James R Gordon

Ray, You are absolutely right, a bullet would not create such damage. This damage was created at Parkland. It was most likely a scalpel when it was being used to cut the tie off. When the shirt is buttoned up - as it was when JFK arrived at Parkland - then the Left side would be over the left side. The importance of this is that when the scalpel touched the shirt - when cutting off the tie it also cut through the shirt. However the Right side - which when the shirt is buttoned is underneath - has smaller damage. This makes clear that the impact on the shirt was lighter here and the damage here smaller. Below is an image of the tie - although we have no image from the 22nd of the tie - this suggests what it would have looked liked when cut off. If we are to believe that this is damage caused by a bullet. It might be worth noting that this exit/entrance hole is below the collar line. We know the damage to the trachea was around rings 2 and 3. Well if this is bullet damage that is a quite a distance from there. James

Robert, I am very busy at the moment but I will get round to your question as soon as I can. I am planning soon to return to this thread that - since I posted it - I have done little with. I am aware that Gary Murr has argued that the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition was very old and suspect. Gary does not make a statement unless he knows that point to be also a point of fact. His knowledge of the ammunition used in the assassination - and here I do not intend to be rude - is light years away from everyone else. The book from which this information comes from from is the product of 15 - 20 years of study. From what I understand, there is no-one who has either undertaken a study of this nature OR who has accumulated the factual history on the ammunition used in the early 1960's that he has. James.

Okay, Michael, here is a question for you. If the back wound at thoracic vertebra T3 was not made by a frangible bullet, care to speculate on what type of bullet made this wound? Do you think it penetrated the chest cavity or was it just a shallow wound? Robert, As i have pointed out numerous times, I believe the wound to the back was a shallow wound that never penetrated the chest cavity. It is true that Sibbert OR O'Neill left the autopsy room to check on “Ice bullets” [ they have testified that happened but always made clear that one always remained in the room to witness all that occurred there ] but that had nothing to do with the back wound. The enquiry about “Ice Bullets” was with regard to the throat wound and particularly the damage to the apex of the lung. I know that it is a common belief that the wound to the back was at T3. As I have demonstrated a number of times, I believe it was higher. JFK's body and particularly the protrusion of his Scapular showing through his back, make it clear that wound was higher [ quite significantly higher ] than the outer edge of the Scapular spine which can be seen on the autopsy image. The outer edge of the Scapular spine is just below T3. As I view it anatomy physiology that ought to be beyond dispute. I have argued that according to anatomy physiology the wound appears very close to T2. It could even be argued [ based on how far one believes the wound is in relation to the Scapular spine's edge ] that the wound could be between T2 and T3. In my view anatomy physiology trumps speculation and rough guidelines on an autopsy chart. I am happy for you to argue that I am wrong, but I would like to to address the position of the wound in relation to the position of the scapula spine. Why do you feel that the wound is still close to T3 when it is well above the position of the Scapular spine's edge? James.

Michael Walton said:- Didn't these two FBI agents also say during their viewing of the autopsy that they saw "surgery to the top of the skull" or some such statement? And didn't these few words from two government officials, who had no medico experience to speak of, start an entire cottage industry in the JFK case, perhaps reaching its pinnacle when David Lifton wrote his "body alteration" book (which, when I read it at 18 years old I believed it but since then, I think it's way too outlandish for it to have happened)? Just because these agents were in the room mere yards away from the body did not make them experts at what they were observing. Michael you appear to misunderstand the role of Sibbert and O'Neill. They did not see “surgery to the top of the skull.” What they wrote down was a comment from Humes. He was the one who identified that - in his opinion - there had been surgery of the skull. All Sibbert and O'Neill did was record what was said, what happened and who was present. Nor is this a small issue. Parkland are adamant that there was no surgery while JFK was at Parkland. Whatever deficiencies members may feel about the competence of Humes - some of the criticism I feel to be unfair - it was he who recognised someone had worked on the body before he started the autopsy. What is not clear is what is meant by that statement. We have no idea what that statement means but one thing is clear something happened between Parkland and Bethesda. As regards David Lifton we will have to agree to disagree. DSL's view that what happened at Parkland and Bethesda - and remember he has extensively interviewed nearly every medical personnel involved. All he said was that - in his opinion - the evidence left him with only one option: something had to have taken place between these two hospitals. Remember this theory was devised back in the 1980's. I suspect when his new book comes out we will be presented with a much more sophisticated explanation. Though I find his work useful, I do not share Doug Horne's description of what happened in Bethesda or his characterisation of Humes. Finally Sibbert and O'Neill do not need to be “experts” all they needed to do - which is what they did do - was record what they saw and heard. It is for others to interpret what that meant. Sibbert and O'Neill have been interviewed a number of times through the years and one point they are definite happened is that Humes commented that he was sure he was seeing surgery had been done to the head. No one in that room said exactly what it was they were seeing, but Humes was clear that what he was seeing was that someone had tampered with the head. James.

Sandy, That Xray was taken before the autopsy began. For me the importance is the collapse of the neck to the right. Whatever caused this, it was not Humes. He had yet to carry out the autopsy procedures. There is another - close up - which was taken after Finck arrived. I believe it was he who suggested another set of X-rays. The second set were taken after the organs had been removed. James.

Roy Wieslquist Said:- Maybe the biggest problem, for researchers, with a South Knoll shooter making that early throat (and back) shot is they don't think a shot could have cleared the windshield (with visors up too) AND the wide roof-support over the back of the front seat. I have ways to demonstrate that it could be done. I do not see how that is possible. Don Roberdeau's map has the North Parking lot at 426 Hasl. The rail line on top of the Triple underpass is 424 Hasl. Elm Street at 2o7 is 423 HASL. The Sixth Floor Museum the North and South Plaza are effectively and that the Post Office parking lot is 426 HASL. The Triple underpass is the sam at both ends: 424HASL. So from what I can see, because of the geography of the Plaza, the shooter at the South Knoll does not have a heightened elevation to fire down from. Then there is the position of the occupants in the car, A shot from this angle is bound to put Bill Greer and Nellie Connally in some danger. In addition, any shot entering JFK's throat is not going straight forward it is going from centre to right. I do not see this as a serious theory. James.

Sandy, Because I am so preoccupied with another task, I have not been able to return back to my JFK work. But when I was focused on JFK my approach was always based on trajectory analysis. When I looked at a wound my first question was where that wound came from. The Car at Z 223/4:- I did numerous trajectory analysis and the three options - aside from the Oswald window - was the TSBD West Window the Daltex building and The Records building. One thing I learnt was that there was not just one source of the shots - the view point of Warren Commission Apologists. My work made clear there were numerous sources. The question was always how reliable they were and that was always a judgement call. Looking at the image above which has the car at Z 223/4 it is clear a shot to JFK's back would be troublesome to validate. If the shot to JFK's back was fired at this point you can see the effect of decline on where such a shot - if it ever did penetrate the chest - would end up. An area of research that always troubled me was not whether we can have a shot from point A impact at point B. The point is should there have been a shot from point A that did impact at point B where would the angle of trajectory suggest it would end up in the body: point C That is why the SBT is complete nonsense. Yes you have a wound on JFK's back - though I argue it may not be as low as T3. And yes there is a wound just right of centre on JFK's throat. However there is no way to link these two points without doing considerable damage to the lung and chest area as well as severely damage the cervical spine and the nerve cord. That may not be part of the traditional SBT but it is fundamentals of human physiology. James.

Sandy, There is a couple of points I ought to make, a) the Connally wound was down the outside of his rib. From what I remember the direction of the bullet traveled down the right side of his body in a straight line. The position of Connally - at that moment - as well as the position of the car at Z 230 made that possible. Whereas Connally's wound entered just under his arm pit, the Kennedy wound is a few centimetres right of his spine. A missile entering that point from the west window will be moving in a right to left direction. That may have an impact on your calculations. c) Moving the car up to the position of the Stemmons sign will certainly affect to what degree any shooter could hit that point on Kennedy's back. Down at Z 230 the car is forward of the west window. At Z 220 - or thereabouts - the car is still forward of the East window, but I am not sure what it's location would be with regard to the West window. Just some thoughts for you. James.

Sandy, It is a common belief to feel that shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD came from the Oswald window. When I was working on my Connally project I became aware that the 6th floor west windows were both open during the Assassination. For the Connally wound I needed a steep decline in order to travel down the 5th rib. The only window that allowed that was the 6th floor west windows. One example of what I mean is were Connally wounded at 230 then the angle of the shot - at that point - I estimate was around 65º Yes that is outside your parameters but if the back wound occurred earlier then you would achieve a different result. Whatever the position of JFK, the Oswald window will always give you a smaller degree and could well be outside your parameters. One thing I was very curious about was exactly what was the south wall of the 6th floor like. Thanks to Gary Murr I acquired an image taken on the afternoon of the 22nd. Behind the south wall of the 6th floor was a clear corridor allowing movement and coordination. Do with this as you please. But if the angle of the back wound is legitimate then one source for it could well be the west window on the 6th floor. See images. James

Bob, I realize this thread is now examining the medical evidence, and I do not want to go OT, but your original post touched on something I have considered and suggested many times in the past. In my research I have come to conclusion that, where Oswald's rifle was concerned, the problem was not so much with the firearm itself but with the ammunition it chambered. When the FBI visited Klein's in Chicago, (I believe this was in early 1964), a rifle identical to Oswald's was test fired for them by the same employee who claimed to have mounted Oswald's scope. During this test firing the shop employee recalled that the rifle experienced several "hang-fires" which he believed the FBI may not have even noticed. I'm sure you are aware Bob what a hang-fire is, but for those reading this post who may not be... a hang-fire is a delay between the pulling of the trigger and the moment at which the round discharges. This can be caused by either a faulty primer, (the small round chamber visible at the base of the cartridge which is struck by the firing pin causing the powder within the casing to ignite), or by the introduction of moisture into the powder within the casing itself. Here is a quote from the same time period in which the MC's ammunition was initially manufactured... "A paper from 1885 laments that "Gunpowder is such a nervous and sensitive spirit, that in almost every process of manufacture it changes under our hands as the weather changes." Pressing times to the desired density could vary by a factor of three depending on the atmospheric humidity.[89]" My point is this Bob, if Oswald experienced a hang fire, or a combination of perhaps two related malfunctions during his first shot, could this not have caused the shallow back wound? As someone who has a moderate degree of experience with firearms I can tell you that a hang fire would certainly effect the striking point of a projectile on a moving target. At any rate, this is quite an interesting subject in particular. Regards, Craig C. Spot on Craig! This is - I believe - the topic of Gary Murr's yet unpublished book on the guns and the ammunition used in the early 1960's. Gary has shared much of his research with me but he has been reluctant to share his work on this book. I believe he has broken new ground that no one is remotely aware of and would shed tremendous light of the wounds JFK sustained including the origin and nature of the back wound. Next to David Lifton's new book, “Forgotten” is the book I am most eager to read. James.

Some time ago I wrote an article that outlined my reasons why I became convinced the throat wound was a wound of entrance and not one of exit. In that article I outlined what damage the bullet would have had to create had it entered JFK's throat and traveled through his body. A copy of that article can be found here:- https://www.transferbigfiles.com/85d3031a-e837-4c73-9827-fe5021ae2719/0UluhDdPcejZiC-gTezDdg2 James.

Bob, I have not read Lipsey's testimony. I accept you have. Might I ask is Richard Lipsey your central source and if other sources contradict him are those sources discounted by you. Five centimetres is 2 inches. We are talking about a 2 inch damage from the apex of the lung. On the 6th of December 1963, the Supplemental Autopsy report was submitted. And it was in that document that Humes acknowledged that indeed the right lung had been damaged. “Sections through the grossly described area of contusion in the right upper lobe exhibit disruption of alveolar walls and recent hemorrhage into alveoli.” CE 391 P. 2 My emphasis added. The consequence of this damage was what caused blood and air to escape into the Mediastinum. It was this situation that persuaded Dr. Perry to request chest tubes to be inserted. Like many others I had read this before and I had been blinded by the word “haemorrhage” and just thought it was description of a bruise to the lung the collection of blood around the lung: something we all had known before. Actually what Humes was saying something quite different. a) The trachea eventually branches into two pipes called the Bronchi one for each lung. As these pipes grow within the lung they continue to subdivide and branch out. c) As they do so they get smaller and continue to do so until they have covered the entire area of the lung. d) At the end of each branch line is a small air sack called an Alveoli. Each lung has around 300 million of these Alveoli, which gives you an idea of the number of branches that have subdivided within each lung e) Each Alveoli is connected to a Pulmonary ( a lung ) artery and a Pulmonary ( a lung ) vein. d) And basically what the Alveoli do is transfer air from the arteries to the veins. It is the process by which air gets into our blood. So what Humes is actually describing is this:- a) When the bullet landed on the Apex of the lung it ruptured a significant number of these Alveoli. This is my view that the bullet that couse the throat wound came to rest on top of the right lung and it was this that caused damage to the Apex of the right lung. That meant these Alveoli’s associated arteries and veins were also damaged. c) As a consequence of these vessels being damaged, blood now poured into the Lung. d) One consequence of this flow of blood was that it created the bruise Humes talked about. e) However a second consequence was that the blood also broke through the Visceral Pleura as well as the Parietal Pleural. d) It was through this damage that air from the lung also escaped: the air that Malcolm Perry had noticed and caused him to ask for the Chest Tubes to be inserted. e) Blood also escaped through this damage and collected in the Mediastinum – the upper chest area. This was some of the blood that Malcolm Perry noticed once he had cut the Tracheotomy. f) Once the right lung was damaged, the Trachea now deviated to the left .. towards the undamaged lung. Now it is true that Malcolm Perry is on record stating that as far as he was concerned the Pleural cavity was not damaged. When Malcom Perry was interviewed by the HSCA he was asked about the Pleural cavity, the space between the two Pleural skins:- “PURDY “How did you determine that the pleural cavity was not violated?” PERRY “Found that out later in the autopsy report.” HSCA1 304 So Malcolm Perry is on record stating that the Pleural cavity was not damaged, not from personal observation, but because the Autopsy report said it was not damaged. His personal observation was quite different and was the reason he had asked for the Chest Tubes to be inserted in the first place. And hidden in CE 391, the Supplemental Report, was confirmation that Malcolm Perry’s initial judgment had been right all along: the right lung had indeed been damaged. From what I can see there is significant evidence that the top of the right lung was damaged. From what I have read there is no evidence that the central portion of the right lung whereas there is critical evidence that the top of the lung was damaged. James.

Bob, Like Sandy I am not here to interrupt your thread which I find interesting. However, though I agree the right lung was indeed damaged, it was damaged at the top and not in the body of the lung. In a document I wrote about JFK's injuries I described this observation. It is a wonderful description by Humes. Senator Cooper asks him what was the character of this bruise at the top of the lung. Humes reply is wonderful and I am not sure he was fully aware of what he actually said. Below is the section describing this moment. A few pages later, Senator Cooper interrupts Commander Humes and asks him what was the character of this bruise that he saw. Humes replies and in doing so describes just what an incredible anomaly this “bruise” was. This is just such an important point I will parse what he says. First Commander Humes reply. Commander HUMES. “The bruise here, photographs are far superior to my humble verbal description, but if I let my hand in cup shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue discoloration of the parietal pleura. Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it, was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue, and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir.” H2 369 a) First Humes describes the shape of the Apical Parietal Pleura. “if I let my hand in cup shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue discoloration of the parietal pleura.” • So what he is saying is that the Apical Parietal Pleura was rounded like his cupped hand. • He then says that this area of the Apical Parietal Pleura was bruised and the size of the bruise was 5cm. • Then he describes the colour of the Pleura as purpilish blue. Now this first reference of 5cm refers not just to the size of the Apical Parietal Pleura that was damaged but also the size of the base of the anomaly, which was underneath it. Now Humes goes on to describe the shape of the anomaly. “Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it, was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue, and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir. ” a) “Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it,” The “it” refers to the bruise on the Apical Parietal Pleura. He then says that the lung was positioned below the Apical Parietal Pleura .. as indeed it is. “was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise.” He now describes what the shape looked like. He likens it to a pyramid. c) “with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung.” Normally pyramids have their pointed portion facing upwards. However, this anomaly is actually upside down and it is the base, or bottom, which is facing upwards. However there is another point he makes here. Humes says that the base of this anomaly is towards the surface of the lung itself. Above the surface of the lung are the Apical Parietal Pleura, the Parietal Pleura and finally the Visceral Pleura. If the base is toward the surface of the lung, then it has to be below these three surfaces. d) “and the apex down into the lung tissue.” The pointed end of this pyramid is not just facing downwards, with the use of the word “into” Humes is saying that this part of the anomaly is actually inside the actual tissue of the lung. e) “and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir.” The use of the word “thing” refers to the shape of the anomaly. This part of the description has been about where the base of the anomaly was in relation to the top of it. Therefore this reference to 5cm, refers to distance between the base and the top. It is that which is 5 cm. Hence the anomaly is 2 inches tall. The first description of 5cm, although describing the area of the Apical Parietal Pleura that was bruised, is also describing the measurement of the base of the object that lies below it. In his description Humes has just admitted that the right lung was damaged. He has said that:- a) The base of this anomaly is towards the “surface of the upper portion of the lung.” AND “and the apex down into the lung tissue.” The top of this pyramid is inside the lung itself. He is therefore saying that the tissue of the lung has been pierced. ​What caused this damage is another matter. However, Humes is quite clear that the damage is at the top of the lung and not the middle and body of the lung. Unless you have evidence that I had been unaware of, there is no evidence that the body of the lung was damaged or pierced. I disagree that the wound to the back was anything but a shallow wound. However I am not going to interrupt your thread by arguing my corner. Nor am I going to interrupt the thread by arguing where I believe the lung was damaged. However I did want to place my opinion into the record. James.

Robert, “How close were Sibert and O'Neil to JFK when Humes supposedly probed the back wound with his finger? Were they standing right beside Humes, looking down, or were they in the gallery many feet away? Where does it actually state Humes used his pinkie finger?” Robert Prudhomme Post 11 Sorry I have not been able to get back to this thread for a few days, I have been very busy. Siberia and O'Neil were inside the mortuary. They were not in the Gallery. They were under instruction not to leave until the autopsy was complete and report everything they saw and heard. Whether they were watching over Humes shoulder or not I do not know, but you will be aware that the mortuary was a small room. So to get back to the critical point - unless you doubt their veracity - their report makes clear that they did see Humes prod the wound with his pinkie and explain to all in the room that it was a shallow wound. That suggests any thought that - whatever caused this wound - was able to pass intthe rib cage let alone into the lung is simply not possible. Whatever this wound was it was not a deep or penetrating wound. James.

Robert, The Sibert O'Neil report is quite specific. They witnessed Humes making this probe. The report reads that they witnessed Humes probing this wound. The idea that Humes fooled them does not seem realistic or probable. We know both had been instructed to witness everything and report back. Just because you could not do so, is not proof that Humes was also unable to do so? I take it from your expression "it is time to let the shallow wound go" that you feel this may be a through wound. If I am right I will be interested how you can establish that. James.

Robert, I do not have all my notes with me at the present, however I recollect that Sibert and O’Neil stated that Humes did indeed probe the wound with his pinkie. An that he concluded that it was a shallow wound. I agree that the lung was damaged, but not anywhere near where T3 is located. Humes in testimony describes a wound - which he refers to as a bruise - was at the top of the lung. Commander HUMES. “The bruise here, photographs are far superior to my humble verbal description, but if I let my hand in cup shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue discoloration of the parietal pleura. Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it, was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue, and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir.” H2 369 The ammunition that you describe in post 4, had that kind of ammunition penetrated JFK’s body it would have created damage that could never have been concealed. You are right to raise the issue of the back wound. It is indeed a problematic wound. If the wound did not enter the body - as I believe - then what caused that damage and where is the object that created that wound.? I hope you do not intend to link the back wound with the throat wound. Such a link is impossible. I will follow this thread with interest and reflect on your thinking on this subject. James.

Ken, My preference is to still require registration. The restoration is being done for the benefit of EF members - as well as fulfilling a promise we made to Debra Conway. It is not a public forum - in a sense it is a private forum for the use of members of the EF. As far as scheduling is concerned it is likely to be more like September before it is complete. James

Gentlemen, I have hidden a number of posts and edited others. Take this as a warning. The EF is not the place to hurl personal insults at fellow members. I hope it does not re-occur. But action will be more severe should member(s) foolishly allow it to re-occur. James.

Ok I'll temporally pin it and see whether that makes a difference. James

Don, The idea and decision was mine. I have no idea who hacked and destroyed the site but it is going to cost a very large sum of money to restore. Through registration admin will know who is on the site at any time. It is just an extra level of security to ensure the site is better protected. James

David, I do not see a problem. If the archive is something you are interested in then request to be a member. Unless there is good reason not to admit a member into the JFKLancer, it is simply a matter of routine. In your time you must have applied to join numerous sites. JFK Lancer is not the property of the EF. The EF has been entrusted with the upkeep it. We promised Debra - when possible - we would have the site professionally restored. It will not be hosted by Invision - who host the EF. The EF will have a hyperlink attached to a thread so members can visit JFKLancer. It is also going to cost quite a bit of money to restore in the way we want it restored and it does not seem unreasonable to create a separate membership for the site. Bottom line, it is up to each member to decide whether they also wish to be a member of JFKLancer as well. Nobody is being forced to join. James

This is to let members know that the Lancer Archive will be restored this August. I understand it will not be a restoration of the previous system. It will be a bespoke rebuild. It has been confirmed by the developers that they expect to restore all the data saved prior to the hack. EF Members will need to apply to be members of Lancer. Present membership of the EF will not give members access to the site. Nor will it be possible to have read access without membership. Lancer membership will be needed to have both read and write access. The site will not only be a reading archive, it will also be an active posting site. It is hoped the site will be active by early September. Any ideas would be appreciated and considered as the time for the restoration approaches. James

James, There are a couple of observations I would make here. You are correct about what the references you cite state, but I am not sure those references are correct. There is an excellent oral history that Carrico made in August 1997. In that history he describes the sequence of events regarding John Connally's and JFK's entrance into Parkland. As we all know John Connally entered first and was taken to Trauma Room 2. Initially Carrico also went to Trauma room 2 to see what he could do. Shortly after JFK enters and is taken to Trauma room 1. Shortly after JFK is brought in Carrico moves from Trauma room 2 to 1. The importance about these movements is that Diane Bowran had already begun to remove JFK's clothes by the time Carrico entered Trauma room 1. Carrico is asked about the throat wound and does indeed suggest it was above the collar line however he goes on to explain that by that time much of JFK's clothes had already been removed and it was not possible to be positive. I had thought Carrico had followed JFK into Trauma room 1 and therefore he must have seen where the wound was in relation to the shirt. However that did not happen. When JFK was wheeled into Trauma room 1, Carrico was still in Trauma room 2. James

Lance, I would appreciate it if you are a little more circumspect in how you address fellow members. The administrators prefer a more civilised mode of discussion, and one where there is an absence of sarcasm.

Paul, It cannot be recovered. Too much time has passed since that material was deleted and the Invision backups now no longer contain that material.