James R Gordon




Is there a documented reason why the Lincoln wasn't used in the May recreation?


Martin,

As I understand it the Queen Mary was used because the Lincoln was still being re-fitted. That said I wonder would it not have been completed by the middle of May?

Even it was available, it may be that since the Queen Mary was used February and the same models used in February were also to be used in May, that may be a reason.

Further, although the May re-enactment was strictly for the Warren Commission, it was still the FBI who carried it out. Using the Lincoln, even if it were available, would require a completely new set of surveying data. That might have had a bearing on the choice of the Queen Mary in May rather than the Lincoln – even if it was available.

James




You suspect foul play on the part of the WC though, don't you James?


Actually I suspect incompetence. I have a high regard for you David. You are an excellent advocate for your position. But, with respect, maybe you should check the basis of the evidence.

Take the Trees. I thought that picture was a February picture. When you informed me it was a May picture it just reinforced my case. On the 25^th of May Robert West witnessed the tree being trimmed. I have an image of that tree from the 25^th and the tree is different to the 24^th picture you identified.

Take the angle from the Oswald window. These angles were taken through the camera gun that Shanneyfelt was operating. Just taking that angle on its own, is nowhere near where the Oswald gunman would have been firing.

Yes, I can hear you. Quite correct there was indeed adjustment included into calculations. Knowing that the heights of the stand in and JFK were different in the Queen Mary they brought the target down by 10 inches. They are wildly out. I have yet to confirm my figures, but I will give you the ones I have at the moment.

a) JFK:- I calculate that the top of JFK’s head is 59.87 inches above the ground. The top of his head is 17.69 inches above the height of the side door.

Queen Mary Stand in:- I calculate that the top of his head is 84.23 inches off the ground. Taking the height of the Kennedy car compared to the Queen Mary I believe he is 40.19 inches above door height of the JFK car.

That means his actual difference in height, to JFK is 22.23 inches higher [40.19 – 17.69]. The May recreation only allowed a 10 inch difference. The real difference in height was more than double that.

Now the problem is this, the Warren Commissions case is built on the May 1964 recreation. The bible for this case is CE 902, the series of images from the re-creation. So for example if we take Z 313 we are told that the angle from the window was 15º 21’. Since the stand in is over 10 inches higher than JFK was, and this stand in was in both the February and May recreations, and this 15º 21’ angle was to the JFK head, it is going to miss. It is going to fly over the head of JFK because the stand in is 10 inches higher than they have calculated.

The problem for those who support the Warren Commission is that CE 902 is the definitive definition of the calculations for the May recreation. They cannot be walked back from. And their problem is that these calculations are out by 10 inches and the angle that they do use, in CE 902, would not be the one that Oswald would have used had he been firing. He would have been firing from a much lower angle.

James.




What was done in Feb. '64?


David,

In February ’64 the FBI carried out their re-creation of the assassination. What I had not realized is that there were four recreations of the assassination.

a) November 25th1963:- Time/Life. Not considered to be a legal recreation.

December 2^nd – 4^th 1963:- The Secret Service

c) February 7^th1964:- The FBI

d) May 20 -25 1964:- The Warren Commission, carried out for them by the FBI

The reason I asked the question was that in discussion with Robert West, Tom Purves learnt that during the May 1964 recreation Robert West was in Dealey Plaza and saw people with a bucket truck cutting branches off the top of the tree in front of the TSBD. He suggested it was done to ensure the Single Bullet Theory was more reliable.

Informing me that the image, I posted, was a May ’64 image you have provided me with the proof that Robert West was correct and indeed the said tree was indeed trimmed during May 1964.

Robert West also observed, during the May recreation, the front tyres of the Queen Mary were lowered and the back tyres filled as much as possible to ensure that the Connally stand in was sufficiently lower than the JFK stand in. Now that I can prove that in May 64 the branches of the tree were indeed cut, I believe that is also true. There will be pictures of the car like this, but I doubt we will ever see them.

Until now I have relied on CE 896 when building my 3D model. With regard to the distance specifications I have agreed with them. E.g. Z 223/4 is 190.4 feet from the Oswald window. I concur. However the angles are a complete mess. I now know why the angles are wrong and are not the angles that would have been, had there been a shot at Z 223/4. In the case of Z 223/4 the angle in the window is 20º 30’. This is calculated from the difference between Z 222 and Z 225 where we have values.

These values are completely wrong. If the shot, for the Single Bullet Theory, had been fired at Z 223/4 at an angle of 20º 30’ it would not have struck the back as proposed. This is because the angles have been calculated wrongly.

What I am now going to spend some time on is discovering exactly where such a shot would land, if fired at Z 223/4 at an angle of 20º 30’.

James

Thanks Pamela,

That makes a lot of sense.

James

I am doing some work on the re-enactments of the assassination by the FBI and the SS.

This image looks like a February '64 FBI image, but just in case it is a December '63 from the SS I thought I would ask.

I took the image from Robin's site.

Does anyone know whether this is an FBI or SS re-enactment image?

Thanks.

James




For a very good look at Jackie's Lincoln limo, at FMC called the "Sheik II", with SS ID 279X


Pamela,

I was surprised to learn that Jackie had a Lincoln limo.

Do you know when she got it and for how long she kept it.

I am astonished that after when happened in Dallas, Jackie would have a similar car for herself.

James

I am not sure whether there has been any meddling with the autopsy images or not. When the Parkland doctors when they visited NARRA for the program Nova they did not believe there had been alteration.

I understand that we do not have the complete autopsy image set in the public domain, and maybe that is where the contradiction resides.

I have already placed a link to that section of NOVA where the Parkland doctors visit NARRA. It may well be of use to repeat that link.

https://www.transfer...CPP58Q7sCA4T3w2

There are a number of points I would make about this section of the program. It really is worth a close examination. Walter Cronkite, the narrator, certainly ignored much of what these doctors say. The pertinent points, to my mind, are as follows:-

1. The section takes place after an examination of David Lifton’s theory about body alteration. Indeed it appears that is why both doctors were invited to visit the archives in the first place.

2. Although the Parkland doctors agree to visit, the Bethesda doctors refused to visit.

3. At the beginning all the Parkland doctors explain what the wound to the head looked like. McClelland even is seen drawing the shape of the wound.

4. After they come out from having seen the images, all the doctors state, on record, that what they saw was exactly as they had remembered. What is often overlooked is what those statements mean. Walter Cronkite certainly dismisses it and assumes that the idea of the hole at the back was wrong.

What the doctors actually said was that what they saw in those images was what they described prior to going in to view the images. And that means that what they saw was also this wound to the rear of the head that they all point to at the beginning and what McClelland even drew before going into the room.

5. Again, an often overlooked point made by Dr. Peters. After leaving the room Peters says that the pictures show exactly what he remembered seeing. If you go back to the beginning of the clip you will see that he has his hand over the very area that is in dispute in this conversation. He has to be suggesting that somewhere in the collection is an image that supports the idea of a hole in the back of the head.

Dr. Peters also goes on to comment about a surgical incision in the temple area. Now I do not know when these images were taken, i.e. had any work been done prior to them being taken. Dr. Peters suggests that maybe the incision was to enable better access to the wound. He draws a diagram to explain what he means. Cronkite pounces on this to suggest that is the explanation for David Lifton’s theory. But I am not so certain. Although, again an overlooked moment, this may well be what David Lifton talked about all those years ago. What we do not know is when this incision took place and why.

6. Dr. McClelland explains why, in the images that are in public domain, we do not see the wound to the back of the head. He suggests that the scalp, that is lying down the back of the body in other pictures, has been pulled over the head and thus disguises the wound.

Not having seen the full collection, I do not know whether that explanation is correct.

7. Dr. Jenkins explains the confusion over the comment about the Cerebellum. Dr. Peters goes on to comment how this demonstrates that errors can easily be made during a moment of confusion.

It is a very rational explanation. However, since all the doctors agree, even though we do not see the evidence of it in the Fox images, that there was a significant wound to the back of the head, Dr. Peters explanation does not make much sense. At the beginning of the section he places his hand over the very area of the head where it ought to be possible to see the Cerebellum. And when he comes out from viewing he says that what he saw was exactly what he saw in Parkland and how he described the wound before entering the viewing area.

In is an interesting program section that has its own contradictions as well as apparently supporting the idea that indeed there was a hole in the back of the head and the complete set of autopsy images support that.

It is interesting that the Bethesda doctors refused to visit. Now I wonder why that was?????

James.

THAT IS NOT JFK!! This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys. People are different. And the location of the base of JFK's neck in relation to the vertebrae was different that in most men. Measure HIM, not a model.

Robert,

First the model was one I made up for Cliff to show how C1 and T1 could be damaged with a direct line from T1 to trachea 3&4. I have informed Cliff on a number of occasions that this is not a realistic trajectory and has, in my mind, no bearing to reality. It was simply a theoretical line to follow one of Cliff's ideas.

Second, these anatomical models are highly accurate. Proportions may differ from person to person, but the essential details are correct. Where the organs and bone structures are to be seen in the model are exactly where they are on the human body. To get exactitude all one requires to do is scale the model for height and breadth....which I have done with the model I use for trajectory analysis.

These models are used in medical training. To suggest that JFK's base of his neck is in a different location to that of other human beings is preposterous. He would have serious medical conditions if his body did not comply to the same rules of structure as everyone else. Proportion may differ, but not position. I have seen the diagrams where you suggest otherwise. The problem with those diagrams is that you are applying structures to images that are not perfectly straight to allow comparison.

James.

Pat,

If I have understood the video correctly it suggests that John Connally was injured at the 223/4 moment. What is being said is that JFK was reacting to his wound by 207 and that Connally was reacting by 223/4.

The central point the program then makes is that between these points there is not enough time for a gunman to fire off two shots.

I agree with the notion that between 207 and 223/4 there is not enough time for two shots. But the weakness in this video is the idea that John Connally was wounded at Z 223/4.

That is not possible. A trajectory analysis for a wound tangential with the angle of the 5^th rib will not lead back to the TSBD. It leads to nowhere – well actually it leads up the upper part of Elm Street between the Daltex and the Records building.

I am not saying that John Connally could not be wounded at 223/4, it is just that the source of such a wound is not a legitimate recognizable source.

John Connally was wounded after 223/4.

Other than that, the program makes some valid points.

James.

James you are right on Any person can see that Gov Connally reaction around Z frame 223-224 and President Kennedy while he was behind the sine. So there was noway Oswald could get a shot off in that time frame and hit to targets. It is known that to cycle the rifle takes 2.3 seconds. that does not take into account accruing and zeroing in the target and pulling the trigger.

I speak from personal experience I had the very same type of rifle that Oswald had and i tried to replicate in the stated time the FBI gave Oswald in 13 years of owning that riffle i got 2 hits in the time alotted in those 13 years . But i was not under preasure that Oswald was. My scope was mislined just like Oswald's was. Also used the iron sites.

Mark,

I agree about the lack of time during the sequence in question, a point that Pat initially raised.

But my point that Connally was not wounded there was not primarily about the timing contradiction. It was to point out that, even if timing had allowed a second shot to occur that could have gone on to injure both men aka the SBT - Connally still could not be wounded. The trajectory of his wound and body position would prohibit such to happen.

Connally being unable to be wounded at 223/4 has nothing to do with shot timing and everything to do with wound trajectory angles and seated position.

James.

I remain open-minded as to the exact location of the shooter hitting Connally, but am convinced by the "wince" in the film he is in fact hit around Z-223--224.

Pat,

Fair point about the perspective of the HSCA photographic panel. I had not read their material, I will have a look at it.

As far as 223/4 as the moment Connally is struck, it would probably be best to agree to disagree. The Connally thorax wound is so unique it is possible to identify when the wound might have been inflicted and when it was not possible. I.e. given the angle and trajectory of the wound there are points on Elm street where that point [ given the position John Connally is sat ] to determine whether that point leads to a postitive result or not. 223/4 is one of those moments where the trajectory leads nowhere. As for the wince I suspect that is an anomaly resulting from Zapruder's filming.

James

Pat,

If I have understood the video correctly it suggests that John Connally was injured at the 223/4 moment. What is being said is that JFK was reacting to his wound by 207 and that Connally was reacting by 223/4.

The central point the program then makes is that between these points there is not enough time for a gunman to fire off two shots.

I agree with the notion that between 207 and 223/4 there is not enough time for two shots. But the weakness in this video is the idea that John Connally was wounded at Z 223/4.

That is not possible. A trajectory analysis for a wound tangential with the angle of the 5^th rib will not lead back to the TSBD. It leads to nowhere – well actually it leads up the upper part of Elm Street between the Daltex and the Records building.

I am not saying that John Connally could not be wounded at 223/4, it is just that the source of such a wound is not a legitimate recognizable source.

John Connally was wounded after 223/4.

Other than that, the program makes some valid points.

James.

I think what happened was that my PM box was overloaded. I cleared it out.

So if you send it again, it should come through.

Jim

It is probably me. I sent a new message and again you are blocking it.

Send me a message to jamesg2@btinternet.com and I will send you the link direct.

Sorry, it is probably something stupid I have done when messaging - though I have no idea what it is.

James

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.[/size][/color]

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

Jim,

I accept that you are correct that JFK had custom made clothes. However Craig is correct to point that his jacket was indeed bunched. Croft makes that clear for all to see. How much it was bunched and what affect that would have on the position of the wound I do not know. Maybe not a great deal, maybe a lot.

I am not sure if it makes a great deal of difference to your position that either way the wound was too low for the SBT to be valid. I agree with you on that point.

I do not understand why you suggest that if photos such as Croft do show the jacket bunched that has to mean the photo has been altered. I have a problem with a position that says if the evidence does not support your position, then there is something wrong with the evidence.

James.




I would like to ask Mr. Gordon, you say that this is a tangential wound in JBC that came in from an angle and did not hit JFK.

But I am not clear yet: from which angle did it originate?

If in looking at JFK from behind, that is at his back, did it come from the left or right? I think this is an important question. If it came from the right it almost had to originate from the TSBD. If it came from the left it likely originated at the Dal Tex. I would like your take on this. It seems Harris thinks it came from the Dal Tex. If you think so also, why do you think that? 



Please, I await your reply.


Jim,

I did send you a private message with links to a extended answer to your question.

It appears you have blocked me from messaging you.

If you can unblock the message you will get your answer. If you can’t, if maybe I have done something foolish with my messaging, you will find my e-mail address in my profile. Contact me and I will give you the link.

James


Dr. David Davis came to the following conclusion:


Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that are


Robert,

Some time ago I looked into this issue and I find, at best the issue clouded in dispute between the four experts brought in by the HCSA. I acknowledge that the HCSA put on the record that in their belief the T1 Transverse process had been damaged.

“The panel noted an interruption in the continuity of the right transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebra much more clearly delineated in the computer-assisted enhancement of film No 8.” P. 98

They used as their authority the study by Dr. McDonnel whose full report can be found at P. 217 Addendum C

Read in isolation, there appears to be no dubiety about the issue: the T1 Transverse Process appears to have been clearly damage and of that there is no doubt.

However a close study of the report and their references demonstrates not only that this issue is nowhere near as clear as the HCSA would like us to believe, but ( in fact ) it is quite possible that T1 was never damaged.

At the heart of the issue were the X-rays and the interpretation of them.

Initially the Panel interviewed two eminent Professors from New York on the 27^th February 1978.

a) Norman Chase Professor and Chairman of Radiology, New York School of Medicine.

William B. Seaman Professor and Chairman of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital New York.

Their comments can be seen on P. 99. Basically both were of the opinion that the T1 Transverse Process was undamaged.

Professor Chase is doubtful there is any damage to T1. This is because he says that if there was a fracture it was peculiar that there was no displacement of the bone. Basically he is saying that the bone shows no evidence that it has been damaged.

Professor Seaman goes further. He said the T1 Transverse Process appeared normal. In his opinion the T1 was undamaged.

Six months later, on August 4^th 1978, the Panel approached Dr. G.M. McDonnel of the Department of Radiology of the Hospital of the Good Samaraitan.

Note:- I used the date of the report, as the date of contact. I acknowledge the contact was probably earlier but the HCSA don’t give a contact date.

From Dr. McDonnel’s submitted report the Panel were able to make the following statement. “The panel noted an interruption in the continuity of the right transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebra much more clearly delineated in the computer-assisted enhancement of film No 8.” P. 99 His full report can be found on P. 217 Addendum C

However the above statement that the HSCA report made is not what Dr. McDonnel said. What he said was as follows:

“There is an undisplaced fracture of the proximal portion of the right transverse process of T1 (or the region of the costovertebral junction.)” P. 219 Addendum C.

Unlike Professor Chase who also saw no displacement and concluded that there was no damage, Dr. McDonnel also sees no displacement but does suggest there might be damage.

Grays Anatomy says this of Costovertebral Joints: “Together, the costovertebral joints and related ligaments allow the necks and the ribs to rotate around their longitudinal axes.”

It is clear that the “junction” Dr. McDonnel is referring to is the junction of the cervical vertebrae’s, in particular C7.

With his use of brackets, (or the region of the costovertebral junction.), it is clear that Dr McDonnel is not prepared to commit himself to stating that the T1 was damaged. In his opinion the damage could be elsewhere which is why he uses parenthesis to highlight this point. However that is not how the HCSA described his finding. There is no mention in the main body of the work that highlights that Dr. McDonnel was unsure of whether T1 was damaged and that he thought that the damage may well have been in the cervical spine. In their report the only point that is highlighted is Dr McDonnel's comment on T1. His doubts are removed from the report.

Nineteen days later, on August 23^rd, the Panel contact their fourth expert: Dr. David O. Davis of The George Washington University Medical Center.

Unlike the previous three he is quite clear that T1 was indeed damaged. As the report states “David O. Davis M.D. professor and chairman of the Department of Radiology at the George Washington University Hospital and Medical School Washington D.C. also observed these same findings both on the original X-ray films and on the computer-assisted enhancement” P. 98/99 The “same findings” described are those of Dr. McDonnel. Dr. Davis’ full report can be found on P. 222 Addendum D

It is interesting that, as has been shown, Dr. McDonnel was not convinced that T1 was indeed damaged, but in the report not only is he portrayed as being convinced he is shown to be supported in this conclusion by Dr. David Davis.

Therefore between February 1978 and late August 1978 the panel contacted four people to assess the X-rays and comment on them. Two of the experts were emphatic that T1 was undamaged. One was uncertain and only one, the last person contacted, was prepared to state that T1 was damaged. It is interesting, that in writing the report, David Davis is not the lead expert on the damage to T1. After all he is the only one who come out in favor of it being damaged. The lead expert, in the report, was Dr. McDonnel, who was not convinced that it was T1 that was damaged and thought it may be C7. David Davis was used to support Dr. McDonnel. See P. 98/99

John Hunt in an essay on JFK’s head wound says this about David Davis determination to show where the bullet’s exit point was “Why it “seem[ed] reasonable” to Davis “to assume that the exit point” was anywhere is left entirely to the imagination of the reader, for Davis never explained the rationale upon which he based his assumption. Davis’ unsupported and equivocal speculation not withstanding, the X-rays did not reveal any outshoot points. That left the FPP with only the photographs to make their determination.”

In the end, four experts examined these X-rays. Two decided that T1 was undamaged. One was ambivalent, and only one was prepared to state T1 was damaged. It is interesting that David Davis in his report on X-Rays says “there is evidence of a right T1 transverse process fracture.” P. 225 Addendum D. He can see clearly something nobody else saw, and the very feature, whose absence, determined Professor Chase to declare there was no damage to T1, makes me think that T1 was not damaged.

The process by which the HCSA went about contacting these experts leaves open the interpretation that they wanted someone to agree T1 was damaged, and therefore I suspect had David Davis not agreed the Panel would have contacted a fifth expert.

My conclusion from all this is that it is not certain T1 Transverse Process was damaged. The whole situation is full of ambiguity.

James.


.

I have an entire chapter on this particular weekend visit by a select group of Warren Commission members in Volume 2 of my three volume trilogy on the wounding of Governor John Connally. Volume's 1 and 2 are complete and are currently at the printer, and all three volumes will be available to interested parties later this year. FWIW

 Gary Murr


I see Gary Murr has made public that he will shortly publish his book. If I may I would like to say a few words about it for forum members.

Some time ago Gary was extraordinarily kind to me by allowing me access to a substantial portion of his research, including his forthcoming book.

I still remember very vividly the moment I looked over his appendix [ that was the very first item I received – not the book just the appendix items ] for volume 1. Gobsmacked would not even begin to describe my reaction to what I saw. I remember e-mailing him and telling him that it would be a crime were he not to publish this work.

The focus of the trilogy is the wounding of John Connally. I vividly remember thinking, “how on earth can someone write three volumes on John Connally.” The answer is that although the focal point is John Connally – the overriding arc is the assassination of JFK and how such officialdom such as the Warren Commission and HSCA approach and dealt – or indeed did not deal – with the assassination. But it is not even that, it is the extraordinary and meticulous research. How someone had the time and made the effort to track down all the leads and evidence that incorporates this work, I find still to be an absolute wonder. If for no other reason, the book is worth having just to see how someone could pull together so many strands of evidence and illuminate them with an incredible clarity of mind.

At times when I have despaired at the problems my project, which is rests in a different universe to his work, Gary has often commented to me that I should remember that he has, after all, been at this for 40 years. Well if you feel this book is worthwhile – and worthwhile understates it in my view – you are getting 40 years of meticulous research. You are getting access to material many researchers are not aware even exists. It is mind blowing the material and evidence Gary has gathered together. I had not been aware that there was a time that the Warren Commission believed that John Connally was wounded at Z 297. There is a fascinating chapter about how that came about, the influence it had to the Commission’s thinking and what eventually forced them to change their opinion.

In my research on when Connally was wounded it was this chapter that inspired me to look at this moment and suddenly see the reasons why I came to believe that Connally was most likely wounded before the head shot. There have been so many times topics have been raised in this forum that I have longed to jump into and comment with what Gary has said in his book, but have restrained myself from doing so.

I am glad Gary has decided to publish this book. I had the feeling, when I first got to know about it, he was ambivalent about the project. In my view, the JFK research community deserves to see in print a book such as this. My work has been improved infinitely by access to Gary’s material, including his book and it is my view that JFK research community will look on the wounding of John Connally and the process by which authorities approached the assassination in a new light after having read this book.

James.

Jim,

I did reply to you. I sent you a personal message within which was a link to my reply and another link to my source evidence.

I did it this way, since at present I prefer this material to be private.

I note that, for some reason you have blocked receipt of messages from me.

I would prefer not to go public at the present. Hope you are now able to receive my message.

James

Robin,

Thank you very much for those images of JFK's back.

I do not yet know whether I am seeing two injuries or one injury and a spot of blood.

But that aside, thank you for the images and your efforts on them.

James.


2. The reason people think the bullet passed through Connally, and not on the outside of his rib, is the exit location, combined with the exit on the jacket. They are both near the middle of his body, and not at the right side. If Gary Murr, or some other expert on Connally thinks otherwise, I'd appreciate their chiming in.


Pat,

I have spent some time studying the John Connally wounds. Gary Murr is certainly the expert, but I believe I also have some knowledge in this area.

As you point out the bullet did not enter the thorax or body cavity. It traveled along the line of the fifth rib. Whem it did strike the 5th rib it caused considerable damage to the rib bone and it was the fragments caused by that strike that entered the body cavity and created the internal damage like the damage to the right lung.

You raise the issue of the damage to Connally’s clothes and the contradiction that raises. I believe that can be accounted for by the position John Connally was sitting in the car, at the time, as well as the source from where the bullet originated.

On Saturday 23^rd November 1963 Robert Shaw and Tom Shires held a Press Conference. Robert Shaw is asked by a reporter how close the bullet came to striking a vital organ. In answering that question, Robert Shaw describes how the bullet passed through John Connally’s body.

http://s1187.photobu...zpsb4f4b063.mp4

James

I have removed this post.

I apologise, I was in error about how to read a CT scan.

Pat is right about what how a CT scan should be read. I had not realised that.

The suggestion that David Mantik's was in error is also wrong. I was the one who was in error.

James.

Jim,

You are spot on, commenting on the Connally wounds: it is fatal flaw of the assassination. As a researcher commented to me recently, it is an area that has attracted too little attention. I believe I can now prove exactly when it took place and from what source. Nor is it the only wound that John Connally suffered that day. I can't yet prove it, as I can with the thorax wound, but I believe I know precisely when the other wound occurred.

I am not sure whether I read your article, however I made a copy to read later.

One error, I have noticed and I am sorry to point out, in that article is the MRI scan by Dr. Mantik. Unless he has inverted the image, and I apologise in advance if he has, he has placed the entry point in JFK's left side of the back... not his right.

In MRI scans I believe the identification of Right and Left is highlighted from the posterior side and not the anterior.

Put another way. In your mind rotate the image 180º on the vertical - so it is standing upright.

Now rotate another 180º leftwards - so we are looking at the image from the left.

If you do that you will see the line is entering from the left and not the right.

James

Jim,

Sorry that is an error. Looking from JFK's back it would pass on his left side. This is assuming a Connally position as of Z223/4. If Connally were seated facing forward then the bullet would indeed pass on his right.

How do I know it was a tangential wound? That is what Robert Shaw described it as. In addition a fellow researcher has very kindly given me access to his massive medical research on John Connally. I have access to many of the Connally medical documents. So I know the truth of his wounds. The bullet, was very close to missing Connally altogether. It entered the right of the scapula and below the Axilla. It entered at approximately the position of the 5th rib at the back. It ran down he line of the fith rib. It's point of contact, with the 5th rib, caused the 10cm bone damage. It was these bone fragments, not the bullet, that entered the thorax and caused - among other things - the damage to the lung. Robert Shaws reason why the bullet did not enter the thorax was because - and I have forgotten their name just now - the muscles above and below each rib were not damaged. Specifically he was talking about the muscles between ribs 4 and 5 as well as ribs 5 and 6. His argument was that had the bullet actually entered he thorax, then there would have been damage to these muscles. The angle between the entry wound and the exit wound was measured by Robert Shaw as being 27 degrees when Connally was seated. That is very close the the angle of the fith rib.

There is a Press conference that Robert Shaw and Tom shires conducted on the 23rd. You will find it on YouTube. Half way through that he is asked how near to a vital organ did the bullet come. In his answer Shaw describes how the bullet traveled through his body and how the fragments - created as a result of the bullet striking the rib - created the internal damage.

Many, who do not know the details of the Connally wounds see the wound as a through wound, just like Robert Harris has described above. The bullet did not strike at a right angle, but at an acute angle and running down the line of the 5th rib. That is why I said - although I got it wrong - the bullet would have flown to his right. As pointed above, I should have said to his left.

The pertinent point is that because of the nature of his wond the SBT is invalidated. The only way to create any possibility of success for the SBT is if the Connally wound can be described as a through wound.

James.

Robert,

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm. Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image in that particular resolution and magnification.

You comment that the lower object being by the spine, is exactly where it needs to be. The autopsy is categorical that there was no damage to the spine. Yes the HSCA does have some language on T1, but it has no language on a wound in that area of the body. In addition we now have access to very good high resolution copies of JFK's jacket. There is no damage where this object you say struck JFK. If JFK was wounded in that area of his body, where is the verifying evidence from his jacket and shirt to corroborate your theory?

I am aware that the Daltex may well be a part of the narrative of the Kennedy assassination. I have trajectories leading back to that building. However to suggest that the Connally wound at 225 leads back there is a nonsense. 2D trajectory analysis is a useful tool, but it is open to distorted results. However the serious criticism is your blue dashed line. If that is your understanding of the Connally wound, put simply you are completely wrong. Connally wound was not a through wound, as you appear to suggest. It was a tangential wound. If you plot back the trajectory of the Connally chest wound it would pass to the right of JFK. It would do that because of the tangential angle that it entered Connally body. That is one of the reasons the SBT is an invalid theory.

I have looked at the beginning of your video. I see where you suggest the shot was fired from, but the quality of the image you use does not support your contention. I hear what you say, but you have not - at least to my mind - provided evidence to support it. I do not see this broken window you talk about. I appreciate that you firmly believe that window played a part in the assassination narrative. What you have not done - to my point of view - is to provide evidence of such quality that would lead others to agree with you.

James.

Robert,

An interesting study, but I find I cannot agree with you. Being a Macintosh user for more years than I care to remember I am an avid fan of all things Mac. However, assuming I have the correct program, Keynote is Apple’s presentation software. It is excellent software, but I would never use it for measuring. I suggest you think about the Apple app Pixelstick.

You are a reputable researcher and I accept this is an honest piece of work, but I cannot fathom where you have acquired your references. I admit I am not a photographic expert, but I would have thought to be able to reference size – in the way that you are doing – you would need to know about features of the photograph such as distance from object, angle of object etc. I can see nothing in your analysis by which to reference size. For example, if we knew the size of the ruler, then we could ratio the size of other aspects of the image, such as position of objects [ the spots in question ] as well as the distance of location. There would be inaccuracies, but we would at least be in ball park. Without a benchmark, I cannot fathom how you have been able to determine size.

That said, I am in disagreement with your conclusions. Below is my interpretation of what the BE 5 image is telling us. As Craig Lamson so correctly pointed out it is important to account for perspective. I therefore admit that there may be some perspective error in this work. Hopefully it is at a minimum.

See image below:-

True we do not have any size reference by which to judge where an object [ in this case the back wound ] is. But we do have recognizable body features through which we can make judgement. In the image above is a copy of BE 5 and an image of an anatomical model rotated in a similar position to BE 5.

First:- There is a body feature reference that can be worked from. Identified as A2 on BE 5 and A1 on the model is the edge of the scapula spine. Identified as B2 on BE 5 and B1 on the model is the Medial vertebral border which is above the inferior angle. I.e. it is the lower edge of border but above the bottom of the scapula.

Second:- To get some idea of positional reference, I have drawn a line across both scapula spines in both BE 5 and the model. That gives you a base reference. We know that the object in question is not below that point. That line is just above T4’s lessor horn. So the line is below T3.

Third:- Determining the position of the upper line is a bit of a guestamit. Although the Scapula is often referred to as the shoulder bone, where Boswell’s hand is actually above it. Above the Scapula is the Clavicle bone, above which is muscle and flesh. So determining exactly where the hand is a bit subjective, but I have suggested a position with the red line on both the model and BE 5.

So we now have an upper and lower border, within which both these objects reside.

Your argument is that what I have identified as “Object 2” is the real back wound. That has to be wrong.

The Purple double headed arrow indicates the centre of the spine. I admit on BE 5 I am guessing where the middle is between the spine edges of both scapula’s, because the ruler covers the edge of the left spine. But I believe I have the line roughly in place.

If I am right, what you are suggesting is the wound in on the line of the spine, rather than 1.5cm right of the line of the spine. On the other hand, Object 1 would appear to be correctly position as far as distance from the spine is concerned.

Therefore, I submit that what you consider to be the location of the back wound is in error. I believe the real back wound is, what I refer to as Object 1. I suggest what you believe to be the back wound, what I refer to as Object 2, is actually a drop of blood.

James.

Thanks Chris,

I had not seen that clip. I have downloaded a copy.

James.