James R Gordon

Robert, I am astonished anyone would keep an open mind on the idea of a "frangible" bullet. When that bullet "slapped" [ to use Robert Shaw's term ] against the 5th rib it would have exploded and caused - most likely - causing a fatal wound. The idea that the bullet that caused the chest wound, could also cause the wrist wound does not seem likely. Why? I do not have my notes with my so I am using laymen's terms. a) The wrist would need to be near the bullet's chest exit point. AND a) The entrance [ which is just behind the thumb ] would need to be facing the exit wound. c) Charles Gregory was of the opinion [ because there was cloth fragments within the wrist wound ] the bullet had already struck an object. d) We have agreed that whatever bullet caused the chest wound sustained little if no damage. Therefore it is extremely unlikely it could have caused the "star shape" damage to to Connally's shirt cuff. There are too many reasons why the bullet that caused the chest could not also be the same bullet that caused the wrist wound. In my opinion John Connally was either:- a) Struck by two separate bullets. OR The wrist wound was a fragment from the head shot. If you study an excellent copy of Z313 you will see object moving in the direction of Connally's wrist. As regards to the damage to the wrist wound. I believe it was a fragment from the head shot. a) The damage to the clothing is very different from the Jacket and Shirt compared to the sleeve and shirt cuff. They display pristine bullet damage, very different from what we see on the shirt. The damage Connally's back did not also have clothing fragments within it. The usual result of a pristine shot. c) The damage to the wrist did have clothing fragments which is usually a symptom that the bullet is damaged and has struck another object. There was only one shot where there was clearly bullet fragmentation and that was the head shot. So I disagree that the bullet that caused Connally's chest wound also caused his wrist wound.

Robert, I do not disagree with much of your commentary about Connally,s chest wound. There are a number of points I would add. A. I am surprised anyone would seriously contemplate a frangible bullet was used. B. I agree that when the bullet bumped into the 5th rib - as opposed to striking it - one consequence was that the 5th rib was pushed inwards. C. However the bullet also caused numerous bone fragments to break off - some of which moved inwards and damaged the lung - and others that flew forward and exited through the wound created by the bullet. D. There has been debate as to whether the bullet traveling through Connally's body tumbled. In research - based on the best images on Connally's clothing - it is clear it did not tumble. As Robert Shaw believed it traveled right through Connally's outer chest in a straight line. E. John Connally sustained two other injuries. L.N's like to believe this bullet also caused these wounds. It did not. However, the body material the bullet encountered would not have reduced its power to any great degree. THEREFORE, what happened to that bullet?Logic suggests it most likely went on to strike the dividing wall between the Secret Service and the Connally's.

Tom, Thanks for your kind words. Here is my first attempt to blend the two images. The black line is my means to find a common position by which to link the two files. I used the point where Dr Boswell has his hand on JFK’s right Clavicle as the position to run the line. In order to make it easier to see I coloured the wound in red. I made one error in my original post. It appears the medial edge of the Scapular ridge is at the same level as T3. Originally I suggest that ridge was between T3 and T4. The lighter coloured vertebra is T3. I feel the wound is just slightly above T3, but T3 is as good as any definition of its position. There may be some errors in the image, but I feel it is pretty close.

It is a preposterous idea that the wound is at the level of T1/C7. The image itself may be vague, but the geography of the body is very clear where the hole is located. I suspect it is slightly above T3, but it would be perfectly possible to argue it was at the level of T3 Object 2 is the blood spot. On the back of JFK you will see two labels in yellow A1 + B1. Between these two labels and below the B1 label you will see an outline shape underneath the skin. The shape that is being seen is the outline of part of JFK’s right Scapula. If you look at the anatomical model that is to the right of the image you will see the complete Scapula on the skeleton. The two labels A1 + B1 in cyan on the skeleton point to these same parts that can be seen through JFK’s body that are labelled A1 + B1 in yellow. The A1 point is at the Medial edge of the Scapular spine. The Scapula spine is that ridge crossing the Scapula and the Medial edge is the edge of the Scapula nearest the vertebral column. In order to gain a reference by which to judge the location of the wound, I have drawn a blue line across the model as well as the body from this A1 point. Having done that I now have a base line on the body. This base line is midway between T3 and T4. If you look at the upper right corner of BE 5, you will see the right hand of Commander Boswell holding JFK’s shoulder. I am assuming that it is Humes doing the measuring. I have tried to guess where Costa IR is on the JFK’s body and have drawn a red line across the body, as well as on the model, signifying where I believe Costa IR is. I accept that, this line signifying the position of Costa IR might be slightly out, but it will not be very far out. This red line now gives me an upper limit beyond which this wound is not located. What can be said, for certain, is that the wound lies between those two lines. If you look at Boswell’s right hand [ I assume it is Humes that is measuring ] you will see that the nail of his pinkie, just to the right of the label A1, is roughly on the same plane as the wound. I suspect the position of this wound is above T3 but below T2. One thing is for certain it is nowhere near C7/T1.

David, I believe there is reasonable evidence that Malcolm Perry believed that the right lung was indeed injured. I agree the evidence is not definitive - after all Parkland only had around 20 minutes with the body - but what they saw during that period led Perry and Carrico to seriously believe the right lung had been damaged. The two chief signs were the deviation of the trachea and air bubbling in the mediastinum. I describe the evidence below. When JFK reached Trauma Room 1, it was clear to DR. Charles Carrico that JFK was not breathing. Therefore Carrico attempted to insert an Endotracheal tube to ease his breathing. Aside from noting the wound to the trachea, itself, Carrico saw that the trachea was slightly, deviated, bent to the left. 1 HSCA 268. This was also noted by Malcolm Perry after he had carried out the Tracheotomy. H6 10 When the trachea deviates it suggests that there is a collection of air inside the chest, between the chest cavity and the lung. When a lung is damaged, the trachea deviates towards the lung that is not damaged: in this case the left lung. Therefore seeing the trachea having deviated to the left suggested to both Carrico and Perry that the right lung was damaged. This was not the only evidence that Malcolm Perry had that something was wrong with the right lung. After cutting the tracheotomy he “noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.” H6 10 The “Mediastinum” is another name for the upper chest area. So as he was looking down into right chest area Perry noted that there was blood there which was mixed with air and so Perry ordered the Chest Tubes to be inserted. “I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage.” H6 10 The purpose of Chest Tubes is to remove an abnormal collection of air or fluid. Perry is supported by Dr. Jenkins who, talking about what happened in Trauma Room 1, stated the following: “Doctors Charles Baxter Malcolm Perry and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheotomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage.” CE 392 14. James.

David, I do find the idea of the wound in the back of the head difficult to agree with. A wound of that size I would have thought Zapruder would have captured. However the people below boxed in red - all of whom were in Trauma 1 - are clear where the wound was. Only Dr Baylor - boxed in blue - agrees with you. Why do you think all of these doctors - who were there and actually saw the body - are all wrong and only Dr Baylor is right? I find it difficult to believe that all - not just one or two - could be wrong about the location of this kind of wound. This is not the throat wound - which was a discrete wound and very few saw - this was a blatant wound that wound be impossible to miss -- even with the body in a supine position James

Ramon, This is a carry over from John Simkin's time. Allowing attachments affects our hosting charge, as a consequence of increasing hosting disk space. We have no intention of changing that decision. If it is images you wish to post then I suggest you open an account with a site like Photobucket. All you do is post the link to the file stored elsewhere. James.

Steven, I agree with Kathy's assessment of your work. During the last couple of days I have looked over a large portion of your posts and I cannot find a fault with Kathy's assessment of your work. I have hidden your most recent post. Aside from it being unsavoury, it has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If this is an area you wish to develop and explore we have a forum specifically for "Deep Politics" specifically set up for this kind of material. James

Posted for Gary Murr: These images are from the 4th roll of film William Allen took on November 22nd, exposures number 17 and 18. The clip "theoretically" found in the rifle from the TSBD can plainly be seen projecting from the bottom of the housing. These images are quite rare and probably have not been seen by too many people. If nothing else they definitely confirm the presence of "a" clip in the weapon as Day walked it across the street to the DPD. Image 1:- Image 2:- Image 3:-

Fellow members, The Administrators have been made aware of a number of signs of unrest. Members have created excessively lengthy posts, referred to other members as liars, engineered new words that are clearly generated to replace banned words – and so on. In the last few weeks a reasonably large number of disciplinary actions have taken place. Rather that deal with this situation in the normal way, we have decided to issue a warning that we are aware of the situation and would like it to calm down. Should any member prefer to continue this behaviour it may well result in the said member being isolated until Spring 2016!! James.

Bump

I retract the comment about whether Greg's book was new research. It was Larry I was commenting on and the point originated from a report he made. However I misread what Larry had said in his report. I thought he was referring to the content of Greg's book whereas he was referring to what was suggested was a book review. His comment was not focus on Greg's book, but what considered itself to be a review. I apologise for that.

I believe this is an issue about which we will have to disagree. I actually do not know what you mean by "new research." If , for example your recent book could be considered as "new research" then I should say that one eminent member observed that actually in their opinion there was nothing new in your book. I refrain from giving that member's name because I do not want to embarrass the said member. Whether true or not, what - for me - is far more pertinent is your broad statement about the entire membership of this forum. In using the idea that this forum has no new research you are effectively saying that that - aside from your work - nothing that has been posted on this forum is worthwhile: the basis of being worthwhile being whether what is posted is new research. The administrators would love it if every thread was a item of new research. But sadly that is not the case. But to imply that everything that is posted is irrelevant because it is not new research is an insult to the membership. And the point "But just don't post them [ being opinions etc ] here. No on is interested. There is a comfort zone. Don't go outside those boundaries." That is a totally inaccurate description of the present membership of this forum" is a point we will never agree on. I believe the membership of this forum is alert to important and challenging research and is eager to debate it. James.

Thanks Don, I have been thinking - recently - about the passage of the bullet through John Connally. I note that the "Haag's" made a very convincing case that the Carcano bullet was prone to tumbling. I am not sure that is the case with regard to the internal injuries sustained by John Connally. Recently I came across a high resolution 2013 image of the inside of the jacket. Although it is not as good as another copy I have - but cannot use because of a standing agreement I have with the researcher - it is satisfactory for the purposes of my argument. I accept the bullet may well have tumbled on its journey but I believe not while it was inside John Connally's body. I also want to return to the argument when it was most likely that John Connally was wounded. Gary Murr has always maintained that the damage to the clothing as well as the condition of the injuries tell us a lot about when John Connally was injured. I agree and getting good quality images will help a great deal. Thanks for the image. James.

Today I have hidden a number of threads. Although all threads were begun by Greg Parker - the hiding of threads was not a reference to him per se. As another admin member questioned why the "case closed." As implied these topics were not case closed. In one thread was the following observation. "But just don't post them [ being opinions etc ] here. No on is interested. There is a comfort zone. Don't go outside those boundaries." That is a totally inaccurate description of the present membership of this forum. From my perspective - and the reason why I hid them - these were [ as far as I was concerned ] not threads but statements. All of them were viable topics for discussion but that was not how they were presented. And that was the reason I hid the threads. James

Thanks Gary, I look forward to receiving them. James

I have been doing some work on John Connally and I have collected many of the 2013 images for comparative purposes - and yes they are not of great resolution - however what I cannot find is an image of the entry wound through the back of the shirt. I have found many shirt images but I cannot find one of the back entry wound damage. Has anyone got such an image? Thanks. James.

Bump.

To Forum Members, The administrators would like to thank those members who have so generously donated already. Your contributions are very much appreciated. These contributions will go a long way to ensuring the continued viability of this much valued forum. James Gordon on behalf of the administrators.

Evan, I have just contacted Paypal and both methods ought to have worked. For Paypal the procedure is as follows. 1) Log into your Paypal account. 2) Click on Send and Request 3) Click sending money to friends and family. 4) Type in the EF email address:- jamesgordonjamesg22014@Outlook.Com 5) Choose your amount and send. If you follow that sequence it ought to work.

Jon, The fist donation system was a little complicated when first set up. The system was changed and I believe is now easy to follow. Indeed we created a series of images to make it easier to follow. A number of fellow members have been able to successfully follow the instructions.

Evan, Either currency is fine. Most donations are in $, I believe I am the only one who contributes in £. James.

Bump

Many thanks to those who have donated so far. As Mark has observed, help with the running cost help us to keep the forum securely functional. Hopefully others will feel able to contribute. Thank you. James.

Here is the best version I have of the Harper Fragment. James