James R Gordon

Duncan,

The PDF requires to be saved as an Interactive pdf and not a Print pdf.

By all means send me the link and I will create it into an Interactive PDFs.

Best to send it to my email address.

James

Duncan,

Your are correct. When completed send the PDF to me and I will create your thread, store and link your PDF to your thread.

You are wrong in suggesting that I will only accept the PDF if I approve it. My approval is not an issue. You have written the paper and i assume you will be able to defend it. My approval is not the issue.

James

I want to make clear how Research Threads will be located on the EF.

All such threads are located in our Research Forum and are hyperlinked to the JFK Assassination Forum.

At present there is only Robert Prodhumme's Autopsy thread. And at the moment the pinned thread takes that name. However when new research threads - such as Duncan's PrayerWoman and Greg's PrayerMan - is completed then the name of the thread will be Research Threads. In addition I intend to submit a Research Thread on the wounding of John Connally shortly.

At present when you click the thread there is just Robert's thread, Later, it is anticipated that there will be a variety of Research Threads to contribute to.

James.

Robert Prudhomme:- Post 12

Are we looking at damage from a bullet at C6/C7, or are we looking at bone deterioration from osteoporosis?

I am not able to argue with your description of JFK’s medical condition, however the state of JFK’s necks described by the Xray makes clear this was something that happened either during or post assassination. With his lower neck in this condition there is now way JFK could have revealed to Dallas - let alone make a procession through the city without this condition not being visible for all to see.

Robert Prudhomme:- Post 15

Note that a bullet entering at the level of T3, between the spine and the right scapula, would go directly into the apex of the right lung.

There is no evidence the bullet entered the lung in any way. What Humes describes in the quote I referenced:

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

I believe Humes is referring to damage to the flesh of the Lung. I do not believe he is referring to damage to the lung as a consequence of a bullet entering the lung. My best guess - at this point - is that a bullet lay on top of the lung - as opposed to entering it. For me, such a situation could well cause the damage Humes refers to,

Appendix IX of the WCR: The Autopsy Report.

I will be locking this thread for a short time today while I restore this thread to its initial intent.

I agree with James DiEugenio that this was indeed a very thoughtful thread.

Once the thread is edited and I have restored the thread to its original purpose I will reopen it.

Thereafter I request all posts focus on the thread's intent.

I have now hidden the more recent conversations. In going through this thread, I am amazed at

the quality of the early pages. there is so much quality research and conversations there that

- in a sense - reflect on the quality of the more recent conversations. These early pages are

worthy of a revisit by members.

I am now unlocking this thread.

Robert,

There are two issues that bother me. First is the damage to the Lung. The second is the damage to the spine.

Xray taken before the autopsy:-

Please take note.

I was asked to leave this thread open by a member. Already I have had a number of concerns about the way this thread is being monopolised.

This thread was not devised for PrayerMan. As a fellow member observed by turning it into a PrayerMan thread an excellent thread has now been spoilt.

If members continue to use this thread for a PrayerMan discussion I will take immediate action against the offending member(s) - and it will be immediate.

The decision was that the forum would await Greg's summary document. That may mean that it will take some time to complete - so be it. PrayerMan is off topic until that report is complete.

The members of the admin team take the reputation of this forum as off the utmost importance. And this present discussion does nothing to enhance this forum.

As I said: Please take Note!

James

Robert Prudhomme wrote:-

"What Humes was being directed to conceal, I believe, was the very odd situation of a full metal jacket, round nosed bullet hitting JFK's back at just over 2000 feet per second, not striking any ribs as it entered his pleural cavity, and not exiting the front of his chest. For such a bullet to come to a stop midway through his right lung would be nothing short of miraculous. Even more miraculous would be for that bullet to come to a stop after only penetrating an inch of the skin of JFK's back.

As I have stated before, there are a limited number of exotic types of bullets capable of doing this, and none of them would have been available to a minimum wage earner at the TSBD in 1963. And, as all clues indicate the same type of exotic bullet(s) caused massive amounts of damage to JFK's skull and brain, it becomes somewhat easier to understand why the true nature of the damage to JFK's right lung had to be concealed."

I am not sure I fully agree, but I believe we need to explore this issue: what was Humes thinking as well as the pressure he was put under.

From what I can see the right lung was seriously compromised. I cannot get passed Humes reply to SenatorCooper's question about what was the character of the bruise.

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 size of this damage astonishes me. Homes constantly refers to it as a bruise, but what he describes is anything but a bruise. The only explanation I can think about is that a bullet was responsible.

​Now whether that bullet went not to the spine is an issue of debate. I am not sure it did, but it is certainly an issue worthy for debate.

Robert,

An excellent thread. The passing of the blame onto the Parkland doctors - especially Malcolm Perry - just shows how Humes worked. He knew very well when that report was written that JFK was not suffering from subcutaneous emphysema.

I understand that what happened was that after the Autopsy, Commander Humes made two phone calls to Malcolm Perry in Dallas. The first was an exploratory call to see what had been done. It was during this call that Humes was informed about the neck wound. This was when he discovered that what he had thought was a tracheotomy, was indeed one - but also one cut over an existing wound. Something Humes had not been aware of. The second call was quite specific and was about the Chest Tubes. Malcolm Perry referring to this call said he (Humes) subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. H6 16

When the Autopsy report came to be written, although the use of chest tubes was acknowledged, their purpose had been changed. The report stated that Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat possible subcutaneous emphysema. CE 387 2 Humes use of language is really interesting. Homes uses the adjective "possible. He knew very well the real reason why the chest tubes had been inserted. However the use of this word covered him and allowed the suggestion to be made that there was an anterior reason why the tubes had been employed. The report did not reflect that the real reason Parkland had decided to use them which was because they feared the right lung had been damaged.

When Malcolm Perry was interviewed by the HSCA he was asked about the Autopsy reports description of why the Chest Tubes had been used. He replied: Its interesting to me - and Im not being critical - but its interesting to me that the pathology report does not reflect that. ( That being Parklands real reason for ordering the chest tubes. ) The autopsy report said that those incisions were made to combat subcutaneous emphysema which is not a - in the current jargon - a viable therapeutic technique. 1HSCA 309 What Malcolm Perry is saying is that no reputable surgeon would dream of using Chest Tubes to cure subcutaneous emphysema!

So why state something in the Autopsy Report Humes knew to be untrue? The chest tubes had been employed because Perry felt the right lung might have been damaged. It appears that was something Humes did not want in the report.

James

Robert,

Had your PDF been a text pdf you would have been able to copy and paste. Unfortunately the PDF you had was an image pdf and so there was no way you would be able to copy and paste text. Therefore not being able to copy and paste had nothing to do with your computer skills.

James

John,

we may be talking at cross purposes and actually with each other. I was never referring to any particular map. What I was saying was that from the various maps I used - Drommer, restoration map and Don's map - I was able to locate various buildings on my model. The size and positions of the streets and pavements was able to guide me quite well.

You are quite right to point out the pergola. It was a major problem. As I point out in post 5 I ended up using a rectangle - created from other measurements - to pin point its position. And I am not saying I was 100% accurate. But I believe - as far as the North Pergola is concerned - I was pretty damn close. What made me confident was that I transferred Don's Zapruder points onto the model. When I later measured from the Oswald window to various JFK positions I was astonished how accurate the model was.

When I placed the car at Z313 and rotated the model JFK's position compared to Zapruder's position seemed correct. So I believe I had the North Pergola correct.

Richard,

The restoration plans appear to have been taken off-line. Here is a link to my copy.

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/1e8f322f-a1b0-424b-84d2-ecb2d01716a5/2ddj6dkN7LY6trh2AKJGEQ2

As for the slope unto the pergola as a guesstimate it would be around 25º before it flattens out to around 10º. It certainly rises sharply before it flatten out.

It is believed the Elm street is around 3º. However if you look at the Drommer map - I think - and Don's map - it is not as even as that, However as basic working premise, 3º is a good working figure. I used the difference between Houston street and the bottom of the triple underpass. I had two clear figures - HASL - for both and created a slope between the two.

There are only two significant building South of Main Street.

They are: Old Red and the Post Office. Both of them are positioned correctly on the maps I have seen.

Which maps - in your opinion - do not correctly position those two buildings?

Which buildings are in the wrong position?

John,

I agree Commerce Street has a different shape to Elm, however their length is the same.

I agree that the position of the south pergola with regard to south grassy knoll compared to the north grassy knoll is slightly different.

I worked off two major maps which I found to be accurate: Don's map and the restoration map.

I did contact Gary Mack about the issue of the mirror image of the plaza. It was not something he had thought about but he agreed that essentially the plaza was a mirror image. It makes a lot of sense that when building the plaza Main Street was the centre and the North and South sides were effectively the same.The railroad line and the position of the Triple Underpass has an impact on the shape of the southern knoll. The position of the buildings is quite easy to work out because we know the sizes of all the buildings and we know the size of the pavements and roads and so it is not too difficult to place them I found the restoration map quite accurate on this issue.

Certainly - without any doubt - the 660 figure is right. The level of the two car parks is right. The lengths of Elm and Commerce is right. Both pergolas are on the same southern plane: you can draw a line from one to the other.

I stand by my comment that effectively Dealey Plaza is basically a mirror image. Yes the shape Commerce street and the imposition of the railroad line does effect the south knoll but essential I believe the plaza is a mirror image.

James

Michael,

There are two documents that you need to get hold off. Both are downloadable:

a) Don Roberdeau's map

The restoration plans for Dealey Plaza.

Both assist with the kinds of questions you are wanting answers to.

I did work on a model of the plaza but was diverted onto other projects. Here is an example of my work.

As you rightly point put the accurate placing of the pergola was a problem for me. Here is a working document I used to place it.I used a rectangle box to place it.

Now to some measurements:-

a) from the south wall of the TSBD to the edge of the north pavement on main street is 300ft

The roads outside the plaza are 60 feet wide. Those inside are 40 feet.

c) All Pavements are 10 ft wide

d) from the edge of the west pavement on Houston st. to the TSBD 425 ft. i.e. Main Street is 425 ft.

e) Elm and Commerce streets are 495 ft.

f) Not including the railing aspect of the Tripple underpass, the Underpass is 24 ft lower that the level of Houston street.

g) I believe the railyard fence is 5ft High. That was the value I worked with.

h) I assumed the level of the carpark was the same as Houston street.

If you are looking at the complete plaza, then none it is mirror image.

a) From the north wall of the post office to the north edge of there south pavement of main street is 300 ft. Therefore from the wall of the TSBD to the wall of the Post Office is 660 ft.

The level of the Post Office carpark is the same as the north plaza carpark.

If there is anything else I can help please get in touch.

James

To all members and visitors a happy new year to you. May the coming year bring happiness to you all.

Thomas,

As I see it, it is not a stupid question. If we can establish who is and who were not on the steps that might help in identifying who the individual PM is.

Eliminating who were not there really does help in establishing who might still be there. It would appear to be being able to both prove remained on the steps and where they were positioned would greatly assist in this search.

James

Robert,

From what I can see from your post 18 you agree with Bart that Bill Shelly did leave the steps but that Lovelady remained on the steps. You argue that Shelly later returned and entered the building. So, as I see it, you accept that Shelly did leave the steps and cannot be counted as one of the individuals on the steps.

It appears to me you are halfway to agreeing. The discussion now is whether we can establish whether Lovelady remained on the steps or whether he also left the steps.

James

Robert,

The sidetracking of RESEARCH THREADS will be scrupulously monitored. I do not know to whom you refer but such efforts will be immediately hidden when discovered. We do not monitor such behaviour on the normal threads, but a RESEARCH THREAD, by its very nature cannot allow the efforts of any to divert the leader's intent as demonstrated in the summary document. Two examples of such behaviour that will not be tolerated on a RESEARCH THREAD is the posting of screeds of data - even though it may be historically accurate - that has no analysis and argument attached with it. And Second the posting of data that is not relevant to the topic under discussion OR the posting of data without explanation which the poster believes argues their case.

None of the above is outlawed on normal threads - even though to other members it can be irritating. RESEARCH THREADS are focused on argument and debate based on evidence and relevant to the leader's topic as outlined in his/her summary document.

Sandy,

My understanding of the summery document is that it should " be a depository of notable findings and conclusions, as well as items of continued contention."

What it should not be is "one sided." I am sure no summary document will ever be like that.

As you say Sandy these threads should be able to prevent discoveries getting "buried" with information that has nothing to do with the thread. That is certainly the intention.

The administrators are announcing the introduction of Research Threads.

A research thread is one that is led by a member. That member writes a summary academic type document on an issue in JFK research. These summary documents are stored and locked in the Research forum. There is a hyperlink from this document to the research thread. These threads will most often be pinned - though obviously depending on the number research threads that may constitute a problem. Therefore each Research Thread is headed by a hyperlink to the summary document. This allows members to - not only read - but also copy and paste portions which will help them in the debate and discussion.

a) Research threads are very different from normal threads - they are prefaced by a research document.

Normal threads allow branching to different related topics within the same thread. That will not be allowed on a research thread. the research document has spelled out the subject and direction and therefore any such posts will be hidden.

c) It is assumed that participants will have read the summary document. Posts that demonstrate that there has been no account taken of the summary document will be hidden. The reason is that a Research thread attempting to examine an issue and - if possible - break ground and therefore divergence on to different areas of thinking hamper the purpose of a research thread.

d) Research threads are about research, debate and discussion and argument. Therefore any member who just posts lists screeds of information and quotations from historical sources will be hidden. The purpose of a research thread is one where we see members actively arguing and debating what fellow members have stated and argued. Members might say "is that not already happening." We would argue that it is not happening. There are many cases of information dumping without an analysis of that information and why it supports or contradicts a particular position.

e) The writer of the summary document will be deemed to lead the thread.

How successful these threads will be only time will tell. But the purpose of a Research Thread is to make the effort in the hope to break new ground.

The first Research Thread will shortly appear on the subject of Prayer Man.

Any member who would like to lead a Research Thread please contact a member of the admin team. Aside from leading the thread, the member will be expected to write a an academic summary document covering both sides of the topic and suggesting fruitful areas of research and debate.

Research Threads are not anticipated to replace the normal threads that are main focus of this forum.Nor are Research Threads considered superior to the normal thread. They are not. But they are a different way members can argue and debate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The administrators are fed up with fire fights that have occurred between members. Members have - in the past - had their posting privileges removed. Sometimes without warning.

In the case of Duncan we have not done that. Aside from the present issue - and particularly with regard to PM - he has made posts that ( had they been made by other members ) would have incurred a more active response.

It was me who hid the post that Duncan is concerned about. In addition to hiding the post I PM Duncan and asked that he moderate his language. That was all.

Normally I would delete a members membership when requested, but on this occasion I wish to take time to think about it.

I concurr with the recent post that Kathy has just made. I have hidden a large number of posts by members who really should have known better.

Of late we administrators have been very pleased with the tone of debate and conversation between members. I am assuming that this present debate is just an isolated incident and not something that will be repeated.

However if any member decides to repeat this behaviour - that you all know to be unacceptable - then that member ( or members ) will have their posting privileges removed for weeks!!!

Please let us all return to the very civilised level of debate and conversation we have become used to.