James R Gordon

Denny, Today I came across my copy of "The Bastard Bullet." I had forgotten I had a copy of it. Below is a link to a PDF copy of it:- https://www.transferbigfiles.com/48e1d431-3acf-4913-bda9-9361fdd3227f/-qMGSEMyVWOUKxtV-_sCFw2 James

A very happy Christmas to everyone. I hope the new year that is fast approaching us, is a good and kind one to you all. James

Robert. I have no idea why you should be confused. It was your words I was quoting. The post by DVP - that you answered and from whichI took a quote by you - pointed out that Connally never said that he heard a bullet fall from his stretcher. My post simply posted out that what you said - in the excerpt I posted - was oblique. It was not clear whether this comment you made referred to Connally stating he heard the bullet fall and/or that Connally made it clear that he believed in a conspiracy. If the latter, I have no idea why you should identify points towards the end of his life. Although John Connally never used the word conspiracy in the 60's and 70's by determined sticking to his position that he was never hit by the same bullet that caused JFK's throat wound he was clearly supporting a conspiracy.

Robert Harris said: "So he waited until he was literally on his death bed to come forward and the nation was at a point where most people knew this was a conspiracy anyway. By then, no harm would come." Robert I am not sure what you are saying here. David's point was that there was never any statement from John Connally about hearing a bullet falling from his stretcher. Are you suggesting that towards the end of life John Connally did indeed mention to friends that he had heard a bullet falling from his stretcher? James.

Robert, You are using a very poor copy of CE 842 and it is leading to make incorrect analysis. Up in the top left hand corner - and circled in red by you - are what look life two F's. Actually there are creases in that part of the document that have led you - because of the poor quality of the image - to believe that there were two letter F's. I suggest you contact Gary and see whether he will give the colour high res copy he has. James

Robert, If I may intrude on this conversation I believe you are in error when you suggest that the envelope "clearly shows that this envelope had been scribbled on with the garbage partially erased. There is no way that Bell would have used an envelope like that." I am sorry but that is not the case. I have a copy of Gary's Connally book. In Chapter 29 there is a high resolution colour image of this receipt. On this image there are no such "scribbles" and "erasures." I can only suggest that you are dealing with a very poor image that is misleading you. The original is in yellow and the signatures are clear and show no sign of having been tampered with. I would post the original image but I agreed with Gary when I was given a copy of his work that I would release no such images without his prior approval. I would suggest you contact Gary and see if he will give you a copy of his image. That might help clarify this matter for you. James.

Well that was quick. Invision have just got back and have said that they have sorted the root cause of the problem. However, maybe a good idea if similar problem occur that you notify me and I can pass them up to Invision. James.

I have forwarded this problem to Invision. I'll report back to you when Invision get back to me. James.

David, You are right that the host of this site is not us but Invision. However - though I have not read all the small print - if a claim were made to Invision for copyright infringement I am certain there is something in our conditions of use where it is stated that in these cases the responsibility does not rest with Invision but the owners of this site. Further - the admin team - do not want to encourage the posting of commercial propriety material. Whether we would be chased is not the point. This site is not YouTube. Our central focus is the assassination of JFK and we have no wish to weaken that core of attention. You are also right that there are numerous linking of videos throughout the site. And I accept that we - the admin team - have been lax on this issue and allowed all kinds of video links to be posted. That will be coming to an end. This is a JFK research site and clearly videos focused on that subject - such as your collection - are acceptable. However videos that are not JFK focused - when noticed - will be removed. Finally, you claim that were a claim to be launched against this forum we would not be deemed liable. If a serious claim were to be made I am not certain that we would be free of responsibility. I am sure - within the small print of our rules of ownership - there is more than enough amunition for a claim to be made against us. Aside from the aesetics, the admin team feel it would be foolish to place the forum in such danger.

Ramon, There is no way the EF is going allow itself to be open to a copyright infringement. The power of the "Greys Anatomy" studio would bankrupt the members of the admin. We are the ones they would first seek judgement against and we have no defence against what you want to do. We would be culpable for allowing you to post such copyright material on our site. I have removed the link to your video. I advise you not to re-link - there will be immediate sanctions against you should you do so. James.

Sandy, I have no idea why you mention Doris Nelson. The only people who were in Trauma room 1 while JFK's clothes were removed were Charles Carrico, Diana Bowron and Margaret Hinchcliffe. Of those three the only person who testified that the bullet entered above the shirt collar was Charles Carrico, and it is clear you do not believe him. Doris Nelson may well have entered trauma room 1 at a later point, but by that time JFK's clothes had been removed. I have not the slighest idea why you would suggest that the bullet fired from a Mannlicher Carcano would travel slow enough to cause tears to JFK's shirt as opposed to a penetration hole. I assume you have seen the research by Michael and Lucien Haag for "Case Cold." Their presentation proved that a Mannlicher Carcano bullet could travel through 46 planks of pine creating a small round hole in each. But you state that this bullet can only tear the front of JFK's shirt. Can you comment why this same bullet created: a) a hole in the back of JFK's jacket. b a hole in the back of John Connally's jacket c) a hole in the back of John Connally's shirt. d) a perfectly round hole on the front of John Connally's jacket. How was this bullet able to do all that and yet only tear the front of JFK's shirt? Assuming that this tear as a bullet exit JFK's body ( which I do not subscribe to ) this exit hole is below the collar line. That places the wound at approximately at the level of the Clavicle. That is nowhere near Vertabra's 3 and 4. The bullet cannot be in two places at the same time. If you are stating that this tear is evidence of the bullet's exit, then this exit wound is nowhere near Vertrabra's 3 and 4. JFK's shirt does not present the ambiguity of FOX 1. Because of the position of JFK's head on the table it is possible to argue that the wound is consistent with Vertabra's 3 and 4. the damage to the shirt is very different. There is no way to argue that this tear is not close to the Clavicle. The position of this tear is nowhere near vertabra's 3 and 4 and yet there is clear testimony that the exit hole in JFK's neck was adjacent to vertabra's 3 and 4. James

Sandy, What kind of Scalpels are you accustomed to? "hacked away at the tie." James.

Sandy, Harold Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico. (Post Mortem P. 598) He infored him that the nurses who were initially with him in Trauma room 1 ( before everyone else entered the room ) made those nicks on the shirt. He witnessed these cuts being made. I believe it may have been Diana Bowron. I understand a scalpel was used. It does look like a scalpel cut. When cutting the tie the scalpel also cuts into the button hole part of the shirt and mekes it deepest cut there. The scalpel continues to damage the button side of the shirt, but this time it is a lighter and smaller cut. I understand scissors is now the preferred method for removing clothes, but these do not look like scissor cuts. Like the damage to the shirt, it looks more like a knife (scalpel) has been used to cut it. Bottom line. Unless there is reason to contradict Carrico - he states the these cuts were made under his supervision. James.

David, From what I can see you blue circle is way out. As I remember it the cut is on the button side of the shirt - not the button hole side. Your circle - if anything - should be on the other side. However - as I recolect - when the shirt is buttoned up the hole is essentially in the center of the shirt. Fropm what I can see if this nick was caused by the bullet then it appears to me that in order to create this damage the bullet has to pass through the knot of the shirt. James

David Von Pein quoted: An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89–90; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).” -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote) I had not been aware that Bugliosi had made that comment. All credit to him, the usual description is a through-and-through whole. However it does raise a problem that I would like you to address David. The slit in the shirt - which I understand is the exit point for the bullet - is acutally behind the tie. It is just slightly to the right of the shirt's top button when the shirt is buttoned up - as JFK's top shirt button was at the time of impact. ( I am referring to JFK's right. ) My point is that this slit is behind the knot in the tie. And so if there is no through-and-through hole in the tie ( as you have reported Vincent Bugliosi stating ) then how can this bullet continue its exit path after the tear in the shirt if it does not continue its path through the knot in the tie? I can see no means for it to do that. James.

Michael, I am less qualified on the wounds to JFK, than I am to those of John Connally. However the suggestion that the doctors that treated JFK would make such a mistake is - in my view - insulting. Regarding the wounds to John Connally I am on sounder ground. The wound that Connally received ran down the outside of his chest wall. It actually ran down the bone of the fith rib. Around the waist area the bullet came into contact with the fifth rib itself and created a "slapping" wound/impact as described by Robert Shaw. This impact shattered the rib bone matter. I am still not sure whether a gap was created in the rib or it was fragmented: i.e. there were holes all over it. This shattered bone matter was pushed inside the chest cavity and damaged Connally's right lung, whereas the bullet carried on its journey outside the chest cavity. Yes it exited just below the right nipple but it did so following the track of the fifth rib. In addition these bone fragments also exited through the wound below the right nipple. It is my belief that that the extent of this wounnd was a combination of bullet impact as well bone fragment exiit. These fragments created a diagonal series on holes in Connally's shirt from the level of the pocket down to the waist. These holes are visible on the 1964 FBI colour photo of the shirt. In number they are well over a hundred holes and piercings. The bullet - contary to all the wise men of the Warren Commission - ran under Connally's skin ( or just a little inside the muscles ). It never entered the chest cavity. Had it done so and had it exited beneath the right nipple ( from within the chest cavity ) that would have placed the bullet tract very close to the heart. That would probably be a fatal wound - or certainly a life threatening wound. James

Michael, You commented:- Could some doctors, technicians and nurses been led to, or "encouraged" to believe that they were working on, seeing, x-raying, and viewing wounds to Conally's back, rather than Kennedy's back? Could perp-doctors have, while operating on Connally, actually created evidence for the wound that passed-through Connally's chest? First with the greatest repect Michael, you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. To suggest that Perry et al would have made such a mistake with regard to the wounds they knew JFK had suffered is an insult to these doctors. Second to suggest that Robert Shaw, Red Duke and Charles Carrico were "perp-doctors" demonstrates how little you know about those surgeons who worked on Govenor Connally. Third No bullet passed through Govenor Connally's chest. Only bone fragments entered his chest cavity. Parkland hospital in November 1963 could boast they had on staff some of the finest surgeons in America. James.

Paul, I agree and you comment about his "meticulous research" is for me the critical point and the reason I can accept ( or at least reserve my opinion ) on what would otherwise be outrageous theories. Those - and especially LN's - who openly criiticise his opinions have not undergone the nearly 50 years of primary research that he has conducted. That work deserves an unbiased hearing. And James, I agree the absence of the new volume is a mystery. I am assuming David is working on further evidence. However - that said - it is one of the books I am most looking forward to. James.

I am sorry to hear that news. I am also very grateful for the number of times Bernice helped me with images I was trying to acquire. I found her to be a very positive person and a great contributor to this forum. She will be sadly missed.

Admin has decided to close this thread. It is clear - that after 76 pages - the debate is going nowhere. The proponents of PrayerMan are so grounded in “their truth” that any alternatives suggested are quickly dismissed. There does exist a forum that supports this theory and - maybe - that is where the supporters of this proposition should now congregate and endlessly repeat their views to the like minded resident there. The Education Forum stands for thoroughly researched evidence and theories and although serious attempts have been to introduce logic and discipline into this topic the supporters of PrayerMan have made that impossible.

An update on the Lancer Archive:- I do not know whether I mentioned it but the original files that Debra Conway transferred into our safe keeping were horrendously corrupted. The developer informed me that he had never witnessed a hack this severe. There was no possibility of a restoration as [ not only were the files corrupted ] the very structure of the site had been destroyed. At that point it appeared that the project had come to an end. However - just on a hope - I contacted Debra to see whether she had stored earlier backups. She answered that she had earlier backups and sent us one. However not only was this backup corrupted it did not contain the a backup of the data files. Hoping that there was still in existence an earlier backup I contacted Debra and asked for a copy of the structure files as well as the data files. Debra informed me that although this was a difficult time for her she would download a further copy. Unfortunately the download did not fully work and it was never received. Recently I became aware what Debra meant by it being a "difficult time" for her. Her sister - Sherry Fiester - is very ill. And it is the kind of situation I prefer not to disturb Debra at this point in time. So where are we? First:- It appears that clean backups of the JFK Lancer do exist. And therefore it appears a restoration is indeed possible. However - being earlier copies - it is not clear just how much of the archive will now be able to be restored. Second:- Restoration is on hold. Debra has enough on her plate without me reminding her to re-download the set that earlier did not download properly. Third:- the developer is happy to pause the restoration until the clean set of data is sent to them. Fourth:- I suspect it will be a little while before the restoration is begun again. James.

Sandy, I believe the original site has expired. There is a new one. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum James.

One of the features of this forum dating back to its very origin is the requirement that members conduct their conversations in a courteous manner. Generally speaking that has been the overwhelming norm on this forum. That said some threads have been more lively of late and this expected standard has - on occasions - dropped. It is not acceptable that when discussions become heated - as discussions are on the Oswald has left the TSBD thread - to resort to insulting members. We - members of the admin - ask members to abide the established code of discussion. Those who continue to transgress will be rewarded with an extended holiday from posting on the forum. However it is hoped that will not be required to be implemented. James

Thanks Robin, Do we have any kind of time stamp for this image? I know Lovelady and Shelly are not insight at this point, but they are out of picture and making their way along Elm. It would be helpful to know approximately when this image was taken. James

Bart, I am making my way through this book. I know the book is called “Prayerman: out of the shadows and into the light.” However it could very easily have been titled “What Sean Murphy said.” I do not know if you are involved in the slagging-off that is currently going on in ROKC and the members there. It says a great deal about the character of those members but more important the extent ROKC and the membership will go to when they notice someone criticising an issue they hold to be important to them. I can understand the abuse that Bill Miller and I have received. But I am appalled that just because Robin Unger commented that he did not believe Prayerman was Oswald a whole page in their current web of abuse directed at EF membership has been devoted to unseemly abuse directed solely at Robin. I say shame on ROKC and shame on those members who participated in this kind of criticism. I do hope you are not a party to this behaviour for although I disagree with you on this issue I have found you to be an honourable person. And now to respond to the second floor encounter. It has become clear to me that this is a critical issue - and one the supporters of this theory cannot allow to stand. There is a very telling moment in Chapter 2. Stan quotes Sean Murphy reflecting that if the encounter with Baker took place at the second floor lunchroom then Prayerman is unlikely to be Oswald. Throughout the book it becomes very clear that the second floor lunchroom meeting becomes a crucial part of the narrative. If it can be questioned and undermined then it will support Prayerman being Oswald and - if it cannot be questioned - the second floor meeting will destroy the idea that Prayerman is Oswald. Aware of the damage if this meeting could be established as factual Sean muses that even if Oswald/Prayerman is in his position outside and sees Baker rushing into the building there was still time for him to leave his position rush upstairs to the second floor grab a Coke and be there in time for the meeting. This scenario goes nowhere because it is quickly realised just how ridiculous it is. However - ridiculous though this idea is - it underlined just how critical the second floor meeting is and how if not dealt with it could explode the idea that Prayerman was Oswald. And this has raised a thought. Throughout the book we are told this person lied, this did not happen, this testimony is false. I am now wondering whether this is all gamesmanship to protect Oswald being Prayerman rather than the fruits of research.