James R Gordon

Ian,

My preferred moment is Z 230.

That said, as I have come to realise through the study I have done, there is no one moment that Connally could have been wounded. Of those various moments that return, what I refer to as a positive result, Z340 is one such moment.

And so the answer to your question is yes. A researcher let it be known to me that a bullet was found in Connally's clothes while he was in Parkland.

Being wounded at that moment would suggest the bullet might well remain in his clothes.

So there is a lot going for that Zapruder reference.

My reservation with that moment is that I am convinced that Z290 onwards is a sequence when Nellie rescues John. That therefore would suggest that by Z290 John Connally was already wounded 50 frames earlier.

James.

Stuart,

Myers problem is not where he has placed John Connally, it is John Connally's actual position that causes the problem. Had he been facing forward or slightly left it might have been possible to create a single trajectory. Because he is turned right it is not.

Some of the sources were Don Roberdeau's map for the plaza. As an aside I was able to verify his Zapruder positions are spot on.

The Dealey Plaza restoration document gave me a great deal info on buildings.

I had Robert West's survey material.

I had some of the plans for the TSBD.

I had quite a bit of the material generated through the May '64 re-creation.

The trajectory distances recorded in, I think it is CD 884, matched my distances to, at worst, within 2 feet. Usually it was within inches.

I have knowledge about what happened the bullet but I am not at liberty to say at the moment. That is why I did not comment on it.

Proving what happened to the bullet is of secondary importance. Proving the bullet exited complete is much more important. If I have made my case that the bullet did exit as a complete bullet, that is the critical point. It establishes that, at some point, there was another bullet in the case. Sure everyone would like to know what happened to it, but the fact it existed is much more important.

James.

Stuart,

I’ll address your questions as best as I can.

(1) Are you saying that Dale Myers misplaced the actual, initial entry wound in JBC (and/or exit wound) or are you saying the only problem is the path he implies through the body?

In this image from Dale Myers, the entry point for President John F. Kennedy, my red line, is a reasonable position. See image below. However because of the turned position that John Connally is in, when that trajectory is carried forward the bullet has to go through John Connally’s chest. Infact it looks like it will also go through his heart as represented by the red line.

The actual trajectory through the outside of Connally’s chest wall is suggested by the yellow line.

You use the word “implies.” It is not implied. Because of the position that Connally has taken at this point, 223/4, the bullet must continue on that line. It is a trajectory requirement given the entry point and the turn that Connally’s body has made.

(2) If we *did* go to 223-224 for a JBC hit... where does that trace back given your analysis? The Dal Tex still?

On Page 11 I point out, what I refer to as the twin trajectories. It is the yellow line indicated in the previous question that actually does not go to a building but between buildings. That line is the Connally trajectory pointer, not the Kennedy pointer.

I deliberately called this the “twin trajectories” because it is impossible, given Connally’s position in the car at 223/4, for both these lines to meet and create a single line trajectory that would be required for the Single Bullet Theory.

The Oswald trajectory to President John F. Kennedy and the John Connally trajectory go in different directions and that is why I refer to them as twin trajectories.

(3) I always thought the report of a 2.5cm entry wound in JBC was a reflection of surgery that Shaw performed, not the actual original size. Am I wrong on that?

It is actually 2.5 inches not cm. It was also an exit wound not an entry wound. In his deposition as well as his testimony Robert Shaw refers to 5cm. However he uses the adverb “approximately.” That comes to around 1.9 inches. However on the 28^th of January when for the Secret Service he, along with Gregory and Shires, placed where the wounds were on Connally’s body he stated that the size of that wound was 2.5 inches. This is, I believe, the first specification as to the wounds size. I do not know what Shaw meant by “approximately”. I am not sure if he was being politic or not. So for my account I went back to CD 326 for my definition.

(4) Relatedly, isn’t a 2.5cm wound awfully long relative to just about any bullet? What accounts for that?

Again it is 2.5 inches and not cm. And yes you are right. However the size of the wound was not the responsibility of just the bullet. This wound was created by both the bullet as well as the bone fragments that exited John Connally’s chest. This is described on pages 19 – 21.

(5) You mentioned at one point that internal damage seemed to be larger than the exit wound... doesn't that imply tumbling?

Now what I was referring to there was the damage to the middle lobe of the lung. These bone fragments virtually cut the middle lobe in two. There is an image of the extent of that damage on P. 22.

What I was referring to was that those fragments that tore down to the bottom of the middle lobe had ventured further than the location of the exit wound. That is what I was referring to. The exit wound was further up the body than the lowest point in the middle lobe damage.

(6) How does one account for what some say is too little damage to JBC’s wrist if a bullet and not, say, a fragment from the head shot, caused the wrist wound?

Because of the nature of the damage to the wrist, described on P. 26, there are very few points in Zapruder film when this wrist could have been damaged in the way it was. My tentative conclusion, which is not a part of this article, is that it was indeed a fragment from the head shot that did cause the wound. P. 27 gives you very good reasons why I think that way.

(7) Finally, what do you think happened to the bullet after it transited JBC? Wouldn't it have caused extensive damage within the limo?

I do not know. All I know is that when the bullet left John Connally’s body, although it was damaged down in linear side, i.e. squashed it still resembled a complete bullet. At the end of the assassination somewhere in the car or on John Connally’s body that bullet had to be. Where it went afterwords I have no idea.

But the article describe very strong reasons why the bullet had to have survived its journey.

Hope those answers are of help to you.

James.

The Connally Thorax Wound

And

The Missing Bullet

Although at first glance this may appear an outrageous statement, close research makes it clear that rather than this being an example of research hyperbole it is indeed the logical and only conclusion to the thorax wound that John Connally sustained.

The supporting document is too long to be posted on this site. Therefore at the end of this posting is the link to the supporting document. The document is an Interactive PDF and therefore the two video clips on P. 1 can be viewed, when viewed through a computer or tablet.

There are three arguments, within the document, to support this proposition.

Argument 1:- The incompatibility of the President John F. Kennedy and John Connally wound trajectories.

Argument 2:- The description of how the bullet passed through John Connally’s thorax.

Argument 3:- The nature of the wound to the wrist that John Connally received and the evidence that John Connally’s wrist could not have been wounded at this point.

Argument 1:- Page 3 to Page 13 lays out the details of this argument.

It was necessary to return to this old chestnut, the “Single Bullet Theory”, because it has to be established just why the trajectory to President John F. Kennedy’s upper chest wounds cannot meet up with the trajectory for John Connally’s thorax wound. Put in simple terms, for the Single Bullet Theory to be a valid theory requires that the trajectory line from bullet’s source to John Connally chest exit point is a single straight line. If one discards the medical evidence of how John Connally was injured - especially the argument that the bullet passed through John Connally’s body outside the chest rib cage - then by placing the trajectory passing through his thorax it does appear possible to create that essential single line. However in doing so, this creates a wound that is different to the wound John Connally actually received. It is also a wound that places John Connally’s life in danger and - in some examples - immediately kills him. The true trajectory through John Connally’s body creates a trajectory line that is inconsistent with the Kennedy trajectory line. It is what I refer to as the “Twin Trajectories.”

Therefore the conclusion from this argument is that whatever bullet caused to President John F. Kennedy his upper chest wounds was not the same bullet that caused to John Connally his thorax wound.

Argument 2:- Page 14 to Page 25 lays out the details of this argument.

The description of how the bullet passed through John Connally’s thorax. This very detailed section attempts to describe just how the bullet had to have passed through the body of John Connally Put in simple terms, from the moment the bullet struck John Connally the head of the bullet never struck bone. On its journey through his body, the head of this bullet only came into contact with fine fabrics, skin, and flesh and muscles. It is accepted that such a contact and journey might well have made an impact on the bullet’s head - but essentially the head of the bullet ought to have remained intact and recognisable. It is, however accepted, that the body of the bullet when it came into contact with the 5th rib most likely did suffer damage. It is argued that quite likely it was squashed along the body of the bullet.

Therefore the conclusion from this argument is it that however squashed, as this bullet’s body most likely was, and having suffered impact damage as the head of the bullet may well also have suffered - the bullet still left John Connally’s body as a recognisable bullet.

Argument 3:- Page 26 to Page 29 lays out the details of this argument.

As with argument 1, it was necessary to return to this issue. Put in simple terms, the impact damage to the clothes of John Connally make it clear that the bullet that did impact with his wrist had already impacted with something else. The star like description of the head of this bullet, [ that created that entry damage to John Connally’s Arrow shirt and also carried fabric damage into the wound ] was nothing like what the bullet that exited his chest had to have looked like. That bullet had a head that was essentially intact. In addition, the damage to the right wrist of John Connally was so unique John Connally’s arm required to be positioned in a particular way. Looking specifically at Z 223/4 [ because according to the modern interpretation of the Single Bullet Theory, this is exactly when the wrist was injured ] it is an evident fact that we have no knowledge as to how John Connally’s arm was positioned at that point. Any evidence that his arm and wrist were positioned correctly is assumption. The evidence to establish this, beyond doubt, does not exist.

Therefore the conclusion from this argument is it that the bullet that exited John Connally’s chest did not go on to wound his wrist.

That means that the bullet that caused John Connally’s thorax wounds, exited his body as essentially a complete bullet. Therefore, after the assassination had concluded there was a bullet that has not been placed into evidence and there is therefore a bullet missing from the evidence chain in this case.

Link to Supporting file:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/1c28ce30-e41b-4278-90db-af140951408e/EPXzTHbyi4tKoTbF9QXliw2

James

Don,

You are right, there ought to be common ground within the critical JFK research community. At the moment I am focused on a singular area of study and it would be unfair to offer that as an area of common agreement.

That said, there are three areas that readily spring to mind. I would have thought the SBT is an issue that we agree is untenable.

I would also add that there might be agreement that the Warren Commission played fast and loose with the evidence and its interpretation.

And finally, there ought to be ready agreement that Commission was reluctant to investigate awkward aspects. E.g. Oswald's connection to the FBI.

On the issue of petty disputes, I too would like to see that disappear from this site. On another site it appears to be the staple fare of that forum. Such noise distracts from the possibility of serious debate. Whatever the opinions of fellow members here, this site has a collection of serious and literate members whose understanding of the case is quite awesome. It would be a positive step forward to converse and debate in a less negative frame of mind.

James

Addition:-

I am sorry, I omitted to look at your initial statement. I would agree with the following:-

1. The WC, the DPD and the HSCA did not investigate the case properly. In the case of the WC and the HSCA, they had an agenda of their own. In the case of the DPD, they had the case removed from them, so we will never know how good their investigation might have been.

2. That Oswald was not the shooter. He was such a strange character and had so many fingers in so many pies, it is difficult to see him as totally innocent. That he was not the gunman I can agree on, but whether he had knowledge of what was going down - that I am not sure about.

Ian,

Since Tom has given me the go ahead to share this work I will create a link for them next week.

I was given a copy of them on the provoso that I am circumspect with the material. Noticing that Tom was encouraging their sharing, and with his agreement now for their sharing,

I would not have done so had Tom been adverse to the materials being shared.

I will set up a link sometime next week.

James.




Again,

My appreciation to all who are helping provide the information to those who have interest in it.



Tom


Tom,

Have I understood you correctly or not. Am I right that you would be happy for members to get access to this Robert West material.

If so I would be happy to create a link where members can download a PDF version of the complete file I have got.

The fellow researcher, who got me my copy, I understood had to ask you for permission to supply me with a copy.

If you are happy that interested members can download a copy for themselves I would be happy to set up a link for the copy I have got.

If I have misunderstood you I apologise , and be assured I will be circumspect with the copy I have.

James.

Tom,

I got the impression that Robert West was less than impressed with the Warren Commission.

May I ask a question. On May 25th, the day after the formal re-enactment was concluded, Robert West required to return to Dealey Plaza. There he noticed members of the re-enactment team cutting braches from the live oak.

Did you explore that issue with Robert? I do not doubt Robert West's veracity, but this event makes no sense to me. What was the purpose in cutting the branches after formal re-enactment procedures had been completed.

Thanks.

James.




Might want to read up on Nellie's book.

Her handwritten notes were made from memory some 8-10 days after the event and, for all purposes, appear to be quite accurate.

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for your contribution. I do know about the book and did not purchase it because friends who had read it were not particularly impressed. I agree, maybe that is not the best reason to not read a book.

However I did extensively used Nellie’s 2003 interview with the View. This was an appearance that was intended to promote her book.

What has struck me then, as well as now, is the contradiction in their narrative. I do wonder how they were never conscious of their contradictions. Both say that John was wounded before the head shot, yet both describe a time the head shot occurred which is around Z 325. Both say that John Connally was wounded after completing the cycle, yet in 1966 John Connally stated his certainty that he was injured at Z 230. On December 27^th 1963, he is very clear that he had only just begun to turn when he was struck.

I do not suggest they are lying, but I do believe they are confused as to the precise sequence of events.

I am very busy preparing for a presentation I am giving next week which contains, among other things, a subject area which I may well post here later this month. It is a detailed medical exploration of how Connally’s chest wound occurred and processed through his body. The importance, of this research, to the Single Bullet Theory cannot be over exaggerated.

James

Anthony,

As a thought, you might want to think about sites like TransferBigFiles.

It is a web site where you upload large documents and sent those interested the link for them to download your files.

You might find that cheaper and easier to transfer such a large file.

Just a thought.

James.

Craig,

I am not sure where your basis is for criticising Chris. As I understand it, the basis of Chris' postings is the survey work that Robert West did for the Secret Service and the FBI. I have partial copy and I believe Chris has a complete copy.

From what I understand of Chris' postings he is commenting on the implications of West's calculations.

I assume you are not in dispute with Robert West's work. His work I believe is above dispute.

Having a copy of much of West's material, what Chris said in his last post, and that you said he "will not get it" is perfectly correct. That is precisely what the West survey plat shows.

Where there is serious errors in the West survey material - and it is because he was instructed to do so - is his calculation of the angle of the gun to JFK. That angle is to the camera gun and not to the position of Oswald gun had it been there.

Where i belive people misunderstand Chris' work is that one of his concerns is - and correct me Chris if I am wrong - that he focus' on the difference between the FBI conclusions compared to the SS conclusions. If I remember there is a 14 foot difference in their conclusions. And this difference does indeed have significance on the position of the car and body positions at various points in the film.

As I understand it, Robert West was placed in difficult positions in trying to correlate this survey difference. Although the May '64 recreation ended on 24th, Robert West was still undertaking adjustments well into June.

I agree Chris can be challenging to follow, but unless you are in dispute with the survey work of Robert West, I do not see your point. If you believe Chris has misunderstood Robert West's survey data, I would be interested to see where you feel he is in error. That would be a serious contribution. However saying that Chris 'will not get it', especially when what he has said is right - does not help to further the discussion.

James.

Paul,

Thank you a very reasoned and logical response.

I agree that JFK had to have been wounded some frames earlier and for the very reasons you outline.

With regard to the idea that Connally was wounded at 223/4 that is not possible. At this point Connally is turned to his right by something like 20 degrees. Although there are researchers who believe Connally sustained a through wound, I.e. a wound that traveled through his chest. That did not happen, the bullet ran down the 5th rib and outer chest wall. Yes, damage was done to the lung, but that was created by bone fragments broken off the rib when the bullet struck the rib. Although the bullet did not enter the chest, those fragments did.

So what does this mean? It means when you run a trajectory from that wound, when turned around 20 degrees to your right, such a trajectory passes over JFK's left shoulder.

Could a trajectory be made to suit the exit from JFK to Connally. The answer is yes. However such a trajectory would require the bullet to travel through the chest cavity. It might even be possible to have the bullet exit close to where the exit wound actually was. But, and this but is important, that kind of wound is not the kind of wound that Connally sustained.

That is why I say that 223/4 is not the moment when Connally received his chest wound.

James.

On the JFK Assassination Forum, David Von Pein challenged forum members to answer the following challenge.

David Von Pein says the following:-

“Based on what we can see in the Zapruder Film excerpt presented below, do you think it is even remotely possible that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are reacting to being hit by the same bullet?

If anyone answers "No" to my question above, would you please answer this second question:

Why not?”

At the heart of David’s challenge, that heads his thread, is that between Z 223 and Z 224 John Connally’s jacket popped out slightly. This movement of the jacket is proof that a bullet had just passed through John Connally and since JFK was also reacting at the same point – proof that both men were reacting to a shot at this point.

At the heart of the proposition that John Connally was wounded between 223/4 is the movement that is seen in his jacket. The modern interpretation is that the jacket pops out, and in doing so, demonstrates that a bullet has just passed through the jacket and moved it outwards as it did so. This is a major moment in Dale Myers presentation. It is the cornerstone that allows him to create his proposition for the Single Bullet Theory. Such a theory would not be possible but for this point. With this argument Dale Myers proposition that at 223/4 both Connally and JFK were injured has merit. Without this proposition, that the jacket pops forward, the argument that both Connally and JFK were injured together completely collapses. The moment is that important.

To be fair, given the quality of images that have been used, it is not possible to argue with the proposition one way or the other: the image quality is just not good enough. Recently Chris Davidson was kind enough to give me copies of his Zapruder images that are clear enough to determine whether Dale Myers proposition stands up to scrutiny or not.

In this description I will examine the four essential Zapruder frames: Z 223; Z 224; Z 225 and Z 226

Zapruder frame 223:-

On the day of the assassination the wind was blowing from a westerly direction. This is indicated by the red arrow.

On the left hand side of the image are two inserts. At the top is an image of the presidential flag. Below it a magnified copy of John Connally himself.

As can be seen, and as Dale Myers acknowledges, John Connally’s jacket is perfectly positioned.

Zapruder frame Z 224:-

Here is the critical frame.

What you are seeing:-

On the left are two expanded images of John Connally: one for Z 223 and one for Z 224. This is to allow better comparison.

Above are two expanded images of the presidential flag: one for Z 223 and one for Z 224. Again this is to allow for better comparison.

Again the red arrow indicates the direction of the wind.

Dale Myers argument is that the jacket has popped out as a result of the bullet passing through the jacket. He is correct in observing that the jacket’s shape has changed. What has happed is that the lapel has blown open. The problem with Myers argument can be seen in Z 223 insert. He suggests that the jacket has moved forward. But that is not what we see in the Z 224 insert.

Rather than move forward, this portion of the jacket has moved from left to right. The side of a jacket cannot move like that. The side of a jacket, in this case the right side, does not move in this way. If the jacket had moved forward, as a consequence of the bullet passing through, the right side of the jacket would move forward: it would not move to the left. And what is more important, had the jacket moved forward the tie would still be seen. It would not be obscured by the jacket’s forward movement.

What has happened, is that the lapel of the jacket has blown open. You can see the point of the lapel is nearly in front of the knot in the tie. Myers argument is that the jacket has moved out. It has not, the lapel has blown open and has moved from left to right, the point of the lapel now covering the knot of the tie.

We can see that there is been an increase in the wind at this point, because the presidential flag has changed it position. And that is the reason the lapel has blown open.

Below is a greatly expanded version of the Z 224 insert. Although Connally features are close to being obscured, it does allow a closer view of the movement of the jacket lapel.

Zapruder frame Z 225:-

What you are seeing:-

On the left are two expanded images of John Connally: one for Z 223 and one for Z 224. This is to allow better comparison.

Above are two expanded images of the presidential flag: one for Z 223 and one for Z 224. Again this is to allow for better comparison.

The major difference between this frame and Z 224 is that the point of the lapel has begun to return to its correct position. The knot of the tie is now no longer obscured as it was in the previous frame. Because the flag appears to still be subject to greater wind than there was at Z 224, that might explain why the lapel collar has changed its position.

However, equally important, Connally is continuing to turn to his left.

And here is the explanation:-

Between Z 223 – Z 225 John Connally is partially turned to his right. His jacket collar and especially his jacket lapel are open to the winds direction. And that is why the jacket lapel open up momentarily. Connally’s turned position in the car has allowed the direction of the wind to catch the jacket lapel and open it up.

Look at Z 226:-

In this frame Connally is seated facing forward, the wind is not able to catch the lapel in the way it did before. In addition, as the presidential flag shows, the wind has dropped by this point.

To summarise:-

Yes John Connally’s jacket does change its position. It does not, as Dale Myers would like us to believe, move forward as a consequence of a bullet passing through. What does happen is that because of the position John Connally has taken in the car, combined with the direction of the wind, has allowed the wind to catch the lapel of the jacket and blown it towards the right.

Therefore, the movement of the jacket is not a symptom of John Connally being struck by a bullet at this point.

And since this is the crucial underpinning tennet of the Single Bullet Theory, that means that serious doubt is now cast upon it.

And now to directly answer David’s question:-

“Based on what we can see in the Zapruder Film excerpt presented below, do you think it is even remotely possible that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are reacting to being hit by the same bullet?”

Answer:- No.

“Why?”

Answer:-

Because the jacket’s movement, that we see, is not the result of a bullet passing through his jacket. It is a consequence of the wind catching it.

James.

Robin,

I agree with your point about image resolution.

I have serious doubts about the veracity of the alteration claim, however in making no attempt to include better resolution images it makes it impossible to verify the claim.

I hope that was not deliberate,but just an accident, however until rectified the posting has no worth. If members cannot assess the merit of the claim, as you correctly point out, then what we have is nothing more than assertion.

James

P.S. Quote from Robert West about CE887:

"Nobody could have accurately fired that rifle from the way they had it "jacked up".

Thanks for the reply. I can't understand why the branches were cut, if all work was finished. I do not doubt Robert's veracity, but it makes no sense to cut the branches after the work has been completed.

It is a great observation Chris. I have already pointed that out in this thread. David Von Pein commented that he considered the angle and position of the gun to be very close to how Oswald.would have fired his gun that day.

James.

Chris,

Another question.

is there anything in your narrative set about recreation work being carried out on the 25th. In my set is the observation by Robert West that when he returned to Dealey Plaza on the 25th he noticed members of the recreation team cutting branches off the live oak.

It does not make much sense if all the recreation work had been completed by the 24th. However, looking through this new page it is clear the tree was causing problems.

I was wondering if although the main work was completed by the 24th, some further work was carried out on the 25th. And therefore the cutting of the branches was preparatory to that work.

Thanks.

James

Thanks Chris.

That page is not in my narrative set.

I'll study it.

One thing that does stand out in the narrative, and repeated on this page, is how important Shanneyfelt was when deciding the car's final position prior to any image being taken.

James.

Thanks Chris.

That makes sense. I see your use of guides perfectly explains the adjustment for 10 inches.

A question. The data angles etc that we see in 884 and 896, do they refer to the marks on the stand in, or the tape mark on the car?

James

Post deleted.

In reading Robert West's survey material I see how the corrections were computed into the figures.

There are still concerns i have with CE 884, but the essential points made in this post were in error.

Apologies.

James




Yes, James, it would have been better if JFK's SS-100-X limo could have been used on 5/24/64 for the re-enactment. But, as previously stated, the Warren Commission was very clear to point out in the Warren Report that "ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT" between JFK's limo and the Queen Mary car that subbed for it during the reconstruction. Is that just a lie, James?




David,

First, I prefer not to use pejorative terms. As I have commented I respect your grasp of the literature of the assassination, but there are times I am a little disappointed in your responses. You are excellent at reporting what the Commission state, but have you ever researched what they say.

Until a few weeks ago CE 884 [ the listing of all the trajectory data ] and CE 896 [ the camera gun shots ], some of which you posted, were my bible. They were the tools I used to check my model. I always found I was in agreement on the distance from the Oswald window, but never could agree with the angles. I always assumed it was an error on my part, and put it aside to come back to later. Now I have very grave doubts about this data. Reading Tom Purves’s narrative of his conversations with Robert West and examining Robert West survey notes are raising concerns on my part.

I now know why my angles do not agree, it is because my trajectory lines go back to where the Oswald shooter would actually be, as opposed to the where the camera gun is. It is clear to me that these camera gun angles are wrong, they are not the angles that would have been created had the Oswald position been the point of the survey. I do not know, at the moment, what implication that has for the Commission.

One difference between you and me is that, although, at one time we both had confidence in this material I have changed as a consequence of analyzing the data. You appear to prefer to report the data. This is not intended as an insult, but you really do not know whether the data is right or wrong. You take on trust that it is right. I once thought it was right, I now know the trajectory angles have to be wrong and I now know why.

There is another problem, which I believe may be even more serious. You replied above that the Commission took into account the differences between the two cars when they undertook the re-enactment.

I don’t think they actually did. The evidence suggests otherwise. I have not completed this, and there could be errors in my workings but here are the reasons I suggest there is a problem with the use of the Queen Mary.

1) It appears to me that the Queen Mary from ground to door height is 52.2 inches.

2) From my diecast version I make the height of the Kennedy car to the door height 40.5 inches.

3) I calculate the height of the top of the head of the stand in to be 28.2 inches above the level of the door height of the Queen Mary.

4) Taking the Towner image it appears that the top JFK’s head was 17.5 inches above the height of the door.

So what is the problem? It is this.

There appears to be 13.7 inch difference between the height of both cars.

If JFK is, indeed 17.5 inches above the height of the door, then he is 3.8 inches above the height of the height of the Queen Mary sides doors.

As pointed out the stand in is 28.2 inches above the height of the side door, so if we take the 3.8 inches remaining off that we are left with 24.4 inches.

Now the Commission said they took 10 inches off to account for the difference. That means they are still out by 14.4 inches.

Put simply, even taking their concession of 10 inches they are still out.

Now this makes sense.

We know the Queen Mary was taller that the Kennedy car.

We know that the back seat in the Kennedy car was lower.

We know that the back seat in the Queen Mary was higher.

What is in dispute is whether the difference is 10 inches.

These calculations come from only one Queen Mary picture. I am going to apply the process to a number of Queen Mary images. If I get similar results from the other images I will know I am right and I will know the Commission is wrong.

And one final point. If my calculations are on the right track then it may well be established that the spot to mark the back wound on the stand in, would actually have gone over JFK’s head…..had it been him in his car in that position at that time.




I think now might be a good time to put forth a little bit of ordinary common sense and logic (apart from the topic of the WC's re-enactment):



1.) JFK was hit by a bullet in his upper back.



2.) John Connally was hit by a bullet is his upper back too.



3.) No bullets were found in JFK's back and neck regions.



4.) The Zapruder Film makes it clear that JFK & JBC are reacting at the same time to bullet injuries or (at the very least) they are reacting within a short enough time period that would prohibit a gunman using Oswald's Carcano rifle from firing two separate bullets into the two victims within that short timeframe.



And you call this “common sense”? You and I have discussed before the medical problems of the Single Bullet Theory. I am not going to bore everybody going back over this material. One reason I obtained anatomical models for my project was to demonstrate in 3D just how ludicrous such an idea is.

What disappoints me is your lack of enquiry. Yes that is what the Commission state, but have you ever looked at the rationale behind such a concept? I am not asking you to change your views or opinions, but have you enquired into the rationale of what you advocate?

One little point from the project. Connally was not wounded at Z 223/4, he received his first wound at Z 230. Nor was it the Oswald window, it was the West window.

I am not going into all the details, that is for my presentation in April, but how I can be so precise and accurate is because my trajectory point runs down his fifth rib. It is a matter of positioning the model as we see in Z 230 and running the pointer. Unlike Dale Myers model my trajectory pointer runs down the actual wound. Thereafter it is a matter of finding at which point such a trajectory returns a positive response. And that took quite a few weeks.

And another tit bit. When I started my project I assumed that the Connally wound could only be acquired from one location. Actually I was wrong, a number of Z frames returned positive answers…. not necessarily to the TSBD. Then it becomes an analysis problem. Analyzing in the light of all the other evidence which moment is the most likely and what is it in the evidence that suggests that this frame was more likely that another. And that is a matter of analyzing and rationalizing: but it is being carried out through evidence and not reported theory.

The only two frames that did not return a positive response was 297 [ and I am not going into details why I Iooked there ] and 223/4.

And yes this conclusion means there was more than one gunman. But that is not my problem.




Don't any conspiracy theorists think the above 4 points of absolute fact are mighty strange if the Single-Bullet Theory is not true?

IOW -- Wasn't it amazing for TWO separate gunmen to be able to perform that incredible "SBT"-like magic on TWO different victims in Dealey Plaza?

The fact that the SBT could be proposed at all if it is truly the impossible fairy tale theory that almost all conspiracy theorists believe it to be is possibly the most amazing "miracle" of this whole murder case.

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com


The flaw in your argument is that you insist that both men were wounded at the same time. When I examine this Single Bullet Theory, as I will be doing with 3D anatomical models, the difference between reality and theory will become very evident.

I find it something of a disappointment that the above quote is mostly taunting me, as opposed to arguing your position.

You pointed out a number of questions you thought were relevant to your position, and in turn would weaken mine. Let me return the gift.

Lets assume the Single Bullet Theory is indeed reality.

a) The general opinion for the modern interpreters is that the bullet entered at T1 or just below T1. Problem one. The bullet is about 3 – 4 inches below Trachea rings 3&4. If the shot is a downward created on a downward trajectory angle how is the bullet is able to rise up to the trachea?

The entrance is around 1.5 inches right of the spine. From that position this is no direct route to the throat. Problem two. The height problem is just one problem, now the bullet is faced with having to go through the vertebras. There is no other option open to it. The position of the entry wound and the position of the vertebras in the human body conflict. So how does the bullet get over that problem?

And these are just two of the problems that face the bullet.

James.

David,

O.k. It looks as if the window is reasonably the same.

It is true, that we may never know exactly what position the Oswald gunman was positioned. However the gunman did leave clues, with the arrangement of boxes by the window. Tradition has held that the boxes around the window were created to hide his presence. However were he positioned as Shanneyfelt is position it is not certain he would be disguised any longer.

David your idea that the angle has "got to be right", is grasping at straws. As you observe the gun does line up with its trajectory target. But the target in this case is in a different car, that I believe sits higher that the Lincoln. The seats on the Queen Mary are also higher and hence the stand in, that we are assuming is 72.5 inches tall, is clearly seated higher than JFK was seated. So, to put it simply, the point that the WC are trying to suggest is that:-

a) a different car that is taller that the Lincoln

a stand in seated higher than JFK was seated

c) a gun that is being fired from a different position

That all of that does not matter because they have calculated into the equation a 10 inch difference. They have already accounted for these differences. Tom Purves' point is that given the differences between the Lincoln and the Queen Mary as well as the position of the seats therein is greater than the 10 inches that that have been written into the calculation.

From my early work on the two cars and the relative position of the occupants, suggest that the difference is indeed greater. And if I am right that is something that does matter.

You appear to suggest that a small angular difference will not affect the conclusions. Well there you are wrong. A small angular difference will make all the difference in he world. The Shanneyfelt angles are based on the assumption that the differences that have been accounted for between the two cars has been taken into account. However, if I fact their calculations between the two cars and their occupants is wrong - and it is looking like that to me - then that changes everything.

There is a pertinent difference between me and Dale Myers. It appears his model was built to support the SBT. If I remember right in his calculations he used the Shanneyfelt values. Yes I certainly am out to undermine the SBT, but essentially I am following where the evidence leads.

In this case, the evidence leads me to believe that although the distance values are o.k the trajectory angles have got to be wrong. The pertinent point is not does the trajectory strike the target in the right place. The pertinent point is if, as it is beginning to appear to me, the comparative height of JFK and the stand in is wrong then whether it strikes the stand in the correct position is not the point. if the angles are wrong and the stand in is wrong, the whole case is wrong.

James

Thanks Robin for the images.

You are quite right Chris Davidson did indeed work with Tom.

James




Huh? You surely aren't suggesting that the WC's "Sniper's Nest To Street" angles were derived while standing on Zapruder's pedestal, are you?

David,

I put the above quote down to the fact that did not properly read what I said. I certainly did not say that. What I did say was as follows:-

“Instead Frazier was sent to the Zapruder pedestal who direct while he Shanneyfelt used the Camera gun. The WC trajectories derive from the camera gun, which has no reality to how the gunman, be it Oswald or not, would have been positioned to fire.”

I made clear that Shanneyfelt was in the 6^th floor window creating the data while Frazier was on the pedestal assisting the process. It is especially gauling because Frazier, when he had been in the sixth floor, had created a realistic gunman position and his angles would have been more realistic.

Instead we have Shanneyfelt as seen below.

Are you suggesting that, that is how the gunman fired the shots that day. I certainly do not think so.

However a more serious point is that in an earlier post you posted images from the camera gun. With that image was the angle of the gun to JFK. That angle is derived from that gun’s position and elevation. Yet, we are informed that say at Z 225 the said angle is 20º 11’. If the camera gun is in the wrong position, how can the angle derived from that frame be any more correct?

These angles are only correct if you are arguing that the Shanneyfelt position is also the Oswald position.

The angles back to the rifle were created by Robert West from the street and plotted on his various charts. They are o.k. It is the Shanneyfelt angles that are the problem.

If I am not mistaken the window is opened far higher than it was that day. Of course it is clear why: it was to get the camera gun to work.

James.

who is Robert West?

Robert West is the surveyor who did much of the calculations for the re-enactments.

Robert West was interviewed over several days by Tom Purves. His account of those numerous meetings reads too authentically to be hyperbole.

Robert West made two observations to Tom Purves:-

First:- On May 25, 1964, he returned into Dealey Plaza in order to acquire additional measurements, and he observed members of the Warren Commission re- enactment engaged in cutting and removal of limbs from the live oak tree that is located directly under the sixth floor window of the School Book Depository Building.

Second:- These personnel had secured a “bucket lift” truck and were in process of cutting and removing limbs from the uppermost branches of the live oak tree that is located directly under the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building.

I do not know the meaning of this cutting of branches.

But first it was done on the 25th.

And second it was carried out by members of the re-enactment group.

Though I find this an interesting point and do wonder just why, if as you claim, the re-enactments had been concluded by the 24^th, that the re-enactment group felt it necessary to cut these branches.

What for me is much more important is the validity of the angles from the gun to the stand in model, as displayed in your posted images. I have no problem with the distances from the Oswald window, I concur with those. What interested me was Tom Purves, who was the first researcher to interview Robert West and gained access to his survey files for the recreations. A fellow researcher generously gave me a copy of the Robert West survey files so I am able to check through these data values. Anyway Tom made a point that he felt that the relative heights of JFK and the stand in may differ by a margin that invalids these angles. My work so far supports him and it may indeed be greater than the 10 inches that the FBI wrote into their calculations.

If I can prove the heights from the road to the top of the head of the two differ by more than 10 inches then it means that the angle at Z225, say, which is defined as 20º 11’ may well strike the body ---- but unlikely to be where the Commission states. I know the WC did not suggest Z 223/4 as the point, but that is now the modern interpretation of the Single Bullet Theory.

So put simply. If I can establish that the relative heights differ by enough to invalidate this angle then surely that also invalids the Single Bullet Theory. I am not saying that a trajectory angle of 20º 11’ would not strike the body, what I am saying is that it will not strike where it has to strike.

Let me just add this:

Unless you, James Gordon, are prepared to perform the kind of detailed ON-SITE reconstruction of the shooting angles and measurements that was performed by the Warren Commission and FBI from the exact window from which shots were fired at President Kennedy, then your calculations and measurements are always going to take a back seat to the WC's conclusions about the angles and measurements, in my opinion.



David that is such nonsense. When making the trajectory projections Shanneyfelt did not use the Robert Frazier position, which very closely modeled how the Oswald gunman would have fired. Instead Frazier was sent to the Zapruder pedestal who direct while he Shanneyfelt used the Camera gun. The WC trajectories derive from the camera gun, which has no reality to how the gunman, be it Oswald or not, would have been positioned to fire.

Do you really support and agree that the Shanneyfelt trajectories represent how the Oswald gunman would have been firing.

The problem, with all due respect, is that the Shanneyfelt trajectories are nonsense. His position bears no reality to the Oswald position.

And your point is that this kind of recreation represents quality in recreating what happened on that day. Well that is not my opinion.

James, what methods are you utilizing to try and prove the WC wrong? I hope photogrammetry is involved. Otherwise, you've got major problems (if, that is, you're attempting to extract 3D information from two-dimensional photographs, which cannot be accomplished without photogrammetry being used).



I have created a scaled model of Dealey Plaza using Cinema 4D. I also have a perfectly scaled model of the JFK car. I have been doing some trajectories these last few days and have been astonished at the accuracy of the model. Ratioing figures for 222 and 225 I have been able to generate a distance figure for 223/4 which I calculate at 190.2ft from the Oswald window to JFK’s back. To be honest I had expected my model to be out. It was not the same. That was replicated at 230 + 236 + 313. I am pleased that I agree with CE 884, though I am also astonished. And this is why I query these trajectory angles, because I am not getting those angles.

Unlike Dale Myers who used closed models I am using anatomical models. Yes I have lost identity [ like Myers had ] but I have verification. The viewer can verify that where I state a position is, it is indeed there. With the Myers models we had to take his word that where he stated the wound was, it was indeed there. I am not suggesting Dale Myers is lying, I would not do that, but I am saying the viewer cannot verify his data.

In the last couple of weeks I have been able to establish when John Connally was wounded, and can verify it. And it was not at 223/4. And, by using anatomical models, the viewer can verify that the trajectory pointer is as described by Robert Shaw in his medical documentation.

I am aware that there are many who will dispute my findings, however by using medical models it is going to be much more difficult when verification is also part of the process

I am also able to demonstrate, from a medical 3D perspective the reality of the a theoretical bullet passing through JFK. Well actually I will be showing how it could not do so.

I am not frightened by you comments, I believe my work will cause quite a number of headaches.

James.

Thanks Gary.

If you could post, or send me a copy of these images that would be great.

I initially thought the image was a February FBI image. To have it confirmed it is May 24th is excellent. I am sure I have a copy of the tree on the 25th and if so then Robert West is right when he stated that on the 25th he saw people trimming the tree branches.

It was a random point by Tom Purves that he considered the height of the stand in was 10 inches higher, that had me have a look at that point. Going by the plans of the Queen Mary and adjusting that to an excellent image of Queen Mary at 223/4 suggests the stand in could be higher. I imagine the seats in the Queen Mary much higher. But the salient point is that both the relative height of the car and his position in the car have his height greater than the 10 inches the FBI adjusted for. I am working on getting a better definition of the distance from the road for JFK and the stand in.

James