James R Gordon

I am sorry fellow members, but I am going to close this thread. The purpose of the thread has wandered wildly off purpose. Though that happens on other threads, and the admin do not always choose close those threads, this one was in memory of a fellow researcher. Such debates - as have occurred on this thread in the last few days - contribute nothing to the memory of Gary Mack. James.

I have hidden one post in this thread. Whatever members views are regarding Gary Mack, he was one of the significant persons associated the JFK assassination research. He deserves our respect. James.

Robert, Important though this thread is, at present it is all over the place. I really wish someone had the time to write a detailed summary to both remind us of the details of this issue as well as get us back on track. I would love to see this thread re-focused and energised. James

Raymond, The issue of pining is a difficult one. Members ROKC have repeatedly asked for the thread to be pinned. However if we pin one thread we are in danger of being requested to pin others. I concur the thread is an important one, and if members want it on page one then just bump it as I have just done. With regard to Sean Murphy when we get the Lancer archive restored = as we still intend to do - then members will have access to Sean's original work. I believe that Sean has changed his email address. I did contact him with the email address we have. I am sure he would have replied to me - even if he had other interests and no longer intended to contribute. The fact I got no response suggests we no longer have his current email address. James.

Bump

David Von Pein said: "Instead, the four doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not corroborate a single one of those doctors (although Dr. Jenkins came the closest to admitting he was wrong about the specific location of the exit wound)." David my understanding is that we do not have access to all 52 photos. You are correct that in the FOX set - which is in the public domain - that image set does not support the Parkland doctors. Assuming the Parkland doctors were telling the truth about what they saw on these pictures - and I have no reason to doubt their veracity - within the full set are images there are images with the scalp lying down the back on the head. There is also an image of a surgical incision on the head. We have no image that shows the scalp resting down the back of the head. DR McClelland says that is why you do not see the hole in the back of the head. Right or wrong, the point is we do not have access to that image. So to say that the Autopsy images do not corroborate the Parkland doctors is not correct. Some of the images do not support them - but we cannot say that all the images do not support them. James.

David, I also watched some of this video. I did not have time to watched all of it. Two points that stood out in my mind - in the part I did get to see - was:- a) part of the cerebellum fell on the floor. I am not sure there is verification of that. I certainly do not remember a reference to it. as you commented, the throat entry was right of centre. As I understand it, the entry was under the Adams Apple. McClelland's reference is at variance with that. The only advantage of that new position is the problems it creates for the SBT. That said, this new position for the throat wound creates more problems than it solves. I do not remember all the details, but I recollect that McClelland's description of his entry to Trauma 1 and the tracheotomy seemed somewhat confused. James

David, when you suggest that Dr. McClelland pretty much went off the "logic" rails in 1988 for NOVA/PBS. It appears then that he was not the only one. All four doctors agreed with Robert McClellands position of the wound. Also, you appear to have ignored that whereas the Parkland doctors agreed to visit the archives, the Bethesda doctors refused to attend. Now I wonder why that was??? You go on to comment what a bunch of malarkey this is. Well actually it is not. This contradiction - between Parkland and Bethesda - is a difference that has yet to be reconciled. I watched one of your videos last night and from McClellands description of where he was standing - even though JFK was lying supine - I believe he would have been able to see any hole in the back of the head. My concern is not with Parkland and Bethesda it is with Parkland and Zapruder. The kind of damage these four doctors describe ought to be able to be seen in Zapruder. Zapruder appears to support Bethesda, yet I have great difficulty in believing four doctors - who all attended JFK in Trauma 1 - could all be wrong on a wound that is so dramatic. James. https://www.transferbigfiles.com/242b77b4-71b6-42b8-8777-ac3c2d9f7953/OOtrrAQIt6iQM1XEbn1ISw2

I am sorry, but I have had to hide a number of posts that border on member baiting. Hopefully that will end the matter. James.

There is a third reason There is another possible reason. The ammunition might have been old and spent. I understand that in the early 1960's ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano dates to the early 1950's. I understand the makers of that ammunition did not have any that was newer than the 1950's Therefore it is not impossible that it was a spent bullet that was unable to penetrate. When the Haag's undertook their experiment for Cold Case they used quality ammunition and we saw the penetrating power of a Carcano bullet when it was it was in top condition. Had the bullet that caused the back wound - especially if it was quality ammunition - would have gone right through JFK and Connally as the Haag's demonstrated and possibly still have power left. James.

Cliff, As I pointed out, the FOX image gives us anatomical reference points by which to reference the position of the wound. The clothes do not do that. Leaving the movement of the clothes aside, that is another reason I prefer the FOX image to the clothes. As regards the authenticity of the FOX images, on that issue we are on opposite side. I accept the FOX images as authentic. James.

Cliff, I tend to agree with Ray Mitcham that the bullet entered around. I suspect it might have been slightly higher than T3 - but that is just opinion. Why I excluded the clothes is first there is debate whether they moved up the body or not and by how much. I did not say the clothes were invalid. I preferred to use the FOX image because there are specific anatomical points described in the image that can be used to reference the bullets entry point. Even if the shirt and jacket did not move, I would argue it is much more difficult to precisely identify the bullet's entry from the position of the holes in the clothing. As regards the authenticity and relevance of the FOX images, that is an issue on which we are on opposite sides. James.

One of the purposes of this thread is to examine the reality of the SBT. In November 1963 we had the body of JFK by which to verify what actually happened. If we still had the body - and it was in the condition it was in in November 1963 - we could verify whether the Warren Commissions conclusions are valid. However we do not have the body and there is no chance we will ever be allowed to exhume the body. All we have - in the form of physical evidence - are the clothes JFK wore and the publicly released autopsy images. What this thread is about is whether it is possible to verify that what the Warren Commission said happened, actually did happen? Basically can what is described as the SBT be verified. True we have all the autopsy protocols and testimony. But this is not about that. This is about whether these documents and conclusions can be verified. Leaving aside what it actually was - as far as the SBT is concerned the entrance wound is wound that JFK received on his back. According to the Warren Commission a bullet was fired from the sixth floor east window and struck JFK in the back. However where in the back did this bullet strike. Today we only have three pieces of evidence:- JFK’s Jacket. JFK’s shirt. Autopsy image Best Evidence Autopsy image 5 There are now questions as to exactly how on the body both the shirt and jacket were positioned. Therefore - for verification purposes - both the jacket and the shirt are compromised to an extent. That leave the autopsy image. Unfortunately it is also compromised. The quality of the image leaves much to be desired, the ruler is unreadable and it is not even clear what it is demonstrating. And to make matters worse, when the image was taken JFK was on his left side. He was not lying flat on the table. However the autopsy image has data that allows some verification. The Back Wound:- The human skeleton is the same whoever we are examining. Every human being has a skeletal rib structure and spine. Every human being has a scapula and every human being has a clavicle. The relationship of each of these to the other structures is the same in every human being. The autopsy image, mainly because of the position the body has been placed in, highlights various anatomical and geographical points in the human body. The blue line at A2 points to the same point described as A1 on the Skelton. That point is the edge of the scapula spine. The skeleton shows you where that is positioned on a human body. B2 and B1 highlight highlight the scapula’s inferior angle. Where James Boswell has his hand is the clavicle bone. The red dotted line on both the highlights this on the body as well as the skeleton. So we can - with confidence - make a number of points. the entrance wound is below the Clavicle. And the entrance wound is above the scapula spine. But where is it? There is evidence that evidence that suggested the bullet struck at T3.That is unlikely. The spine is adjacent to T4. And the wound is well above that. I suspect - as the diagram suggests - it is somewhere between T3 and T2. However it could be as low as T3. One thing is beyond dispute: the entrance wound is below, and well below, the clavicle. That means the wound is below the top of the lung. According to the Warren Commission this bullet struck the body from a height well above 60ft [ the height of the sixth floor window + the decline of the car as it travels down Elm Street ]. In addition it struck the body below the clavicle. Therefore how is it possible that this bullet can strike the body on a declining angle yet this bullet has to exit from a point on the body that is considerable higher from this bullet’s point of entrance? James

Robert, I disagree that most of us on this forum have the attention span of a three year old. The Prayer man thread demonstrates that. Members are not required to respond to every member. It is perfectly acceptable to just debate and converse with members of a like mind. James

Robert, This chart you have used is at the heart of any criticism of the SBT. It is what distinguishes theory - as proposed by the Warren Commission - and reality. I believe your chart may not be completely accurate, but it is more than sufficient for this debate. As you suggest, assuming a straight line from entrance ( the red dot ) to exit ( the blue dot), then this bullet has to accomplish massive damage to JFK lower head. Updated SBT apologists do accept that some damage was done to either C7 or T1. But this is just nonsense. If the bullet followed this path it could cause considerable damage to the spine. Link CAT Scan John Nichols chart that I have posted a number of times - and was pointed out to me by Pat Speer - is so important. In order for the bullet to avoid such damage the bullet would need to enter either 3 inches or 28º to the right. It would not avoid all damage a number of the important arteries would still be likely to be in its direct path. And of course as this bullet exited it would be traveling in the direction of Nellie Connally and not John Connally. Link to John Nichols Chart Your chart is important because it distinguishes the difference between theory and reality. James.

Kenneth, I assume you were thinking about 327 as opposed to 227? James

O.k. Mark. Clearly we disagree on these frames and what a resulting gif would show. James

David, As far as i know it is not against the rules. The conversation I was having was with Mark. I am not interested in your views. Mark was interested why I said that the exaggerated movement was likely to be the consequence of blurred rather than an actual physical movement. And that was why created that post. James

David, I was not talking to you. My post was trying to answer a question Mark's raised in post 230. James

Mark, See the image below. Z 224 + 225 are reasonably clear frames. Therefore running them in a gif will give an accurate account of the content of the frames translated into movement. However Z 226 is a little blurred. When the gif comes to translate that it may well include errors because the image is not very clear. That said, I expect a reasonable proportion of the data in the image will still be translated. Now Z 227 is totally blurred. What can the gif make of that image. However it has to be translated into movement and that is why you get that massive reaction that you earlier say that if members don't see what is going on there, then there is nothing to say. However, what is going on is the gif trying to analyse and make sense of a frame that is extremely blurred and whose data points - like Connally's head - are difficult to describe and is also in a radically different position. That is the reason you get that massive movement. It is not Connally moving it is the gif trying to analyse very blurred frames and make sense of them. That is what I mean. Blurred Frames:- James

Mark, I assume you are talking about the violent reaction. What you are seeing is Z frame 226 which is partially blurred and 227 which is extremely blurred. Run those two frames after 224 and 225 which are reasonably clear, you are going to get an unexpected result. That movement - if that is the movement you are talking about - has nothing to do with Connally reacting to being wounded. It is the consequence of using blurred frames in a gif sequence. James

There were three posts hidden. Two of mine, and unfortunately one of Mark's because he referenced one of my posts. Sorry Mark. James

I have hidden two posts on this thread, a post by Robin Haines and a response by Ron Ecker. Robin’s post had no right to be on this thread. That whole topic is in the “Dark Politics” thread and the administrators do not want it on this forum. I am sorry to have hidden Ron Ecker's post. Having hidden Robin’s post it felt right that Ron’s post - which was clearly a response to Robin’s post - should also be hidden in case members had wondered what had frustrated Ron Esker. James

I acknowledge that my suspension of David Von Pein’s posting privileges was hasty and wrong. I apologise to members for making such a hasty decision and will endeavour not to act again in such a way in the future. David Von Pein’s posting privileges have been restored.

Well, well, well. I see the quality of argument has risen to new heights!!