James R Gordon

Robert, The drawing, that you refer to as a disgrace, is not a drawing. It is a 3D object I constructed on a very expensive and accurate 3D anatomical model. The program it was created in is Cinema 4D. Second, it is not a disgrace. lt was created in 2012. If I were to create it now - or return to it later as I may well do next year - yes there are changes I am likely to make. Third. the description you ascribe to it, is just your opinion and no more than than. James

Robert, Gary Murr asked me to post these images of John Connally’s jacket and Shirt. The back of the Jacket in 1999:- An extreme Close up of the Jacket seen in 1999:- Close up of the Hole in the Back of the Shirt seen in 1999:- James

When I intruded into the thread at 1504 it was because of what Thomas Graves had posted at 1503. He had warned that this conduct may continue after the chill urged the the administration. I suggested we would be disappointed if it did so. Effectively pointing out we expect both parties to comply with Kathy’s instructions. It is clear to me Ernie Lazar has indeed complied, however it is less clear that Paul Trejo has changed after the 72 hour chill. This thread is now closed. James Gordon

Mark, Thank you for reminding Paul of Kathy’s status. Kathy is not just an administrator, she is also voicing the opinion of the other administrators on this issue. I would add that although I have no reason to believe it would happen, however all the administrators would be disappointed were a member, after the “chill period”, to either: (a) Continue this debate. OR b Create replacement threads which effectively allows the continuation of this present discussion. James

Gary, You need to increase the resolution quite considerably to be sure what you are seeing is a hole and not a stain. Of course the high the resolution the integrity of the image changes. Here is a small section which is at around 1300 dpi. Having increased it to this size I can now see that some of the areas I suggested were holes may actually be stains. Link to file:- Very interesting comment about the original location of the exit wound. James.

Robert, Lets look at this from a different position. My problem has been interpreting what Robert Shaw meant by medial to the right nipple. Was the entire wound medial or was the centre of the wound medial? It would appear the latter might - and I stress might - be the case. As I have said so often before the exit wound was a combination of two exiting forces. In an earlier post Gary agreed that I was correct to state that parts of the Arrow shirt was pierced by rib fragments. However he continued that it was difficult to state how many. Although we cannot identify every fragment hole I can identify 42 of them. I have placed a red circle round each one. You might question how can you tell each is a hole. Answer you can visibly see the fabric damage. See the Complete Shirt- See the Upper shirt:- See the Lower Shirt:- As I have shown each - bullet and the direction of the bone fragments - approximately the same angle of direction. I am not sure it is important what the angle is other than both appear to have the same one. What is striking is the separation between the exiting bullet holes and the stream of exiting fragments. I am wondering if bullet and fragments exited from different sides of the exit wound and where exactly were these extremities on the body. James.

Mark, Thanks for the chart. The one you posted was for the doctors deposition in March 1964. I wondered if it would be of help if I post the original chart, the Warner copy and the March chart you posted. The original January 28th Chart created at Parkland. I have annotated the chart. One point I might be wrong about is with regard to Charles Gregory comment on the right hand. I state there what he said was “location of Entry.” I am wondering whether he meant exit? The Warner Copy:- When you compare this to the original the changes are quite extraordinary. It could be argued that some were innocent - I am not saying I agree - but changing the wrist entrance and exit points: that was deliberate. And it was deliberately to deceive. The March Deposition:- As can be seen, Charles Greogory did not allow such a distortion to remain. He did not just change it here he also changed it in April when presented with another copy of the Warner diagram. James.

Larry, There are better quality versions of that press conference. I had understood that the press conference was on the 23rd. That certainly was the date on my copy of the video. I have always been so grateful to the unknown reporter who asked how close the bullet came to a major organ. Without that question we would not have had that comment by Robert Shaw. The conversation between Robert and Gary - that I have closely followed - has made clear exactly where the exit wound was. I accept I was in error in my location of the wound. However - and here is where this path of the bullet traveling down the 5th rib is very important. How much of the exit wound was caused by the bullet and how much was caused by the exiting bone fragments? And where within the location of the exit wound did the bullet? This exit wound was not just the consequence of the bullet. Its size and position was the combined consequence of the exiting bullet as well as the exiting bone fragments. The wrist wound was a separate wound. From the moment Gary suggested it was caused by a fragment from the fatal head shot I have always agreed with. I even presented some slides - when at Canterbury - to show some evidence of it. The thigh wound was always a troubling wound. Dr. Shires is on record about being troubled by it. I never worked hard on it and took the easy way out and thought it might be a fragment from the head wound. The most work detailed work I have seen on this wound is Gary's work. When Connally received his wound is a problem. Gary's recent talks with Robert have made me reconsider whether this wound was received post 313. However I cannot fully come on board with this point because of the Z 290 and following frames when I suggest Nellie rescues John Connally. If John Connally was wounded by that time and Nellie is indeed rescuing him then Connally received his wound before the head shot. James.

Robert, I approached the problem differently. Robert Shaw stated that the bullet traveled along the fifth rib and difference between entrance and exit was approx 25 degrees. So I placed my pointer along the 5th rib and ensured the angle of decline was around 25 to 30 degrees. I tried to use 27 degrees as my angle. The entrance was just to the right of the scapula and so I placed the entrance there. I did not move the rib inwards - as the X-ray shows happened to it. Therefore the exit would have been wrong. However when I placed the pointer I did so without the muscle structures in place. That was an error. So rather than apply the data values you ask about I created the model as described above. I then rotated the model so that it was positioned as shown in Zapruder. I then projected the pointer back to see where it originated. My thinking was if I have placed the pointer correctly - and I am no longer convinced my positioning of the pointer was absolutely correct - that might give me a better result. The position of the human ribs is a standardised location point. If I had Connally's height within the car correct and I had his rotational position correct then the pointer ought to return a valid result. I am due to return to my model in a few weeks time. There are many changes I intend to make and the positioning of the Connally pointer is one. However I will still use a pointer. Myers use of cones allowed invalid assumptions to be generated. Myers acknowledged that his cone suggested that the Daltex was a possibile source - just like the TSBD a - which he ignored in favour of the TSBD. With the pointer it either it either hits the target or it misses.

Robert, I’m sorry I was wrong about the angle. Myers appears to say that Connally was turned around 13º to the right of forward. It was the bullet that traveled through his body at an angle of 24º right to left. With reference to Zapruder it would appear to me that Connally is turned more to the right than 13º. Unlike, with his acoustic work, Myers does not give reasons for his judgement. So the answer to your question is that he does not give reasons for his decision on his positioning of Connally in the car. On the quality of Myers animation we will have to agree to differ. I am still in awe at the quality of his work. I stated earlier - and I stand by that statement - that Myers played fast and loose with his manipulation of his data objects. For example the angle by the bullet passed through Connally’s body. In his animation it is clear - irrespective what his disciples say - that the only way Myers has been able to get his SBT to work is have the bullet exit close to Connally’s heart. However with regard to his model, I can find very few errors. You comment about his car. Myers car is absolutely correct. Unlike me who purchased a commercial version and adjusted it to comply with the correct dimensions: he built his car from scratch and from a copy of the actual plans of the car. I know about the accusations regarding the positioning within the car - however when you measure the objects in the car against - seats etc and distances between - these models appear correctly positioned. Robert Harris has accused him of adjusting positions and sizes to suit his purpose. I do not see that. From what I can see he has the relative heights of each model correct. Yes, if you interchange the JFK model and Connally model it appears there is a serious error there. This is because it appears Myers is more concerned with the accuracy of the height of each head of each model as opposed to their size. Myers construction of the Plaza is just quite breathtaking. And that was in the 1990’s when he built it. It is common for critics to describe Dale Myers animation work as a cartoon. Such critics have no idea what they are talking about. His 3D model - in my opinion - is light years ahead anyone else’s work: including mine. Has he manipulated and made adjustments in places, I suspect he has. I suspect that is the reason Dale Myers has never released the model - as he is on record saying that he would. I am sure had Myers released his model critics would have checked every measurement and found errors but not significant errors. So, as I say, with regards to his 3D model we will have to agree to disagree. Now how Myers used that model to carry out his experiments is a different matter. He used cones that allowed him a massive error margin. I use trajectory lines. He uses closed models which prevented verification of his descriptions. And yes I believe his description of the wounds and trajectories is wildly wrong. But we cannot verify that because they are closed models. I understand that his positioning of the car on Elm street is inaccurate but the correct position does not suit his argument. He documentation as to the wound description - as described on his web site - is highly selective and ignores many important medical facts. And the list goes on. But whereas Myers has played fast and loose with the manipulation of his model to get the outcomes he wants I believe Dale Myers 3D model is still an astonishing piece of work.

Robert, You will find how he came to angles on his web site where he describes the construction of his 3D model.

I believe I made an error. Myers may have felt the angle was nearer 24º. Looking at Zapruder, I believe Dale Myers is not far out. In the end I believe I used 25º as my measurement. I did not spend a lot of time on 223/4 because the "twin trajectories" made it clear to me that Connally was never wounded at that point. I agree that Dale Myers played fast and loose with much of his data, however I found a lot of useful information in his description of how he put his model together.

Robert, Zapruder makes it very clear that at 223/4 John Connally was indeed turned to his right. I do not have my notes with me, but I remember using Dale Myers calculation. I seem to remember that he had calculated Connally to be turned 27 degrees to his right from a forward position. It appeared then and now to be a reasonable value. Myers may be out by a degree or so, but I consider he is in the ball park.

The strong feeling - by fellow members - towards the reinstatement of banned members has been noted and we are exploring the creation of an acceptable solution.

Robert, Where before I was somewhat puzzled, I am not so puzzled now. The conversation you are having with Gary is making a great deal of sense. Your point that had Connally been facing forward - at 223/4 - then the source of the shot would have been west of the Oswald window. From what I can see the source of the bullet would be East of the Oswald window - somewhere between the TSBD and the Daltex. This conclusion is based the small rotation of Connally's body from his real present position at 223/4 to this theoretical position. This really has little to contribute to your conversation with Gary. If anything it is just another comment on the SBT. The rotation of the Connally body to source a shot West of the Oswald window - at 223/4 - would I believe have to have him rotated to facing forward and then rotated slightly to his left. James.

Robert, I am was not talking about the kind of points you are Gary are discussing. I simply placed the car in the correct position and placed the two models - JFK and Connally - in their correct positions. I led a pointer from the Oswald window to the JFK back entry. In this experiment I was not even concerned where such a bullet would exit on JFK's body. Next I extended the Connally pointer backwards. I was curious whether it would come anywhere near the Oswald window. As you can see it sourced somewhere between the the Daltex and the Records. This is the point I was trying to make. The more Connally is turned to his right the more the source of the shot moves away from the Oswald window. The only way to link the JFK wound with the Connally wound is to distort it and have the bullet travel through Connally's chest and exit close to his heart - as Myers and Bugliosi do. Now I accept that - as you have stated before - the Connally pointer is not perfect but it is sufficiently accurate to make my point. The image below is what I refer to as the twin trajectories. The wounds for JFK and Connally - were they both to be struck at 223/4 - source from two different points. James

Robert, I am enjoying and learning from this conversation you are having with Gary. One comment I would make from trajectory analysis I undertook, is that any chance that Connally could receive this chest wound - from the Oswald window at 223/4 - he would need to be seated facing forward. You suggest he needs to be turning right. As he turns to his right the position of the entrance moves away from the TSBD and moves more towards the Daltex and the Records. By the 230's - as you correctly identify as a period when he is turning to his right - the car has rotated to its right as a consequence of the turns in Elm Street and further complicating the position of the entry wound. James.

The Administration has just posted its Terms of Forum Use. For the vast majority of fellow members such a reminder is unnecessary as they have never breached the expected etiquette on this forum. Sadly that is not the case with all members. Between June and October there have been over 10 reports on fellow member’s etiquette. Therefore the administration has felt the need to remind these members what is the expected behaviour on this forum. Every member is aware when they are winding a fellow member up or breaching normal behaviour. That is why we have stated that we will not enter into a debate with fellow members as to whether a particular use of words does or does not contravene our Terms of Forum use. We accept that in the heat of the moment we can all make a mistake. That is why - in General Posting Behaviour - we will first issue a private warning. If - for whatever reason - there is a second breach we will suspend posting rights for a week. If there is a further transgression we will suspend posting rights indefinitely. First, it is our opinion if there is another transgression so soon after the previous two, then the member is not taking the Terms of Forum Use seriously. Second, the use of the term “indefinitely” allows the administration - at a later point - to issue an amnesty to that member when it is clear that the member is unlikely to repeat this behaviour.

Terms of Forum Use General Posting Behavior: No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions. Members would be ill-advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable. Solicitation of goods and/or services is not permitted. This is a Forum for discussion. No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member or with respect to fellow members' opinions. No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of posting a falsehood without definitive proof. The word "liar" shall not be used on the forum in reference to another forum member. Members are responsible for what they post on this board. A member will not use this board to post any comment or which is demonstrably false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Derogatory comments aimed at contemporary politicians or political parties are not allowed, except in designated threads. (Certain "Water Coolers.") Voicing for Banned Members: It is deemed to be a breach of the rules where a current member posts on behalf of a banned member. It is relatively easy to identify when such a breach may be taking place if requested by a member to post on their behalf. Safest to post for yourself and not on behalf of others. Such behavior may lead to a temporary suspension of posting privileges. . Racism: Racism will not be tolerated on this forum. Action will be taken whenever and wherever it is seen on the forum. If the racism is particularly offensive the member will be expelled immediately and without warning. Chaotic Threads: Threads which descend into chaos may be completely deleted. Members are also not allowed to post multiple threads concurrently on the same topic. This is called "flooding" the forum. Members who attempt to "flood" the forum will be subject to moderation, and the threads will be either merged or deleted, at the option of the Moderators. Accusations of Member Credibility: Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum. Such behavior may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum. Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members: Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned. General Comments: Having posted these Terms of Forum Use, no further warnings will be given. If members need to consider whether a link, a word or a sequence of words will be acceptable -- to post or not post before posting -- then we would advise not to post such words or terms. Membership in The Education Forum is voluntary, subject to approval by the owners of the Forum. Suspension of members, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum. Copyright Ownership: Forum members retain ownership rights to any content he or she posts on the forum. Members grant the Education Forum irrevocable, royalty-free rights to use that content. Any person who wishes to copy the content to another website must obtain the author's permission. Limitation of Liability: Members are SOLELY responsible for the content of their posts. The Education Forum, as an entity, is in no way responsible for the content of these posts. THEREFORE IN NO EVENT WILL THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES RELATING TO LOST REVENUES OR PROFITS, LOST DATA, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION) RESULTING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON OR MADE AVAILABLE IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS OR ANY OTHER WEB SITE TO WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED OR ON WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED TO THESE DISCUSSION FORUMS, EVEN IF THE ADMINISTRATING TEAM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY ON WHICH SUCH DAMAGES ARE BASED. Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website.

I will pass along the idea of a group e-mail. That was something we had thought about. We are interested - since the financial future of the forum is now secured - in how to rekindle the interest in this forum as it was in times past. It was once the premier forum - it would be nice for it to be that again. James.

Hello Everyone, When I first joined this site, this was the Premier JFK site. Sadly, that is no longer the case. And so having secured the site’s finances, we are interested in hearing your views how we can together return this site to its rightful place on the Internet. Even though we have taken financial control of the site, this is not OUR site: This is YOUR site and will remain your site for as long as we have financial control. This is about how, together, ALL of us can move this site forward. We do have views and ideas, which we want to share. However what is most important is what do you - fellow forum members - feel needs to be improved OR changed OR added to the site to make it a better site? So what do you feel needs to happen to improve this forum? James

Thanks Gary, That is an extremely detailed and informative piece of writing. I understand your position much better after reading this. Up till now I would have returned to my belief that Connally had to be upright when injured. You have given me reason to challenge that. I am going to have to seriously reflect on all you have said. James.

Robert, I agree with Gary about these charts. What I found to be comical is the reason these charts were requested in the first place. The Commission already had John Connally's medical file. However it was in "medical speak" and not one member of the Commission understood what they were reading. The Secret Service were assigned to getting a “layman's account". The fact they requested such a document speaks volumes. That was why Roger Warner was requested to return to Parkland and created a document that would make the medical information easier to understand. What Rodger Warner did when he re-drew these charts was deliberate. Nor is it likely he did so on his own initiative, I suspect someone authorised him making these changes. You could argue that maybe, just maybe, he omitted the reference to the back entry because he did not see that as relevant. You might argue that the size references that were also incorporated might also have been felt to be unnecessary. I would disagree, but I could see how one might make such a case. However the incorrectly labelling the wrist entry and exit points can be interpreted in no other way than a deliberate act to mislead. As I would argue were the other changes. As Gary has pointed out the original chart created on the 28th of January 1964, was never presented to either the doctors or to the Commission. A point that Gary has already made bears repetition. Again lets suggest all these changes - including the wrist labelling were just acts of careless mislabelling. When the doctors were deposed in March they were shown this Warner document and the doctors corrected it. However, when the doctors arrived in April for their testimony they were not given the document they had corrected in March, no they were given a fresh copy of the Warner adjustments. In my mind there is no other interpretation than this was a deliberate act to deceive and alter the evidence. As luck would have it, Spector was faced with formidable doctors who were not easily intimidated.

Thanks Chris. Gary has always reminded me to remember the acute angle of Connally's wound. Looking at this image lets you see how such an angle is possible. James.

Robert, I am beginning to change my view about where the bullet exited on John Connally’s chest. I have been looking at Robert Frazier’s drawing and he states that from the mid point of the waist to the centre of the hole in the shirt was 6.5 inches. That probably takes the wound to the left of the right nipple. Still have problems conceiving how that allowed the bullet to remain outside the thoracic cavity. Why I feel that Connally was wounded at Z 230:- For a long time I agreed with Gary that Connally was wounded post 313. The frame I worked from was 325. At some point I watched Nellie Connally’s 2003 View interview. Two points she made had an impact on me. First she said that after the first shot she turned and saw JFK clutching for his throat. You can see that at 238. Second she said that once she realised Connally was wounded she attempted to get him out of danger. Initially I felt the critical moment was 281, however I was wrong it was around 291. The best description of what I mean can be seen in this excerpt from a presentation I made last year. There are many aspects of the assassination I have changed my mind about, but that this moment shows Nellie rescuing an injured John Connally I have never changed my mind about. The video extract below is the best description of what I mean. Link to Nellie Rescuce Video:- http://vid1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/NelliesRescue_zps968e6981.mp4 Having isolated - at least to my mind - the latest point John Connally was wounded it was a matter of working back. My favourite moment was 238. However the swelling of Connally’s cheeks suggests his lung has collapsed. That does not happen immediately so I looked further back. I needed up choosing 230 - John Connally’s moment. In the frames thereafter, we see Connally suddenly moving forward as well as looking downwards - both points he has often stated as a consequence of being hit. There is no way the Oswald window can accomplish the wound from that position. The pointer - on the model you are so critical of - indicated it was the West window. I placed the Connally model in the car as he was positioned at 230 and extended the pointer backwards. It went right through the open west window. I was always curious what the TSBD 6th floor was like - especially behind the 6th floor south wall. Graciously Gary gave me a image of that situation. I was astonished that essentially between the east and West windows there was a corridor. Since Connally’s wounds emanated from the west window has always suggested to me that there was more than one gunman firing from the TSBD that day. The layout of 6th floor - and especially that corridor - allowed communication and collaboration. The South Wall Corridor:-