statistics was raised and I agree they are not so readily available as they were on Invision software 3. I will look into that for you all.

Regarding the principle of funding I will continue to fund the EF and the EF will continue to exist beyond May 2018. I have been heartened by a definite change in tone on the forum.