James R Gordon

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

Sandy:

I am not so sure about your post at 16.

From what I know, Carrico was the first witness to see the throat wound. He then testified that the wound was above the collar. (See Gary Aguilar's essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 194) He then told the same thing to Weisberg in 1975. (ibid) Weisberg concluded that the slits in the shirt were from scalpel slits.

The location of that wound was distorted by both the tube that was stuck down it, and then Perry's tracheotomy. This was done because the endotacheal tube failed to increase oxygen intake into Kennedy's lungs. (Trauma Room One, by Charles Crenshaw, pgs 62-63)

Also, almost every serious student of the ARRB understands that there are missing internal chest photos. Because many people recalled them i.e. Humes, Boswell, Stringer and Riebe. (ibid p.. 233)

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.

Paul,

Lee was insistent that his work was deleted. Work deleted, means it is deleted and can never be retrieved. Under no circumstance can that work now be restored. Further - as was the case with Lee's work - when a post was also a lead post [ or a thread initiator - deletions of these posts can cause thread disruption.

The contributions on these threads by other members may still actually exist, but the extent of thread deletions may mean that it is unlikely they can be recovered because of the disruption = to the threads - from the deletions of Lee's posts.

Gentlemen,

Over the last couple of days there has been significant repercussions for the administrators when member(s) have commented and discussed fellow members position and/or character.

I am sorry but I am going to close this thread.

James

I would have thought it was clear that threads reflecting personal disputes by members are not allowed on the discussion forum. When detected they will be hidden. The PM function is available for that kind of conversation.

This is not a matter for discussion: this is an administration privilege and interpretation.

The missile that made that wound came from the SOUTH Knoll, probably from a team of French-Corsican assassins, probably led by Lucien Sarti and/or Jean Souetre. (See Sandy Larsen's topic, "Any prevailing theories on the back wound?") The slug was traveling down at a 15-20* angle through JFK's body rightward. It avulsed the top of the right lung and exited his back between spine and scapula (closer to shoulder blade) at the T3-4 level.

Roy,

Those who advocate that shots came from the South Knoll, have ignored trajectory analysis.

If shooting from the North knoll then JFK is open to a direct shot from the shooter. There is no-one blocking a shot towards him.

That is not the case from the South Knoll. Jackie is now directly in front of JFK. Essentially a successful shot requires to pass through her. If firing from the Triple Underpass you are requiring to finding a a route past the Secret Service as well as John and Nellie Connally. Any shot from the South Knoll has a major increase in difficulty factor.

It may seem enticing, but actually it is full of obstacles not present for a shot from the North Plaza.

This thread, along with Autopsy thread led by Rober as well as Greg's thread which will come soon, - and I hope my own thread on Connally - are supposed to be examples of debate and discussion on a higher level.

Spending the entire page 6 on Avatars - posts which have now been hidden - is making a total mockery of the thread.

If that is all that members can find to debate, then there is no point in having this thread.

If there is merit in this thread, then it deserves a higher level of discussion - and if that is not possible, then I will close this thread.

I believe in Research Threads and it is my hope that they would encourage a higher level of debate and discussion. And discussion on Avatars is not worthy of general threads let alone Research Threads.

Please return to the level of debate this thread deserves.

James

I am locking this thread.

The point has been made and will be looked into in the not too distant future.

James

I am locking this thread.

The point has been made and will be looked into in the not too distant future.

James

You're simply wrong about everything being speculative.

One example, The first item on my list:

• Oswald's alibi was altered by Bookhout, with Fritz cribbing from Bookhout's alteration

The first part is NOT speculation. Going from memory, so there may have been more than one change, but in the combined Hosty-Bookhout report, it simply noted that Oswald had seen Junior and another employee re-enter the building. In Bookhout's later solo report, this gets changed to a claim of having lunch with Junior. This was easy to refute. They simply asked Junior if he had lunch with Oswald - the answer was "no" - so there goes the alibi.

Fritz claimed he took no notes during the interrogations. Yet notes later turned up. Those were very likely rough notes copied from Bookhout. Sean simply put the notes beside Bookhout's report and noted how well it all matched up. Absolute proof? No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I think so.

Good point Greg.

Sandy,

I agree with the logic of your position, however we have two wounds that are difficult to explain. The book I was talking about is "Forgotten". If the Oswald rifle was indeed used that day I am not sure there was up-to-date ammunition available. Something clear went wrong Assuming the back and throat shots were deliberate shots something strange happened. And maybe that "something" was that the ammunition was not sound.

James

I have hidden a number of posts.

In these threads we are supposed to be arguing ideas and theories. It would appear to me that Bart's post deserve a more thoughtful response. I am not saying Bart is right, but I am saying he deserves a response.

Jon G Tidd's comment is a comment that should not be made. This back and forth is acceptable in normal threads, but these threads were all about ideas. Jon's comment is one of disappointment and I agree with his disappointment.

I know we have two opposing ideas but that is the purpose of these threads to see whose ideas withstand scrutiny better.

Please - gentlemen - let's return to talking about the ideas.

Sandy,

Yes, I agree the idea of a high powered bullet not passing through the body is a serious problem. I believe Gary Murr is writing a book on the ammunition that was used during the 50's and early 60's. He was happy to share his work on John Connally with me but he was more secretive about this book. He always felt this book was better that the Connally book. I have most of the Connally book and I know how remarkable it is so I know the depth and detail of his work.

So where is this going. From hints - and that is all Gary has ever said to me - I think we are in for a surprise about the condition and age of the ammunition that was used and the condition of that ammunition.

I was really impressed with the Haag's work on Case Cold. The power of that the Carcano gun was astonishing. A single bullet went through 46 slats of pine. I know Gary was in conversation with them. And I believe that the Haag's used modern ammunition not the ammunition available in 1963. I believe there was only one or two manufacturers of Carcano and I got the impression the ammunition was not 60's but much earlier.

Next to David Lifton's book "Forgotten" is the book I am most eager to be published.

What I am getting at is that modern understanding and expectations what this ammunition ought to accomplish may well be wrong. Gary has spent years looking at an issue we researchers have ignored. What was 1963's ammunition like? Who made it? What age was it? What condition was it in - and so on? I am not aware any other researcher has looked into this. And I feel we are in fora real awakening what this book is finally published.

So although we would expect a high powered bullet to pass through the body, we may be wrong.

Duncan,

I have two problem with your thesis.

a) The quality of the image is so poor how is it possible to make any reasoned judgement?

I see a lighter colour on page 6 but I cannot see why - against all other explanations - it has to be a button. A similar point could also be made for the purse - outlined on page 6.

Do we not need more definitive evidence if we are to agree with your conclusions?

James.

Yes James, and I say this in the closing sentence of the article.

"The truth of course will never be known until clearer images surface, and a new, and hopefully objective

analysis can begin."

Duncan,

That is perfectly fair and proper. You have advocated on this site and in your research document that this person is a woman.

The clearest image that you have is on Page 1. I do not see that person as a woman. In that picture I do not see the Purse. What appears to be the image off the purse on page 6 - on page 1 is light reflection on the left arm.

When you move to close up - especially on poor images - the image can mislead you.

I feel it is better to work from the image on page 1. And I cannot see that as a woman.

I think your work on Page 4 on the height of the person is convincing.

For me, if we are going to discuss the image then we should use the image on page 2,

James.

Duncan,

I have two problem with your thesis.

a) The quality of the image is so poor how is it possible to make any reasoned judgement?

I see a lighter colour on page 6 but I cannot see why - against all other explanations - it has to be a button. A similar point could also be made for the purse - outlined on page 6.

Do we not need more definitive evidence if we are to agree with your conclusions?

James.

Yes Tom,

There is real logic to what you say.

That said I believe that some kind of missile entered through JFK's throat. It passed through the Trachea and slammed into the spine at the area of C6 C7. It was this missile that caused the damage we see in the X-rays. My thinking is that as a consequence of this strike the missile was diverted downwards and landed on the apex of the lung. And it was the heat of this missile that caused the damage to the Apex of the lung.

I detailed my thinking in a document. Below is a link to the relevant pages:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/25939347-cde9-49c0-8058-c39f8fd63524/2FweA5gO1nenuc2BVPKUUw2

Further Thoughts:-

I know the WC and all its apologists will argue that the shot entered from the back and exited through the neck. It is anatomically impossible without causing immense damage to the spine. I have seen Robert often talk on this issue. Basically there is no direct route from entrance to exit without passing through the spine. Such a path would cut the spinal cord and smash the spine. As I have commented before the missile did not have satilite navigation. And that is before you consider the point of height. The entrance is much lower than the exit. And this problem is further aggravated by a bullet entering the body on a downward trajectory.

As regards an entrance shot to the throat the moment of impact would need to be a moment when JFK is facing forwards - and that limits when the shot could have occurred. I reckoned somewhere around Z 2004. DVP often asks "well if there was a shot from the front. where is the bullet?" It is both a good as well as important question. There are only two answers.

a) It was discovered during the autopsy but never registered.

It was at a point before the autopsy by persons unknown.

I tend to believe "b", but I have never totally discounted "a".

James.

Robert,

There is no virus. I am Macintosh and it is this that your virus is responding to.

As regards being able to respond to the threads, of course members are allowed to respond to both threads. As I mentioned to Jon Tidd maybe I was being a little too idealistic. I was just hoping that somehow these threads are more focused on the issues than personalities.

James

Jon,

What I wrote there was probably a bit too strong. They are more "Guidance" rather than "Rules."

I was hoping members would have read the summary document and what they have to say reflects - to some degree - what they have read. And more important how respond to the topic - as laid out in the summary document.

What I was hoping to avoid was a free for all that bore no reference to the topic and the document.

James

Sorry Robert.

I made a few errors when I set up your thread.

I did wonder why no one was making any contributions.

It seems to be working now.

James.