James R Gordon

“Oswald's bullet has ripped through his wrist 2 frames earlier.” Since we do not see John Connally's right arm - let alone the position of his right wrist - at Z 224 how on earth can you make such a statement????

Flinching of the shoulders. No they do not, his left shoulder changes position as John Connally turns left. Scrunching of the head downward. No it does not. Between 224 and 225 John Connally's head moves from right to left. This lowering of the head - as you refer to it - is to be seen in 226 not 225. However 226 is a blurred frame and it is not clear what we are seeing. 227 does not help because it is even blurred more. However at 228 John Connally's head is at the same height. So it is not at all certain that John Connally actually does lower his head. Mouth opening. Prove it!! Eyes closing. Prove it!! Lapel flipping. In a conversation with Robert P. you were discussing whether this was a consequence of the wind.

And there lies the difference. You take on face value what you see on these various videos. You comment on how many videos all show the same thing. Of course they do: they are all showing the same frames. What you have never done is examine why these videos all show the same thing. You have never examined what is on frames 224 and 225 that could account for this movement. That fact there is this anomaly is sufficient in itself to support your position. You say you have been laughing because what I say is so amazingly wrong (and silly) in light of what is clearly visible in this film clip. But you have no idea whether what I say is right or wrong because you have never examined the frames: you just accept what they say. You prefer to practise ridicule to seriously examining the argument.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Once again, James is wrong on the frame numbers. The "jerky" reactions by Connally begin at Z225, not Z226. And here's yet another GIF showing the jerks and flinches of JBC (this clip ends at Z225)…. David, what you refer to as a “jerky” movement is no such thing. It is the changing positions of John Connally’s left shoulder. The shoulder’s position changes because John Connally is in the process of turning his body to his left. And the position of his shoulder between Z 224 and Z225 is different. That change in position is what the gif is showing. It is not a “jerk” but quite a significant change in the shoulder’s position. That has been repeatedly explained to you and has been repeatedly ignored by you. It is clear you have never examined these frames and simply take on trust what it is they show you.

Let me try this approach.... My responses in red. 1.) James R. Gordon knows for a fact that John B. Connally was shot by a rifle bullet on 11/22/63 at a point in time which James also knows is very close in "real time" to Zapruder frames 224-230 (give or take a FRACTION OF A SECOND). Actually I do not know that. It is not a fact that John Connally was wounded within this time frame. It is the theory of David Von Pein that John Connally was wounded at this time. In no sense of the word is John Connally’s wounding at this a fact: it is a theory. 2.) Therefore, since #1 is so obviously true, there is probably a point in the Zapruder home movie that shows Connally's initial reaction(s) to being hit by the bullet that injured him. Deary me! Is that the best you can so?? 3.) As I have illustrated about 99 times now, Zapruder frames 224 to 227 indicate some definite changes in Governor Connally's appearance that could very easily be said to be "involuntary startle reactions" to some kind of external stimulus. If these frames do indicate “definite changes”, then it is a consequence that you have a mixture of clear frames [ Z222 to Z 225 ] and blurred frames [ Z 226 + Z 227 ]. Include blurred frames in any frame sequence and you are bound to get unusual results. Within the clear frame sequence you have clearly not analysed what the frames tell us. One example:- One observation that you made was that there is a bigger “bulging out” of John Connally’s jacket at Z 224 - when you believes the bullet struck John Connally. Post 1 What you actually said was in that post was “And then we get the bigger “bulging out” (for lack of a better term) of that same area of Connally’s jacket at the precise instant when I think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this is only a shadow, IMO:” The gif that you used was the one you also referenced in post 114. It is an appallingly poor video. The actual image was shown on Page 2 of the PDF. I pointed out if that video gif is indeed an accurate reflection of what Zapruder shows then it ought to be seen on better videos What you do not make clear is that between Z224 and Z 225 John Connally is turning to his left. He has moved around 4 to 5º and it is that movement that has caused the jacket to move. All you has noticed is the jacket and you has not been prepared to investigate why the jacket has moved. Had there been no movement by John Connally between these two frames then I would have been prepared to agree that the jacket has indeed bulged and that maybe it was the consequence of a bullet passing through John Connally’s body. However it is clear that John Connally has turned his body leftwards between these two frames and that is why the jacked has changed its position. In post 44 you agreed that between Z 222 and Z 230 John Connally is indeed seen to be turning left. And this is critical to this whole story. Between Z 222 and Z 230 John Connally is turning left to face forward. The dispute here is that in making this turn you are interpreting moments in this turn as demonstrating evidence that John Connally has been wounded when in fact all that is happening is that John Connally is turning to his left. 4.) When factoring in #2 and #3, in tandem, what do you suppose the odds are that the movements by John Connally seen in Zapruder frames 224-227 are movements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the injuries sustained by John Connally at almost that exact same time (give or take a FRACTION OF A SECOND? I have just pointed out that one example in your argument at #3 is wrong. John Connally’s jacket is not bulging out. Nor has his left shoulder changed its shape. Nor is his mouth open at Z 225. Nor does John Connally’s hat begin to flip at Z 226 forwards. The only point that appears to be correct is that John Connally’s tie appears to distort and bulge outwards. 5.) There are no frames in the Zapruder movie AFTER approx. Z230 in which any kind of "jerky" or "startled" reactions can be seen with respect to Governor Connally's movements. These “jerky” and “startled” reactions that you talk about only occur between Z 226 and Z 228. And these are blurred frames. These reactions have nothing to do with John Connally, they are a consequence of Zapruder moving his camera and thereby butting the frames. When viewing things with the above four things in mind, James, do you still want to stick with this conclusion?.... "It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck." -- J. Gordon Yes!!!

David Von Pein said:- “Revised website link below (updated by DVP in order to archive the astounding amount of total denial exhibited by members of The Education Forum relating to the obvious signs of distress visible in Governor Connally's reactions when viewing Abraham Zapruder's motion picture film)…..” I find that to be a quite extraordinary statement. In your opinion the membership of the Education Forum are in denial because they do not happen to agree with your opinion of the Single Bullet Theory. By using that expression that the membership are in “total denial” you are actually questioning the sanity of the membership of the Education Forum. Indeed you find this to be so important an issue you have decided to update your website so others can see how wrong the membership of the Education Forum is compared to you assessment of the assassination. Having studied these frames - Z 222 to Z 230 - it is clear that what is happening is that John Connally is turning his body to the left so that by Z 230 he is actually facing forward. These frame in a gif would demonstrate that - were Z 226 and Z 227 and Z 228 not partially or wholly blurred. Unfortunately they are blurred and when incorporated into a gif these same frames throw up extraordinary results. It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck. Aside from your statement about the tie, nothing you say about these frames stands up to serious scrutiny. That leads me to wonder who is it, that is actually in “total denial.”

Below is my analysis of the Zapruder frames Z 222 to Z 230 and whether they demonstrate evidence that John Connally is demonstrating being wounded by a bullet. There is a link to a pdf version at the end. Here is a summary of the individual findings. 1. John Connally’s lapel is seen to move between frames Z222 and Z 223. The lapel may move as a consequence of the wind. However image resolution is not clear whether it actually does move. 2. The “bulging out” of John Connally’s jacket at Z 224. As page 2 points out, jacket image is a consequence of John Connally turning his body to his left. 3. John Connally’s shoulders are seen to flinch between Z 224/225. As pointed out the change in the shape of John Connally’s shoulders is not a reaction to being struck a by bullet, but the changing position of John Connally’s shoulder as he turns his body left. 4. There is clear evidence of John Connally’s hat flipping which begins at Z 226 Aside from the fact the the frames used to describe this are blurred, it is clear [ from Z 230 ] that John Connally is shifting the position of his hat so that it is positioned in front of him. 5. The individual frames tells you nothing. You need to view the frames being processed through a gif. When 3 of the nine frames are blurred then any result of showing the complete 9 frames is bound to result is unexpected images that do not represent what is actually seen in the frames. 6. John Connally’s neck tie is seen to distort and bulge outwards at Z 225. This observation may well be true. However it is not clear why we are seeing the bulging. 7. John Connally’s mouth is seen to be open at exactly Z 225. The image resolution simply makes it impossible to verify this. It is not even clear John Connally’s mouth is open. James PDF Version:- https://www.transferbigfiles.com/9399f20f-0a84-4d67-8448-6745ae2fea6d/olDrj9--0tgoawZ3aWxXsg2

David, If you applaud John Connally's support for the Warren Commission then I assume you also support his emphatic claim at 1:30 that he was not injured with the first shot. That he was in the process of turning to his left when he was shot. That is exactly what he is doing between Z 222 and 230. Why do you feel Connally is right to support the Commission but wrong about when he was injured? James.

David, I hope to reply in detail today. I am quite surprised by your post 114. Throughout this thread I have been very detailed in my criticisms of this frame sequence from 222 - 230. This frame sequence is - as I understand it - central to the issue whether John Connally was injured at the same time as JFK. I am embarrassed by your lack of detailed responses. All you appear to be able to do is insult. Suggesting that at some point I will argue that John Connally was not even in the car is quite pathetic. Members, including myself, have made a series of detailed criticisms of this footage and what it means and all you can do is make comments that reflect more on you than they do on myself and the membership of this forum. I am also really surprised at the quality of the video clips you are issuing as evidence. The clip referenced in post 114 is amongst the poorest I have seen. Earlier you supplied a clear clip and I will be using that to argue my case. Clips, such as the one in 114, are too poor to be able to establish anything. As regards the tie. I understood that to bunch is also to make a movement. I note you have made no response to the post earlier today where it was pointed out why to some it may appear that the tie has bunched. This has been one of your staple arguments as to why John Connally was wounded at this time. Two members - including myself - have made clear why that impression was an allusion and you are unable to make a response. All you are reduced to is making jokes and insulting. James.

I have just hidden a number of posts within which a member attempted to manipulate language from being inappropriate. Next tine the said member does this again a more severe action will be taken. The administrators have made their position very clear on this issue. James.

John, Thanks I agree completely. I had forgotten that we were also looking through glass and - aside from what Costella did to the frames - this has added a further distortion. Thanks. James.

David, Maybe you should not be scolding fellow forum members until you have done some homework. You say to Robert “Don’t tell me YOU can't see the tie moving in the various clips I provided earlier, Bob. You aren't going to deny that John Connally's tie IS moving around at Z225, are you? Take a look again…” In doing so you are suggesting that he ought to see what is evident if only he looked. What you are seeing is a consequence that between Z 223 and Z 224 the colour and well as the position of the tie and the silver roof support clash. In Z224 the roof support cuts through the tie so that we only see the upper and lower parts of the tie. In-between is the roof support. These frames shown through a gif suggest the tie is moving when actually it is not. The shape of the tie has changes because of this clash. You really ought to do your homework. James. The Tie part 1:- Z 223 The Tie Part 2:- Z 224

David, You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!! It is perfectly evident to me that you have no IT skills. You have made no attempt to discover whether the gif, you are using yet again, has corrupt frames…….which indeed it has. To morrow I will show you the quality of the frames you are basing this nonsense on. You have made no attempt to determine whether the gif’s you are showing to this forum actually show what you say they show. I have not seriously looked at this gif that you use on post 93. I will do so tomorrow. I need to point out that your poor research of the gifs you are presenting on this forum really angers me. This tie evidence is only part of this present gif, but until I look at it tomorrow I will not be able to say why the tie does what it is doing. Go back to the movie I described earlier and you will see the tie’s movement does not happen there. Whatever is making you think the tie is moving or what, is only part of this very poor gif. That should bother you that one gif shows this tie movement, whereas the other one does not. If the tie is doing what you suggest, then both movies should show it. In addition, the actual slides do not support this point about the tie. the only evidence that shows this tie movement is a gif that has corrupt frames. How you are able to tell expression of such poor - and indeed even distorted frames - is beyond me! Some of these frames are really distorted yet you can tell expression. I note you are now saying that Connally’s right shoulder is rising. It is turning to its left as Connally turns his body. That is what you are seeing. It is clear to me that you are basing everything on a very poor gif and are not verifying your findings with the frames themselves. I find it of some interest that you are clearly are not interested that the frames - on which this gif is based - do not agree with what the gif is suggesting to you. James

Robert, The angle is a bit of a guesstimate. The fact the body turns to the left, that is not. James.

David, I have spent today looking at the film image you posted on reply 68 with the ever so helpful comment "(And don't tell me you can't see it here, James. It's quite visible.)" What you do appear not to have done, is to have analysed the imagery you present as proof of your position. I see you have yet to respond why the Z224 frame in your original gif has a white out half way through the frame. There is your answer as to why you see an anomaly that suggests you you that Connally has been struck. But back to the film image you posted on reply 68. Frame 224 is a reasonably clear frame. Frame 225 is also a reasonably clear frame. That said - and I will return to this point - when 225 is run after 224 there is a clear suggestion that Connally's left shoulder rises. Frame 226 is a reasonably blurred frame. Frame 227 is a very blurred frame Frame 228 is a reasonably blurred frame. There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these frames - especially from 225 to 228 - demonstrate that Connally has been struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is going on - but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is doing. Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair I did wonder if indeed we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224 and 225 Connally turns around 20º to his left. That is what you are seeing. The change in the left shoulder - is not a reaction to the bullet - it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is turning his body left. As I pointed out to you in an earlier post - and you did agree with me - between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left. What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames is:- a) that 20º turn between 224 and 225 the total blurred distortion in frames 226 - 228 That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when actually Connally is turning to his left. I hope tomorrow to demonstrate this with the imagery. James.

David, Try not to be insulting. Of course I can see what you are referring to. However 460 off frames are of no use to me. I need frames 220 to 225. I do not need anything else. At the moment I am puzzled by your 224 frame in the 224/225 gif. Are you aware that the 224 frame you are using in this gif is made up out of two parts. Part a:- Frame 224 Part b:- a white box. I am working with Adobe Premier CC 2014. Just in case you are thinking it when a frame is complete and there is no more data then the monitor goes black. It never goes white. That block of white is data in your 224 frame. I.e. it is part of the frame. Therefore going from 224 to 225 this block of white will make a massive impact on what we see on the screen. And before you jump to conclusions I am not suggesting this had anything to do with you. This was built into the frame at some point by a person unknown. 224 Part A 224 Part B http://s1187.photobucket.com/user/jamesg27/media/224%20B_zps4nos6cbp.jpg.html'> James.

David, I have no idea what you are talking about when in Z224/225 gif you mention John Connally's tie? What point are you making. At the moment I am just worked on your Z225/226 gif. Were you aware that between these two frames Zapruder lowered his camera? That is why you see such movement that suggests to you that Connally has been injured and is flinching. When these frames are stabilised all we see is Connally turning to his left. James

David, You are making my point for me. This arm movement you talk about is not in the individual slides. If it is a factual element of data it has to be in the individual slides. If it is not on the individual slides but it is on the movie then is is a result of distortion of some sort. Movies do not create changes in the data they reflect the changes in data. Put another way, the arm/shoulder cannot be seen to move in the movie if that movement cannot be seen in the individual frames. Now I agree in your clip the right arm/shoulder does indeed appear to move. But that change is not on frame 224 - therefore it has to be some kind of distortion on the film. James.

David, Please do not confuse the discussion. Where the bullet might have gone is a different point. My point is that I am casting doubt on the idea that John Connally was injured between 223/224. I have pointed out that - and you have agreed - that between 222 and 230 John Connally is seen turning to his left. I question whether what you see in the clip you have shown is evidence that Connally was injured between 223/4. I accept that the clip does appear to show Connally's lapel having blown open. You argue that is a consequence of him being injured. I have pointed out it could have been caused by the wind. The remaining part of this conversation rests on how reliable your video clip is. The single frames do not show what you feel the video clip does show. One point you make is that his left shoulder rises. The individual frames do not show that. Now a video does not create data: it shows the differences in data and it is those differences that create movement. So if you are right that the left shoulder has risen as a consequence of Connally being struck then that has to be visible in the individual frames. Now the frames do not show that and so what I believe you are seeing is video distortion and not - as you argue - Connally reacting to be wounded. James.

David, So at least we agree that from 222 to 230 John Connally mover to his left until by 230 he is facing forward. If I remember correctly - I do not have all my notes with me - Connally said that when he was struck: a) he was push forward he looked down to see he was covered in blood We see neither of these things. You say the Connally is on record saying that after he was hit he continued to turn to his left. As I recollect Connally says that after he was hit he turned to see if JFK was injured and that turn was to his right. James

David, An error on my part, I meant Connally turned to his left from 222 to 230. James.

David, Looking at Z 224 it does look like the lapel has indeed blown open. However, that in itself, does not establish your argument. It is quite likely the wind that has blown the lapel open. In the image below I pointed out that between 222 to 230 John Connally is clealrly seen turning to his right. Do you deny that? James

David, below is a link to a rough first draft on these Costella Frames Z 222 to Z 230 If this is to be a fruitful discussion then I do request you take this discussion seriously and at least attempt to answer the issues that are being raised. Unfortunately I cannot show the video live. there is a link below for members to download the file. One thing I noticed with this edit is that the frames are not stabilised. I am going to need to do that. Qn 1. Are the frames in your video stabilised? O.k the speed is too slow and that I will adjust. Qn 2 However irrespective of the speed are you disputing that these frames show John Connally turning to his right? Because I start at 222 and not 223/4 I do not show the beginning that you see. That said between 222 and 225 in the Costella frames there is no movement that you identify as the shot. What is very clear in this sequence is that at 226/227 there is massive blurr and distortion. Are you suggesting that is the moment he is shot? What is very clear to me is that between 222 and 230 John Connally is turning to his right. That, as far as I am concerned, is an undeniable fact. I am going to work on this video tonight. I am also going to zoom right into the lapel and see whether it does move as you suggest and is not - as I believe - just a distortion of the movie. Link to file https://www.transferbigfiles.com/bdee75fb-e506-4b8f-a400-9dd48f73ee35/pU8ss9wsIcfYyn-tVgv5bw2 James.

David, With respect, I totally disagree with you. These frames are clear - aside from 227. If the individual frames clearly show John Connally turning to his right nor do they show the jumping movement you claim the movie shows - then something is wrong. You do not see the movement of the body - in the individual frames - that you claim can be seen in the movie. Have you stabilised the frames. Have you used the John Costella combined edit. What is the basis of your edited movie? Put simply the Costella frames suggest you are wrong. The Costella frames make clear Connally is turning to his right. Are you disputing that the Costella frames show John Connally turning to his right??? James

I would like to point out to members that Gary Mack does not post here as a consequence of his position at the 6th Floor Museum. Members should not construe other motives to Gary Mack not posting on this site. If Gary informs a member about the veracity of a piece of evidence then - unless members have good reason (and that is not opinion) to challenge that evidence - then curtesy requests members at least consider that evidence. The Sixth Floor Museum - whatever members think about it - does have access to information that we do not possess. I have hidden a number of posts where a member contradicted evidence in the case and questioned - without evidence - that the said member was right and the Sixth Floor Museum was wrong. James