James R Gordon

David,

Let us put aside the "lapel" issue and just deal with the movie clip.

The point being made by the movie is that during the sequence of frames [ and I should point out you have not informed us which frames we are talking about ] Connally's lapel moves and his body is seen to also move/jerk whatever. The conclusion is that Connally has been hit by the same bullet that caused JFK's throat would.

Below is a sequence of edited frames from Z 222 to Z 230. I have used the John Costella combined edit.

Looking at these frames I agree that Connally is moving, but he is turning to his right.

Point 1. Is that taken account of and explained in your movie.

Point 2. Z 227 is a very blurred frame. Is that frame being used in your movie and where in your movie was it placed. E.g. did you end with that frame?

Point 3. If the single frames clearly show Connally in the process of turning to his right, how can you be sure that Connally has also been hit by a bullet. And if so why do we not see evidence in this turn to point that [ included in this sequence ] is also the moments when he is struck by a bullet.

If members want the actual file to examine for themselves you can download from here.

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/dba1ffb0-b20a-4b8e-9576-9231714dc0f6/oQq4APzkLWEVgd9XUqdwVQ2

Kathy,

Bart has either not established his links properly of the files have been moved since he created the links.

Bart needs to re-establish the links to the files.

James.

Kathy,

The links are broken or were never established

James

Gentlemen,

The administration has hidden a number of posts. I would point out that - although I disagree with his position on the assassination - David Von Pein is a reputable assassination researcher.

By all means attack his position and approach to the assassination but associating his position to the Holocaust and other comments does not represent the ethos of this forum.

James

Vanessa,

It might seem curious, but for reasons neither I nor Invision can comprehend the sequence to move a post from one thread to another appears to have a broken link. That is why the posts have not been moved. When I get the situation sorted the posts will be moved.

The protocols for hiding a post are working perfectly well. That is why posts can be hidden when the administration decide.

Insulting the administration might not be the wisest way to get sympathy for your cause.

James.

I have contacted Sean Murphy today and have invited him to return and contribute to this thread.

James

Everyone, thank you for your input to the amendment to the rules.

Although I do not agree with all the points made, I have listened to what everyone has had to say.

I feel it is now time to close this thread and move on.

James

Larry,

I respect your view and position. You have voiced this to me before and, indeed, it may be possible to create a research section as you outline.

However, I disagree that vigorous debate cannot take place while also being circumspect in language use. I cannot see the argument where it is legitimate not to be circumspect in expression because one is passionate etc for a cause.

I see these two points ( a research area and language circumspection ) as very different points. I am prepared to look into the first and indeed feel it has potential, but the second is a red line issue. I am sorry, but I feel very strongly on this issue.

James.

Vanessa,

You will not be able to see what GP and TG said because I hid their comments.

I agree the PM thread is an important thread but I doubt it will disappear whatever the outcome. I believe members will still wish to debate it.

However whatever the importance of this or any other thread thread, it will not decide policy.

James

Vanessa,

In Post 18 you make a number of points but I will deal with two.

The content of a post and the language used in the post.

With regard to content, that for individual members to discuss among themselves and determine the validity of the basis of any argument and idea. The present administration has never intruded on that. There are many posts whose basis I thoroughly disagree with, but I do not believe I have intruded on that issue unless I have gone into discussions with members on such topics as the Connally wounding. In those case I have not commented on the topic and proposition but have joined the discussion. And members have not been reticent to point out where they feel I was wrong. But this administration does not cast value judgements on the validity or not of debating topics. That is left for members to agree about or not and to come to whatever consensus they wish to do.

Language is a very different issue. Kathy was right I am very frustrated about this. This is a red line issue for me and one on which I will not budge.

Last June John Simkin was kind enough to trust us to take over his forum. You might be more familiar with the JFK Assassination Debate forum, but the vision that John and Andy Walker had in constructing this forum went well beyond this particular forum. Quite rightly they called it the “Education” forum and the breadth of it is quite staggering. The membership may not be aware of this, but in the run up to taking over we discussed whether we would keep the entire forum or ditch everything but the JFK Forum. Our consensus was that we would seriously damage the vision of John and Andy if we ditched the other parts of the forum…even though it would have been cheaper to do so.

Towards the end of John’s time - I remember - he too took exception to inappropriate use of language and infighting. As I remember it - and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong - he gave up fighting this issue. I believe he found it the infighting just too stressful.

I believe John was right when he took on this issue, I believe it is inappropriate to what this forum stands for - and I am talking about the Education Forum and not just the JFK Assassin debate forum - to allow such language use. I see a difference between a member arguing a cause that clearly is different from the norm. As an Education Forum we support the right of any member to argue whatever view they have on the assassination and its evidence.

However inappropriate language is not a members right to use. Yes, we have allowed it in the past and - indeed may well compromised ourselves as to how we dealt ( or did not deal ) with instances.

This is a red line issue - which will not be walked back from. The present administration would hope we have the support of the majority of members - and I believe we probably have. I want no member to feel they need to leave the forum, but I also insist that all members comply and be circumspect with their language use. And if they cannot, then they may need to make a decision.

When this forum was set up the tone and purpose of the forum was decided by John and Andy. As the new guardians of this forum we will honour this intent and ensure it is part of the everyday life of the forum.

James.

I agree with much of what you say Mark.

The basis of the new rule is that members are respectful and courteous to each other. Provided members follow that basic rule, which is what underpins the new behaviour rules, then active and vibrant discussion is welcomed.

"Verbal fisticuffs" we cannot - and will not - allow to happen. It just causes mayhem. This site is full of very knowledgeable and experienced members. It is not rocket science to request that debate is carried in a manner through which no-one feels offended.

The administrators do not feel it is important that members agree - but we do insist that disagreement is carried in a manner that reflects the good name of the Forum.

James

Dealt with.

James

Greg,

I will not get into a debate on this issue, however since I locked the "Behaviour" post, I will comment on this post.

Regarding David Joseph. I released him. I saw him logged onto the forum last night and since he only had a few hours left I decided to let him in. In addition David was not benched because of the kind of post you highlight above. His was a much more serious offence.

Regarding the Dawn Meredith post, I believe it was before my post. Second it was essentially sarcasm. That would never have been an offending post You employed a similar tone in post 56 on the Walker thread.

I am aware of the debate between you and Don Jeffreys and I am following it very closely.

I am also following very closely debate on the Walker thread and I have already hidden one post I felt was goading you.

As a general observation I find the temperature on the forum has greatly reduced since I made that post.

I monitor all posts and follow a number of people three or four times daily. My work requires constant use of my computer, so I constantly on the Forum and very posts will now get past my scrutiny.

Although I have not announced it I have adapted the change of rules I posted.

If not serious enough to remove privileges or if if appears the member is goading another member I will hide the offending post. I have done that a few times since I posted the rule change.

If more serious I will remove posting privileges. For how long will depend on the offence.

Lastly - and most seriously - I will remove a members membership.

As I announced, all of this will take place without recourse to the member.

And finally, I have been closely watching your posting Greg. I would like to point out that I am aware you have not changed your position, but I also note that you are much more courteous. And to be fair not all you have conversed with have been equally courteous.

James

The administration invested a lot to take over this site and protect and continue it. We created a set of rules which we feel to be important for the successful continuation of the site.

Recently I posted a statement on members use of language and behaviour. We recently updated our Terms of Forum Use. One of the amendments was that “no member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.” The personal abuse directed at Don Jeffreys and David Lifton appals me. In addition to that - throughout a series of threads - there has been constant bickering and infighting among a few members. This behaviour must come to an end.

In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated.

We warmly welcome members to this site and encourage debate and discussion. However we have very clearly indicated what - we consider - to be the ground rules to be followed.

It is clear that a few members - and I stress the fact that it is a few members only - are disregarding these conditions of membership. Today I have suspended one member’s posting rights for 72 hours for blatantly disregarding these conditions.

In addition the administration reserves the right to immediately suspend/or delete membership where infringement of these conditions is detected.

There are on the internet many sites that are happy to accept this kind of behaviour occurring on their site. This site is not one of them. The administration does not subscribe to the theory that checking and dealing with this kind of behaviour is also an infringement of freedom of speech.

Therefore if a member suddenly sees their posting privileges removed - or indeed their membership removed - then it will be because that member has deliberately ignored this post.

There will be no warning given. The administration have warned on numerous occasions, I have posted - on the matter in the last few days - so no member can say they were not aware of these basic conditions of membership.

James.

Brad,

First, it is unclear what the question that you suggest is "xxxxx bait" actually is?

Second, your observation "When visitors that don't comment (lurkers) observe someone bullying posters & no moderator/administration action taken to insure a fair exchange of communication for all contributors taken, visitors will assume that the bully is acting on behalf of the folks running the website" I do not recognise that as ever having been policy at JFKLancer. Even more important it is not the policy here. If such behaviour does escape notice it is not ever because the administrators are sanctioning it. If it happens it is because we may not have noticed it - and that is how was able to continue.

Normally the content of this post would be private, however I wished to make public that this administration has never sanctioned bullying. And that is the reason your post has not been hidden. Your reference to Thomas Graves is unacceptable and would have normally warranted your post being hidden.

James

Bumped

No Steve we would not be so cruel as to send you to your room without also feeding you. At present our cook's speciality is a delightful fragrant dish of Hemlock.

Yes Vanessa probably a good idea to open a new thread. However this is such a wide ranging thread it may not be possible to limit the new thread to a single issue.

Hi Vanessa and others,

I agree I may well have been blind other uses of inappropriate language - which I should have dealt with. Greg has identified a number of examples for me.

It was more the expression than a single word that alerted me.

I believe we are all aware of the kinds of words and expressions that might offend.

Yes, I agree, I can be inconsistent and I am certainly intervening on an issue that other forums are more relaxed about.

However I feel we ought to be able to discuss without profanity - and certainly not the kind of profanity that I hid.

You and others - and especially the person whose post I hid - have taken forward this topic in a very positive way. I am very proud of the passion, determination and serious JFK research that members are under taking on this thread.

I feel members ought to de able to discuss and debate without the kind of language use I objected to

James

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I have just hidden a post for inappropriate use of language.

Please be more circumspect.

This is a very important thread and you are all showing how well you are working together and collaborating on an issue that could be of real importance in JFK research.

Please bear in mind the use of language on a forum that is open to the public.

James

Thanks Chris,

Well if PM is indeed one step lower, that takes care of the height issue.

My instinct - looking at that image - is that PM is actually on the top step.

However I will give PM the benefit of the doubt and agree he is one step lower.

I will step out of the discussion and let members return the discussion to other areas of importance regarding PM.

Quite right Robert,

I was referring to the image attached to that post and my analysis of how PM was standing.

Robert,

We need to know how wide. Looking at post 1746 PM is right up against the corner of the door frame and wall. That would put him on the top step.

The individual highlighted in the same post would appear to be on the same step. Not sure about the woman.

No Thomas I do not.

The door is a sliding door and the top step is quite wide.

He appears to be standing on the same level as the woman and the other man.

But the short answer is no I do not. If you can establish that he is not standing on that step, that would make a difference.

Correction. It is not a sliding door.

II have admitted that perspective may well influence the result.

What concerns me is the difference between the top of PM's head to the top of the door. From what I can see the height of the door is approx 7' 6"

He ought to be taller if he is around Oswald's height. However he actually appears to be only 5'