James R Gordon

Jim,

April 4th is the date of my last payment. That payment keeps the forum funded until May 11th so the forum has around 6 weeks remaining.

Regarding keeping the present site Invision will provide a complete backup. The problem is that backup needs to be hosted and that hosting needs to be paid for.

I have been looking into a donation system. Our old donation system was deleted when I agreed that Invision upgrade us to Forum software V4. It is a little more complex but I would hope to get it up and running shortly. 

Yes we could move to another host, but I feel we would be better off staying with Invision. However, unless it has to fall on a single member - irrespective of who that member is - maybe we should think about a donation system. I will try and expedite the donation system and see where that takes us.

I will consider extending Invision's fee for a couple of more months. Essentially I am just fed up of member squabbling. Pat Speer may well be right that compared to other sites ours is much more respectful. However there is a minority who have used forum threads either to flood members with their pet theme irrespective of the actual theme of the thread. Or use threads to engage in personal squabbles  with fellow members. I detect that in the last few days the forum is seeing a change of tone. It is my hope that new dialogue will continue.

James

This morning I noted that there were 762 reads of the thread and 13 responses - and that included the multiple responses by two members who used the thread to continue their own discussions. It would appear that the majority of members who read the thread do not share my views and have ignored the thread. In all good conscience I cannot accept remaining with the status quo and all the issues that has provoked and also be expected to fund this forum - as I have done for a number of years. I will stop payments to Invision after April 4th. That means this forum is funded until May 11th - approximately 7 weeks. What happens now to the EF is for the membership to decide.

I want to make one more comment today. Mark Knight is right we do all have other commitments - though not the demands that Mark has from the needs of his family member. And I usually rely on members reporting rather than actively monitoring this site

Mark is a much more restrained admin member than I. Many is the time he has counselled me from positions I wanted to take. Aside from Mark and Paul, I want to hear if there actually are members who also feel that the use of language is important in the quality of discussion. I honestly am not sure the general membership feel it is important and one member has already insulted me and this thread.

So I would like to know, am I the only one who is concerned?

I feel language does matter and I agree I - speaking only for myself - have been inconsistent here.

I admit - and I am embarrassed to admit it - but I did not know until this morning that Paul had opened a thread on why he was leaving the forum—17 hour ago. I have a business that is the main focus of my attention and I have not given sufficient attention to this forum.

Regarding David Josephs when the member makes it impossible to comment on his behaviour I felt moderation was my only option rather than allowing that member to continue his behaviour.

Accepting that I am inconsistent I believe that language does matter. In my view the conduct of members - provoked by fellow members - is not an excuse. This point I make in response to what Steve Thomas has made. Language was a principle  position of JFK and I believe we should feel the same. If members are unable to express themselves without the use of such expressions then I feel that is a problem for this forum. And because such expressions are allowed elsewhere on the internet is not a an acceptable excuse. . And here is where I believe I have been inconsistent because on many occasions I have dealt with a particular member and not with those who provoked that member.

I agree we will - not may - need to edit our rules. We must always have a means to contact fellow members other than discipling them - which I admit I have done up till now.

I am making an extraordinary statement to the forum. Mark Knight is one of the four owner admin members of this forum - Kathy Beckett is presently on holiday and David Butler has yet to comment.

My comment which gave rise to this reflection by Mark was a comment by me - to the admin team-  about being unable to contact David Joseph about his contacted.

Hi all,
There was a complaint about David’s arrogant attitude a little while ago. I tried to PM him but he has blocked any PM’s Actually is something we can change??
Anyway since I could not contact him I placed him on moderation, thinking that he would get in touch asking why. But no, and his attitude continued and I just did not approve any post.
Any way I have removed his privileges. Maybe when he can no longer post he will ask why and I can then explain that his attitude needs some improvement.
James

I have released David for the benefit of this conversation. Mark made the following comment to me which I publish - in whole - without seeking his consent. However I wish to make clear it is because of his statement that I am creating this thread. If Paul Bracato has indeed exited the forum because of current behaviour on the forum - and I believe Mark is also referring to admin behaviour I totally agree with Mark. And if a member of his standing has decided to leave the form then it is not something we should ignore Or Assume that there are not other members who feel exactly the same as Paul.

The text of Mark’s email to me:-

I think we may have a problem here.
Paul Brancato is one of the most reasonable and thoughtful forum members we have...or had, if he follows through.
David Josephs is on vacation from the forum...but Thomas Graves is not. While Mr. Graves may not be making personally insulting posts, most of his recent posts certainly insult the intelligence of the average forum member.
But Mr. Graves remains, mocking the entire purpose of the forum.
So does Michael Walton, whose incessant carping at Chris Davidson without actually citing any errors in his calculations is getting quite tiresome, at least to me. Is Chris Davidson on the right track? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But as he's working out his evidence, should we continue to allow Mr. Walton to, essentially, question Davidson's intelligence?
Now, I am certainly not a rabble-rouser. But Mr. Brancato's proposed departure tells me that we are doing SOMETHING wrong in the way we are handling this forum.
So what's the answer? If I had it, with 100% certainty, I'd share it with you. But I don't know.
What I do know is, if we run off the Brancatos and keep the Graves' and the Trejo's, what kind of forum will we have in 6 months, or a year? Probably not the kind we want to have.
Discuss, criticize me, whatever. But we need to be doing something differently, IMHO.

I feel very strongly that language does matters even on a forum whose purpose is to exam the brutal murder of an American President. It has been my position that conduct of members- whatever the criticism of that members - by other members may have been towards them - should not be excused. And maybe I - and I stress “I” - have not been consistent on this matter.

I leave it to members to discuss what the future of this forum should be. And be in no doubt that the future of this forum is the point. If respected members are voting with their feet and are leaving this is an issue we ALL should be concerned about.

I see the site is back up again.

Yes I agree something strange is going on. I am hoping the site has not gone out of buisness because I have a subscription to it. I use it a great deal. I am aurprised I have received no email from them. Hopefully I will hear from them soon.

I came across another article that Raymond wrote on the Single Bullet.

Link to file is here:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/9689ad80-bad8-47d8-92d9-9c0869bbaee1/CUx97jVIvPM-dA27-99zUw2

James

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

When a projectile is traveling at a relatively slow speed, it will tear the fabric instead of "cutting out" a hole the shape of the projectile's cross-section. The same will happen when there is nothing backing the fabric to provide resistance against the movement of the fabric.

 

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

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

James,

However, I don't believe the person would have hacked away at the tie unless it were pulled away from the body. The risk of making cuts into the body -- the neck in this case -- would have been close to 100% IMO. Anybody with a little common sense would have pulled the tie away from the neck while making the cut.
 

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.