James R Gordon

I should point out is that you have a problem with donations.

They have to come later. There is a present system but it is linked to my bank account.

Once someone has taken over then a new accounnt needs to be set up.

James

The present admin tean I believe had just 2 weeks to take over.

How we achieved that was I was the finnancial leader and I paid the subscription until we got ourselves settled.

Donations are the way to go - but maybe that comes after someone has taken over. maybe for the first month or two that person funds the EF giving you time to organise donations.

James

I am in the UK and it might have been easier for me. The issues you make Cory were never issues for me.

Of course you can get in touch with Invision, but it might be easier if done through me.

James

When you have an agreed a leader, that person should get in touch with me.

I will  introduce them to Invision.

Kathy has reminded me that the leader will need two bank accounts.All payments to Invision needs to be in a separate bank account. You should not use your personal account.

james

I would suggest that time is running out.
I have made my last payment to Invision. Their next payment is due on September 4th.
During that time you need a leader that is acceptable to the membership and remaining admin members.
That person must have the agreement of Invision and able to demonstrate to Invision they can fund the EF.
Invision will need the person’s bank details so that Invision can take their monthly subscription from that person's bank account.
So there is a lot to get through and not a lot of time to complete it.

James

Chris,

There is no VAT applied. However since the Invoice is in $ there is a currency charge.

James

Invision has gor back yo me.

If your community does not need any custom applications/plugins, Custom SSO. API Access or full access to Page Builder (databases), then I'd say go for the Creator plan.

Unfortunately we don't have any discounts available.
Let me know what you think. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

On its own it would cost £1068. With VAT which I am sure will be applied I believe that will cost £1282.

I do not know how many active members we have, but if we have 50 members each member would contribute £26.00. Per year.

If members are interested I can check there are no hidden costts and that having Creator plan is not in addition to our present subsciption.

james.
 

Karl,

We need to sort out the direction and cost of membership. Without prejudicing the final decision we cannot answer your question until we know what the final sum is to be divided.

I have yet to hear back from Invision about whether the plans are of use to us and what they would cost us.I pointed out to Invision we had been with them for years and maybe that should be considered in pricing

Mark Knight emailed me  the following. I felt it is worth sharing:

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

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Which is, of course, totally impossible for me (or anyone) to do, since it's the BACK VIEW of the President, not the FRONT VIEW. That's why I utilized my composite (side-by-side) images.

You are being obtuse. You know as well I do that your argument is that the position of the back entry wound was higher than the throat exit. Of course the Back wound is in on the back. My question - that you are well aware of - if the position of the back wound is higher than the throat exit wound then where below the back wound is the throat wound. The point is the throat wound is above the back wound.

I only can use what's available. Do you have a photo of the deceased JFK showing the back wound that you think is a BETTER one ("view"-wise) than the one I used?

Didn't think so, since this pic below is the ONLY autopsy picture showing the back wound that's been made available on the Internet (AFAIK). And, btw, there's nothing wrong (or "appalling") whatsoever about the quality of the images I've been using. They are just as good as the ones you've posted. Plus, we don't need Hi-Def type quality to merely attempt to determine where the neck & back wounds are located relative to each other.

You might.

Again -- How can I possibly answer that question when the only picture you give me to look at is a picture of President Kennedy's BACK?

Have you forgotton it was you who claimed the Back entry wound was higher than the throat exit wound. Given an image of the back showing the entrance wound why can you not point to where this throat wound that is below the the back wound. You are the one who stated that the back wound was higher than the throat wound. So where is the throat wound compared to the back wound. This is reason I stated you are being faudulant. If the back wound is avtually higher than the throat wound - Prove It. And two pictures with a line drawn does not prove, Nor citing Vincent T. Bugliosi.

And yet you're doing exactly that right now. Most curious indeed.

And your next insult is?......

What on Earth are you talking about here? I'm not "promoting a political argument" at all. Where in heck did that come from?

I gotta tell you, James, it appears to me that you are trying your best these last two days to bait me into a fight of some kind, so that I'll forget about these eggshells that I know I'm being forced to walk on since you and Kathy Becket were nice enough to allow me to re-join this forum on June 29, 2022. (And I do, indeed, appreciate the fact that you have permitted me the chance to re-join.) But I'm certainly detecting some hostility being directed at me which is coming from your computer during these last two days. And, IMO, it is hostility that I have not deserved.

You do not need to tread on eggshells. I am happy you have returned. I have always been concerned about the way I deleted your membership. We live in worldstat are  universes apart, but I recognise you are one of the foremost WC supporters  I have called you a fraud. That is permitted because I defined precisly what I meant by that. So do not worry if you wish to make a comment about me be sure you clarify what you mean and why you mean it.You are wrong that I am hostile towards you. I am not. But I am severly frustrated that you cannot argue your case.

I told you yesterday---in this post---that that line angling out of the throat wound was NOT put there by me.

Yes, I'm well aware that the entry wound is in JFK's UPPER BACK, not in the NECK. I've been saying it's in the BACK, not NECK, for multiple decades now, James.

If you agree the entry wound is in the back then how is that wound higher on the body than the throat. i know the answer if it because JFK was leaing forward thereby allowing the back wound to appear higher. Rather than that twin image with its line why don't you establish how JFK's body position was suxh as to allow such a shot.

Why would I be the slightest bit "embarrassed" by stating something that the photographs, IMO, are most certainly verifying? They only veryfy it in your mind and of course that of Vincent T. Bugliosi

And I'm certainly not alone in my belief that the throat wound is located below the upper-back wound. The late Mr. Vince Bugliosi thought so too:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

I bought his book - the hardback edition. At the time I was working on Connally and I was shocked at his poor reseach. The problem you and Vincent have is that you are confined by the Warren Commission.

I can't really see how your "balancing" of the two images (as you call it) is any better in any substantial way at all than the way I presented the images.

Really you do not see the point. Why does that not  surprise me. Had you not noticed that the heads are in different locations as indeed are features as the base of the neck and ears.  Balance the images empasises that the Back wound is lower than the throat wound.

You've lost me completely here. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Line pointing upwards..." ???

~another shrug~

Shrug if you wish but because the image was 2D image there was nowhere the line could go. But the point you totally missed if the line is going upwards that means it is not going downwards where it need to go to mee the back wound.

Again with the "political theory" junk, James? Why are you saying such a thing? Just....why?

(And the eggshells grow thinner....)

By whom and how JFK was assinated is an political topic and your view is one theory. THough I respect the breadth of your understanding of the case  - my point is that you others who follow this viewpoint trashing anatomy in order to make their point.

Your point about the back entrance wound being higher than the throat wound is utter nonsese - with one exception. I imagination it might - MIGHT - be possible if JFK were bent down far enough that - SOMEHOW - there is a path from the back to the throat.

But one serious criticism of you is if that is your view you have not demonstrated how that is possible. I do not believe it is possible but you have never demonstrated how it coulld be posiible

Ending with your point about your membership. While I am discussing this case with you I am not a moderator or owner. In this threat I am just a member like you. James.

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

 

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.