James R Gordon

Gentlemen, Kathy was very fair to you and gave you the respite to reflect on what has been happening on this thread. Well that appeared to have no affect. I am locking this thread and the members of the admin will be reflecting on certain members behaviour. Please note that this is referred to as the "Education" Forum and one element of education is that discourse is implies a conversation based on EVIDENCE!!! Something that appears to be lacking in certain quarters. I will be open and state I am very edgy about this kind of situation and behaviour. The Lancer Archive - that is now in development - is going to be very significantly much more than the original Lancer Forum. And one element that is now at the heart of this development is the importance of the sharing of resources and ideas: and all of that is part of education. The Lancer archive is now going to have very the initial ideas that were originally embedded in the original forum. But it is going to do much more than that. When it is launched members are going to be astonished at its rebirth, And so - I am sorry but at the moment I am very sensitive to this kind of nonsense that reoccured after a member of the admin team had asked you reflect on your behaviour. James.

Thanks David. I clearly misread your post. James.

Brad, Thanks I'll look forward to receiving the link. David, Are you arguing for this structure to be implemented onto the restored Lancer. I can see advantages of such a structure. Not sure whether there is sufficient info left to restore it. However if you feel that structure would benefit members I am happy to ask if it can be implemented. James.

Larry and Brad, I do not know the actual process by which the restoration will take place - which actually began today. What I do know is that the site is being rebuilt from the ground up. One option we were given was to restore the site with its original software. We decided not to do that but have the bespoke rebuild. The hosting of the site is totally secure, it will not be possible to hack it in the manner it was hacked before. When we received the archive Debra assured us that all the files were there. I do not doubt her for a second, but - having followed this conversation - I am wondering if there are files the site no longer has. And so if anyone has files from the original site I would be pleased to receive them and have them added to the archive. What we do have we are assured is able to be totally restored. In the process of logging on every member is given the opportunity of linking to the active JFK Lancer Productions and Publications. Reference to JFK Lancer is an active aspect of this rebuild. In addition every function of the site has its own version of the present Lancer splash. JFK Lancer is seen - by us - as an ongoing venture. The original JFK Lancer was a text based forum. All of that will be restored and members will be able to add replies to all the previous threads. In addition we are adding a new function to the site. This is still being discussed, but we intend to have a mew part of the new site which will be able to host video presentations - hopefully live as well as recoded. These presentations will be video based as opposed text based. Clearly text responses will be allowed but central purpose of this part of the site is that these threads will be a live or prepared video - and we are not talking about clips which will be allowed on the text part of the site. We envisage these presentations to be reasonably substantial. As I say this part of the rebuild is still under discussion, but we believe we may have a solution and we have been led to believe this is not only possible but will not require a second mortgage to pay for it. When the site will open is still being discussed. We are very tempted to delay opening till November and coincide with the 2016 Lancer conference. James.

It was a wound of entrance from a hit circa Z190 as established by ear and eye witnesses Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner. Betzner said he took his #3 photo (Z186) immediately before a gun shot. Willis said he took his #5 photo (Z202) in a startle-response to a gun shot. I agree Cliff.I also agree with your post 327. I feel these are question of a fundamental nature to understanding what happened that day.

Michael, If it helps you here are quality versions of the Autopsy Face Sheets http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Autopsy%20Images/AutopsyDescriptionP1.png http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Autopsy%20Images/AutopsyDescriptionP2.png

Ray, The troubling “if's” are beginning to accumulate in a variety of threads on this forum. James

It is very difficult to talk with a closed mind and I prefer an open mind.

Robert, On post 149 - I believe - I quoted the fact that to Weisberg Carrico said these slits were created by a scalpel which he witnessed happening. The fact that no-one else said that means nothing because no-one asked any witnessed what caused the slits and was it a scalpel. In addition, at the point this happened only Carrico and the nurses were in the Trauma room 1. It was shortly after that everyone else entered. At that point his shirt had been removed. Carrico was the only doctor who witnessed this. One member pointed out that no-one else confirmed this. Of course not: no-one else was in the room when it happened. Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light. 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 As I understand it buttons of the kind worn on JFK’s shirt were around 1cm in circumference, That means the - inside slit and smaller slit - would be around 1.484cm. Whereas the - outside slit and larger slit - would be around 1.883cm. There may well be a definitive reference to the size of each - which I do not have. Most important Carrico says that the wound “was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns.” So a small round object creates two vertical slits. In addition the first slit is smaller than the second - something that does not normally happen. If you look at the FOX 1 image you will still see the lower half of this wound. The upper half has been destroyed by the tracheotomy. The shape and size of this shape supports what Carrico says. So whatever it was that created this small round hole went on to create two fabric damages on JFK’s shirt that are both vertical and different in size. In addition the outer slit - aside from being larger than the inner one - starts above the point where the inner one starts.

Robert, Sibbert and O'Neill said that - and yes I believe them, Like David Lifton I do not disbelieve everything Humes says, however I accept Perry on this occasion. He had no reason to lie about the location, whereas the autopsy is mired in all kinds of mischief.

Robert, I have adjusted my diagram. in two ways. a) I agree that that damage to the trachea was between rings 2 and 3. However in my diagram I had the line below ring 3. So I moved it up a bit. With red lines I have identified what I believe are Trachea rings 1 to 3. I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down. As a consequence of those changes I get the distance between the Adam's apple and between rings 2 and 3 to be 1.8925 inches. Given your calculations on yourself and your clothing - however incorrect that will be because all JFK's clothing were bespoke and created for him. His clothing was not off the peg. - this adjusted figure takes the rings above the shirt collar. James

Paul, Gary Murr asked you a precise question which you dodged and avoided answering. If you have no idea what facts will be released in 2017 it is fine to say you do not know. But if you have some idea what they are then it is only politeness to answer and to inform members. But suggesting to Gary that you will inform him "Certainly, Gary" and then promptly rabbit on about things every member already knows - does not answer Gary's question. James

Sandy, Robert Prudhomme said in post 180: “Now, just to be a good sport, I put on my ambulance uniform shirt and did up the collar button. This shirt has a modest collar roughly similar in shape and height to the collar of JFK's bloodstained shirt. I measured from my Adam's apple (laryngeal prominence) to the top of my shirt collar and found this distance to be 1.5 inches. If the distance from my Adam's apple to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring is 2.44 inches, as you have determined, this means there is .94 inches (almost a full inch!) from the top of my collar to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.” I did not say he accepted my position, but I made clear he was honest enough to agree that theoretically there was space for a wound to occur above the edge of the shirt collar. I am under no illusions that Robert has changed his position, but I respect that he was able go outside his own preferred position and acknowledge a possibility. As to your methodology we will have to agree to disagree.

Sandy, With respect I suggest you read Robert's post 180 - where he quite correctly corrected one of my calculations. In that post he agreed that there was indeed room for the bullet to enter above the collar line. The fact that your methodology took the entrance to .25" below the slits should have told you something. Ratioing with respect the ear from a screen dump is not the best way to go about this question. In my last post I endeavoured to take this argument onto a more scientific level. I was pleased to see that Robert fully engaged in that discussion and even accepted that it was possible that an entrance could have entered above the collar line. Anatomically I am not sure how accurate it is measure the neck flesh to estimate the location of tracheal rings. If Robert and I am correct that using the tracheal results that we have both posted how have you gained a result that is so different. There is a massive difference - relatively speaking - from a wound being scientifically possible to be above the shirt collar to your calculation that it is actually below the collar structure.

Robert, The problem with this discussion - as I see it - is that the theory you hold is based on the medical drawing. You have given us no idea of the actual distance between these two points. You have compared a series of pictures and compared them with your drawing. The problem is that your drawing does not give an indication of distance between the locations under discussion. So the first question is what is this distance - in actual fact - between these two points. This is a pointless discussion until we know that value. Only then can we judge whether the images we have support your contention. As it turns out I can find no study focused on this issue. However I have found one study that - with further calculation - is of assistance. Between the Anterior Commissure and the first tracheal ring the mean distance [ for adults over 40 ] is 31.75mm. Taking that value the distance between the Thyroid and tracheal ring 3 is around 62mm, I am taking the wound as being between rings 2 and 3, So in inches this distance is around 2.7 inches. So now we need to judge whether the wound could be above the collar upper edge or below it. See video link below. http://vid1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/throat_zpspxlcbeof.mp4 From what I can judge that distance is more than 2.7mm

Robert, Using your image from Main Street, it is clear that JFK's Adam's apple is significantly distanced from the top of his shirt collar. It is not close at all. If his head were not raised - as it is in Fort Worth - then it is clear the Fort Worth image agrees with the Main Street image. Both make clear that the Adams apple is significantly above the top of his shirt collar.

Really!!! We will just have to agree to disagree here

I thought I recognized that bottom photo. Sure enough, it is the one Ashton used in this animated GIF. I think it says something that the photo showing the adam's apple the highest above the shirtline, is the one that was used to show that the wound was low, below the shirtline. BTW, not only are the ears perfectly aligned in the animated GIF, so are the adam's apples. Sandy two issues worth considering. a) The image of JFK on Main Street is taken from above. Therefore it is not clear exactly where his Adam apple is with respect to his shirt collar. From above the Adam's apple appears closer to the shirt's collar than it may be. The blending of the two images has an inherent problem within it. On the Fox image JFK's head is stretched backwards. This is highlighted by the crinking of his throat muscles which can be seen at the back of his neck before his clothing is imposed. As a consequence the position of the Adam's apple in this gif is not a reliably indicated. This is also a problem for the images themselves. In one image JFK is standing up straight. In the Fox image his head is stretched back. These images - I suggest - are not the same and by blending them you are getting a skewed result. James

Yes I can see the Adam's apple in post 160. However it does not help since JFK is leaning forward and we cannot gauge the exact position of the Adam's apple. Going back to your B&W image you have misplaced the Adam's apple. The line in the image below points it out. What you are suggesting is the Adams apple is a feature in the neck below the Adam's apple. In the Fort Worth image I have highlighted this feature that you are convinced is the Adam's apple. Be careful - second warning. Saying anyone with "decent vision" can see the object is being insulting. You are suggesting that if people cannot see what you can see they have a vision defect.

Robert, If you are talking about the B&W image on the left the Adams Apple is significantly above the buttoned area of the collar and therefore the tie. You cannot tell with the Coloured image. At what Z frame do you contend the injury occurred. It would be helpful to establish the position of JFK's head. If it is similar to the B&W image then I am not sure your point can be upheld. Finally try not to insult members, it is not a good idea. Whatever a members opinion treat it with respect. It is one of the basic rules of the forum!!!

Robert, There are a couple of problems with your image: a) Your image has a different size collar. It is also drawn together by a clip. c) His head is positioned differently but most of all d) My images shows the shirt JFK was wearing when he was shot. JFK was not shot when wearing the shirt in your picture.

Robert Pruhomme said:- “We know from looking at photos of JFK from earlier on 22/11/63 that the top of his shirt collar was resting against the bottom of his thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), placing the wound in his throat well below the top of his shirt collar and, coincidentally, almost exactly where the "slits" in his shirt were.” That is totally incorrect as this image taken at Fort Worth that morning demonstrates.

Robert Prudhomme said: “The word "collar" is deceiving. You're right, the slits are just below the narrow collar band, but well above the actual bottom of the collar itself.” Post 140 I have no idea what you are saying here Robert. The fabric underneath the “collar strap” - as you put it - lies beneath the neck. But you say that beneath the “collar strap” is also part of the collar: as you say it is the “bottom of the collar.” Can you point out where that part of the collar is on the shirt? My understanding is that what is referred to as the “collar strap” is the collar of a shirt. Robert Prudhomme said: “Something we all should consider is that while we seem to be in agreement that the "slits" below the collar band were not made by a scalpel, they certainly had to be made by something, and I find it highly coincidental they are roughly in alignment with a nick in the tie that is adjacent to what appears to be a bloodstain.” Post 143 On page 598 of “Post Mortem” Harold Weisberg makes the following comment about the slits on the shirt. He says that Carrico said “that this damage to the shirt was done when the necktie was cut off by nurses under his supervision during the emergency treatment.” We know Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico and this comment makes clear that Weisberg clearly asked Carrico about these slits. Carrico makes stated that the damage was created by a scalpel. He also makes clear he was in the room when these cuts were made. If you disagree with this evidence from Carrico what evidence have you got that he is not telling the truth or that he did not see Diana Bowron - who I believe was one of the two nurses - use a scalpel to cut the tie and shirt off. It is a common complaint that no one else said this. Well maybe the answer is that no other researcher asked that specific question to Charles Carrico: no one bothered to ask him how these slits were made. In addition the state of the front of the shirt supports the notion that a scalpel rather than scissors were used to cut the shirt off JFK.

Sandy, I assume you have not looked closely enough. These slits are not similar in size. In screen pixels on my screen the R slit is 67.91 pixels whereas the L slit is 101.32 pixels. With regard to the trachea rings I was referring to this: "Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright. The top of my tie knot lies just below the bottom of my thyroid cartilage." I am not at all sure what you mean by: "The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision, which of course is above the sternal notch. The number of rings (below rings 2 & 3 or 3 & 4) hidden by the sternum may not be many, judging by the x-ray of Kennedy's chest. You can tell by where the clavicle bones meet the sternum that Kennedy's sternal notch is unusually low. Which would tend to expose more rings. Maybe all the rings are above the notch. AFAIK there is no way of knowing." Maybe it is me but I do not see what you mean by the point "The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision." I know where the autopsy incision will have been, but I do not see that in the said Xray. Looking at the Xray above C7 is just below the notch protruding just above it. Above C7 we can see C6, C5, C4 and the beginning of C3. So I am not quite sure what is meant the above statement. James.

Sandy, So if I understand you what you are saying it is that a shard of bone - yet to be specified from where did the following:- a) It penetrated the left side of JFK's shirt - Causing the damage we see on the highlighted by the R Then this bone fragment continued to penetrate the left side of the shirt that was buttoned on top of the right side indicated by the letter L. However this time it created damage that is much larger than on the inside of the shirt. c) Jfk's tie was knotted so that the area that is damaged - and was probably a scalpel nick - was now at the back of the tie. Later the tie was re-knotted allowing this damage area to now be seen on the front of the knot. I'm sorry that does not seem logical to me. In addition if trachea rings 2 & 3 were - depending on the individual as you suggest - were as low as that, then where do you imagine trachea rings 4 to 7 were in this body???? James