James R Gordon

Mark Knight emailed me the following. I felt it is worth sharing: OK, so if we round that to 140...then if each paid $15 a year [some will opt to pay more, of course], the financial future of the Education Forum would be secured. I would suggest that the Ed Forum be set up as a non-profit entity, and there be a separate bank account by the custodian of the funds to collect and disburse them as needed. In fact, perhaps James could simply set up a separate account at his banking institution for the EF and collect the funds and disburse them exclusive to and from this account. It is only a suggestion, but it would a) simplify the bookkeeping, b) keep the accounting of Forum funds straight, c) if contributions could be directly deposited to the account by EF members and then disbursed as automatic withdrawals, the EF could then operate nearly in perpetuity. Mark

I have contactacted Invision to see what the better packge would be for us and whether we would get a beneficial price. Kathy is working out how many active members we have and who they are. James

It is definitely a thought Ty. If I understand correctly we will pay the annual charge in advance and are free from monthly the subscriptions. What I do not know is how many active members we have- or indeed who they are - in order to calculate the value of individual contribution. I\ll check if the other admin members know the answer. or if Invision know. Although these are standard prices having been with Invision since - I believe the 1980's - we might get a preferential price and not be lumbered with the full cost. But it is certainly a thought. Quickly looking at it I believe we also gain a more advanced membership. James

Chris and Jean Paul What your contributions have made clear to me, is that I have had a poor control on the money donated. I applogise. It appears to me money has gone missing. Regarding 2022 I believe the toal sum was under $1000. I understand your criticism and maybe we need to tighten up what happens to the money donated. It might be possible that I could stay - if members are happy with that - provided someone - other than me should hold the money - and passes the monthly subscriptions on to me. That way I deposit the monthly subscription - but I do not hold the subscriptions. I have a terrible feeling I may have spent some of the money. What needs to be answered is will what do we need to raise in order to have sufficient funds - at least for a year. I am committed to paying the August deposit - so we have until around 5th September to collect the funds James

Chris and Jean Paul, It is true that in 2019 the reserve balance was $4, 774:00. The end date of December 2024 was based on a monthly extraction of $70:00 per month. I see the reference to £89 per month. That is not the contract that is presently in place. At present our band width requires a fee of $70:00 per month, that was not always the case. In 2019 we had a larger membership and for a period our band width exceeded the requirements of the present charge which is the 100 user plan. For a lengthly period of time - I believe somewhere in the range of 14 months - our charge rose to the next charge of $120:00 per month. That quickly depleted the reserve funds. Because our present active users is smaller than it was in 2019 our charge has reduced. The image below is yesterday’s usage. If the band exceeds the boundaries two days in succession our payment rises to $120:00 per month. As you can see we are getting close to the boundaries. If we exceed these boundaries two days in succession we will be charged $120 per month. Unfortunately the image does not display on the EF. The reserve is depleted, but I appear to have made mistakes because the sums do not make sense to me. Currency exchange certainly lowered the sum. The monies collected were in $. But moving them into my account, the funds had to be transferred to £. I recollect when I transferred the sums the total sum was in excess of £3,000. We were in the enhanced payment period for around 14 months. That cost £1680. We have been in the standard payment for around 18 months. That has cost £1260 Total £2, 940 I can see there is a discrepancy and I am not sure how it has come about. I know I have been making the last few months payments out of my own funds, yet according to those figures I should not have been. I cannot explain that. James.

$70 per month

Yes! But there is a financial commitment. The person who takes over is responsible to Invision. Invision will direct debit that person every month. james

I have sent Kirk an email. I believe we are beyond donation -even given the enourmous generosity of members. James

Hi, The Energy Crisis is now a serious problem for me. Costs have gone up for me in the last few days and I am having to make decisions I hoped not to make. My electricity company has today suggested that I immediately raise my payment by 30%. One implication of this is that I have a personal web site that I am possibly no longer going to be able to maintain the costs of. Put simply I am facing financial oblivion if I do not take steps now. I am probably going to loose my website because I am likely to be unable to pay the firms Hosting charge [ as well as other charges ] for the site. And an energy increase of a further 30% is just not possible in my present conditions. And that is before January when rumours suggest a further even higher rise in energy prices. I know I have suggested pulling out before but this time I am facing a personal financial disaster unless I act now. I will pay the EF August 2022 payment but someone else will need to fund from September 2022 onwards. On previous occasions members have very kindly raised monies but it is not just funding the EF that I need to reconsider. The total impact of the energy crisis - both now and in the coming months - is beyond the cost of funding the EF. Sorry. But after August 2022 others will need to provide the EF funding. James

David, I am surprised no one has picked you up on CE 903. In your montage - which I do not have a real problem with - more an irritation. However you have stated that you accept that back entry wound as shown on the FOX image and you further state the back wound was higher than the throat wound. You explain that incongruity with the position of body posture. With CE 903 I believe adjustments were made for using the Queen Mary. However that pointer is in the wrong position. The back entrance was a few centimeters from the spine. Further the wound was around T3, You know that the pointer is lying on the Clavicle and the entrance wound was no where near the Clavicle. I have not read up on this. Can you link me to the WC documentation that justified this? I would like to read their argument that this proves the SBT. And that is before we talk about Connally which is a problem yet to be discussed. And you think CE 903 accurately describes the Line of trajectory fro JFK to JBC? I am aware this is WC politics to persuade people that Oswald commited the crime - and it succeeded in doing so for quite some time. And I know you support th WC. But can you not honestly admit that this fails on two points. a) It does not replicate the SBT either for the JFK and JBC wounds and b) The points of origin for JFK and JBC are utterlly wrong. James

David, First let me apologise for the skuttled remark. I overlooked the time difference. I left yesterday with a question about the image below. The question was for you to point out where on the back view the throat wound is. It is clear to all where the throat wound is: it is well above the back wound https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/e33b4824-1d84-428c-b301-0d42b9046cc7 You replied “I've already done that very thing, James, via the side-by-side photo comparison I provided in my earlier posts. First your images are appalling. You compare images in different postures. The quality of your images is very poor and you do not even rotate the back image so a judgement might be able to be made. Here is my version of your image: https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/0f8bb4db-6bb1-4cf6-bdcf-30010581979f As I said yesterday I will not play your game. I asked you where on the image of the back - in which you say the wound we see is above the throat wound - where is the throat wound and I got in return your comment above. Have you any understanding of basic anatomy?? J Thortnon Boswell’s right hand is steadying JFK’s body. The bone his hand is resting on is called the Clavicle. In normal medical opinion the Clavical is below the throat. In The Image below to the right and below the back wound can be seen two bumps https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/7cfa39fc-2768-4173-97ed-9ed18f245174 The point labeled “A” is part of the “Spine of the Scapular” The Point labeled “B” is part of the “Infraspinous Fossa” I have no idea how anyone can involve themselves in a discussion with you on what happened to JFK. In order to promote a political argument - I.e. What happened to JFK - you are prepared to trash and distort established medical science. https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/8b81f8f8-4cb5-483b-add4-6c4dbb544ae6 You post the above image and you draw a line out of the throat and you tell us that is the exit wound for the wound we see on the image of the back. Your line appears to point in the direction of the back wound. But your flaw - your complete and utter fatal flaw - is that you claim you are suggesting 3D conclusions on a 2D image. Yes it does appear that your line points in the direction of the back wound. You make no mention that this line is above the Clavicle and is pointing leftwards towards JFK’s left shoulder. Your line should be pointing in the opposite direction - but that is not possible with a 2D image. https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/14d5e58f-42fc-476a-9eef-c764323ef6f1 Your argument is illustrated in the above image. But the wound you reference as the entrance wound is not up in the neck. it is down the back near the Scapular. In order to make your argument you attempt to distort established anatomy. To support your theory you claim that a wound that is adjacent to the “Spine of the Scapular” is actually above the throat wound and it appears you are not embarrassed in saying that. Your argument is also fraudulent because you have not balanced the images like so: https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/ec35206d-263a-4aba-acbb-2191366b7dbb Once thee images are balanced we see a line pointing upwards whereas the wound is actually below. I will stay in this debate. I do so even though I know what you are doing to convince this forum of your position is fraudulent. I say that because your argument deliberately distorts established medical knowledge in order to prove a political theory. James.

Robin, I was not doubting the authenticity of your image. I believe it was a later image - 1980's - 1990s. The reason I point out the differences is that a while ago Gary Murr was kind enough to share his Connally clothing images from the 1990's. Though I found his images important and interesting through time the fabric damage had changed. I be;ieve that is what we see in your image. James

Thanks Robin. I do not know when your image was made but I believe my one was by the FBI in 1964. I have compared your image with mine and it appears your hole is cleaner and larger. Mine appears much more ragged. James.

I have found the image i was looking for. DVP's argument on the SBT thread was that the back wound was higher than the throat wound. From this image JFK's bach entrance wound was higher than JFK's throat wound he would look very different than we recognise him to be. I see DVP has scuttled off the site. I showed him a high quality and rotated image of the back wound and asked him to point out where below the back wound the throat wound was. Below the back entrance wound is the Scapular. Little wonder he fled the scene. James

The copy of the shirt was probably taken by the FBI, UNlike this copy the shirt was open and allowed a close look at the entrance at the back. the definition was as good as this version. The difference is the shirt was open and it was possuble to measure the distance the hole was down from the collar. James

So - accoring to you - The back entrance wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound, Here is a clearer copy of the back wound image you were using. Can you explain how the back wound is higher than the throat exit wound. Take a copy of my image and demonstrate where the throat exit wound is.

A couple of years ago I posted an image of JFK's shirt. It was quite a revelation. It high definition taken from the front and it showed the back entrance hole very clearly. It also lets us see that the entrace wound was low down around T3. I have mislaid my copy of the image. If anyone has a copy of the image can they re-postit for me? James

David, The image that I posted showed just how low the entrance wood was. It showed the entrance was in the area T3. David I am prepared to debate with you, but I am not going to be instructed what in your opinion is - or is not - best evidence. I will decide that for myself. Your images which you claim are best evidence are nothing of the sort.They are 2D pictures - taken from different vantage positions - onto which you are claiming 3D conclusions. There is no way anyone can verify - or not - what you claim. If you feel that is Best Evidence - then prove it. Do not display and assert. Your image of the back wound is a case in point. As you point out it could be argued that the back entrance wound is close to the neck exit wound. As the image of the shirt I am talking about demonstrates - and this piece of evidence is beyond argument - the hole is close to T3. Your pictures are an assumption created by you to fit your beliefs. I hope the quality of your evidence improves. I am happy to accept your position if you can prove and establish it. But if I am to debate this issue with you then I am going to call out your unfounded assertions each and every time I see them. James

David, A couple of years I posted an image of JFK's shirt. It was taken from the front and - unlike previous images of the shirt - it high definition picture image which clearly showed the position of the back entrance wound on the shirt. This images of the shirt showed just how low the back wound was compared to the neck wound. You are bound to have taken a copy of this image of the shirt. I remember when I posted it it was a complete revelation to the forum. It seem unlikely you would not have taken a copy of it for your research. Please re-post that image and lets debate from that image. Should you not have a copy I am sure other members have a copy they could post. If we are to debate the relative positions of the back wound to the throat wound lets do so with the best evidence available. James

I have just hidden a post. To those members who feel they can go on as usual I suggest they read Kathy Becket's recent post. That post was written after considerable discussion by the admin team. I suggest members take seriously what kathy said in that post. If the admin team are required to give certain members a very extended holiday before what kathy said - on behalf of all members of the admin team - is taken on board by fellow members - then so be it. What Kathy posted was not an idle post and those members who feel they can contimue to act just as they wish might want to - think again!!!!! James

From Admin, We have received two complaints about the use of insults within 24 hours. Though I have not read the entire thread, I have read enough to acknowledge the veracity of the complaint. I have hidden two posts. If some find it impossible to refrain from insulting fellow members, I suggest you take a break and do something else. If I have a further report I will scrupulously read through the entire thread and immediately give the offending mmembers a break from this site - without warning. You all know how to address one another - even on a topic that is controversial. Offending other members does not just offend the particular member - it offends all who have to read your post.

Sandy, Invision have replied to your problem. I am sorry it appears the system does not work as you wish. There would be no way in which to do that. It picks up the last item a person has read, so if they reply to the topic then the last item that person has read is actually their own response. There is no way around that James

Sandy, I will forward your issue to Invision. I do not know the answer. Terry there are two ways to start a new thread, The most popular one is to click the dark blue button on the Education Forum main page, However I see you can als create a new thread from within an existing thread, That box is to the lefy of reply to this topic. I see you get an error message. Can you post what error message is that the site gives you. I will look into it for you. James.

Thanks very much James. Payment received. James