James R Gordon

Richard, You are absolutely right about that. However that is not the subject of my study. My study, with the aid of a professional 3D program on the human anatomy, looks at what goes on inside the body. I am examining whether the Criteria laid down by Commander Humes in his Autopsy report and testimony hold up when we see the bullets path and trajectory within the neck and upper chest area. Put simply. Do the organs that are damage, do they still get damaged? And equally important, do the organs that should not be damaged, does the bullet avoid them. The outside trajectories are relevant only in so far as they describe the exact path that the bullet takes inside the body. It is those paths that are being examined: not the outside trajectories. I know this may sound silly but the outside trajectories are irrelevant if the inside trajectory violates the conditions of the autopsy report. If the bullet cannot do inside the body what the criteria laid down by Commander Humes states they should, then the SBT is invalid. I contend it does not matter what angles & trajectories you have outside the body, if those trajectories create violations of the criteria inside the body then that invalidates the theory. At that point, I suggest, it is an irrelevance what the trajectories outside the body are and indeed where the line of trajectory leads to. It is an irrelevance because body organs have been compromised that were specified in the Autopsy report as being o.k. I have probably said too much already and I am concerned about getting egg on my face and I am delaying to double and triple check, however what I am seeing so far is going to cause some headaches and maybe the use of the term “Dismantling” in the title may well be appropriate. I am adding some new videos to section 3. They will look at the application of the theory by a number of modern proponents of the SBT and by that I mean I take their theories inside the body and examine the implication of the said trajectory to the organs within the upper chest area. Thanks for the comment on video codecs. I will try MPG and see how that works. James.

Thanks for your comments. My mind had been working along the same lines of posting in sections. I hope to post around the middle of next week. The topic is entitled “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory.” Although this is ground that has been gone over hundreds and possibly thousands of times in the 48 years since JFK died, I believe this will be a very different approach. I use the phrase “hope to post” very deliberately because, aside from the fact I don’t want mega “egg on my face”, I am conscious that there are very powerful interests that will not want this theory dismantled, even after 48 years. I expect them to “tag my tail” in a very serious way, because if I am right, I am well a ware it will not just be this theory I will be dismantling. Therefore I have to be sure I have correctly understood my facts. Even if I am wrong, and I don’t think I am, I believe there are going to be very serious questions raised that those supporting the SBT have never addressed - I am not even sure they are aware of them. I am not sure they will be even able to do so. I came across, last night, an issue that I had been aware of but had not fully appreciated that on its own is going to prove such a headache. I now have to re-do the videos today in order to introduce it. Sorry for being so oblique here but I am being ultra careful. My study is in Four/Five parts. Part three comprises of around 4 short videos that examine in 3D the crucial elements of the theory. Luckily part 3 lends itself to being divided into sections and it might be better to divide that section rather than in one video. On the issue of the video, does anyone know what codec should it be, flash, mov, quicktime?? As a Mac guy I always use Quicktime, but should I use another form. Thank you. James Gordon

I have been working on a major research item and I am ready to post one element of it. However I am concerned how to go about it. Aside from significant text there are numerous images and a video of around 10 minutes. With regard to video, what is the best format to use? I don't want to cause bandwidth problems to the site and I am not sure whether I should break the post into its 4 recognisable sections OR post as one item OR how to post? Not to criticise members, I have noticed some members replying to the complete initial thread and I imagine that takes up considerable space. So what would be the best way for me to post this. Thank you. James.

On page 365 of his Warren Commission testimony, James Humes is asked to look at JFK's jacket. He mentions that attached to the garment was a memo from the FBI stating that they had taken a fragment of the jacket for a control area. Does anyone have access to that document. If so could they please post it. Thank you. James.

Craig, I absolutely agree. I thought I had mentioned that, but I appear to have forgotten to do so. The real problem is whether taking CE 893 Zapruder 210 (though I understand this frame was really Z208 and not Z210 according to Tom Purvis) the angle from JFK's body to the rifle in the window was taken from this camera instrument. CE893 says this angle was 21º 34'. Whatever the reason for the position of the camera, if the angle was taken from this instrument then clearly that angle was too high. Since I initially posted I have noticed that this figure is in Robert West's original sheet of figures. I am now hoping the figure is his and all that was created by the camera instrument were the pictures and not the measurements. James.

That is exactly my point. There is no point in arranging the boxes under the window if the gunman was going to fire as the image shows. And if he was, then the boxes behind him may no longer be sufficient to hide him. O.k. so that may not seem so important. What is important to me is did the angles from JFK's body to the rifle also come from this instrument. If so those angles are wrong. The angle, for the Commission's SBT, from the gun to JFK's back is stated to be 21º14'. If all these angles were taken from this instrument then they are wrong because the gun is too high. I would also bet this is the same angle that Dale Myers used in his 3D model. My model is coming close to finish. I had intended to use these measurements as a validation of my model's accuracy. I can use some of the data such as distance to overpass, since that is unlikely to have originated from this instrument, But the angle from JFK's body to the gun in the window look like they did, I'm sure they are wrong and I am now going to have to see what the angle actually is as opposed to verifying that my model agrees with this data. James

I was doing some work today that required me to refer to Commission Exhibit’s CE 886 – 902. That is the document that includes the various images of the Re-enactment. CE 887 is an image of the pictures being taken. See image below. I happen to look at the data for Frame 185 (CE 890) and noticed that data for the angle to the rifle in the window was 24º14’ which is the exact same value in CE884. What I am wondering is where did that value came from. Did it come from a different survey or did it come from the instrument in the image of CE 887 above. If it was from that instrument then surely the value has to be wrong. One thing the Commission were clear about ( and I agree with them ) is that the arrangement of the boxes by the sixth floor east window served two purposes. First it helped to protect the shooter. Second, the lower boxes were used to support the rifle by the window as it was being fired. To use these boxes to support the position of the rifle, the the rifle would have to be much lower, and I suspect maybe even be positioned in a different angle than what we see in the picture above. It seems clear to me, that having set out the rifle support boxes by the window, the gunman would not then just ignore them and be poised to fire the gun like we see in the above picture. If the gunman was poised as in CE 887 then there would be no purpose for the arranging the boxes in the first place to support the rifle as he carried out the assassination. Looking at the image it appears to me that the tripod would not get any lower and that is what determined the position and angle of the gun. It seems to me that the position of that instrument is far too high to replicate the true angle from JFK's back to the rifle as the actual shooter would have used it through the window. It seems to me that real angle would have to be lower, maybe by around 2º - 4º. What do others think? James.

I was looking through some assassination images and looked at this McIntire image that we are all familiar with. Suddenly I saw this image which I wonder if it is a person. At first I dismissed the image because the building is behind the Records building. I do not know what the name of this building is. But then I noticed that the building is to the left of the Records building. And then I realised that actually although further back from the Records building a person in that position would have a clear line of sight to Elm Street. So do fellow members think this a person and if so what are they doing on the roof of this building? James.

Mark, I understand Gary's position with the Sixth Floor Museum forbids him from directly posting on sites such as this. You are right he is a member of the site, but I believe you will not seem directly posting. He will privately reply to individuals who have posted making comments to them. As you say he is helpful when asked about aspects of the case. But that appears to be the limits of his public contributions on these kinds of sites. James.

Chris, Speaking for myself that would be helpful. It is clear you fully understand what you are saying, but quite often I have no idea what you are saying. Earlier, you showed a portion of the Drommer plat with your annotations. If that that plat is completed annotated, posting that would also help. It would provide a reference to refer your figures back to. I am sure others follow very easily. but I am finding it very difficult and these kinds of support would certainly help. James.

Thanks Chris. That is helpful. Would it be possible, at some time, for you to post your complete amended Drommer plat. That would also be helpful. Thanks. James.

Chris, If you could bear with me, I am not clear on all you say and this table. 1. I don't follow how you can say the end of the film is 644. How do you come to that figure when you also say the film has 486 frames 2. The table talks about "station A". What is that and where was it. I have no idea where that is and how to reference it. 3. Column 2 has these strange numbers e.g. 3*29.2. What do they mean. If you could explain it would help me better understand this table. Thanks James.

Ralph, I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult. You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you. Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger. James

Allan, Sorry, I thought it was Robin. Good piece of work though. It clears up a lot of ambiguity in Altgens. James

Ralph, I can see how you could be persuaded that "Headless man" is stockier. However Robin Unger, whose image is below, has pointed out that that figure B is obscuring this mans righthand side. The image of "headless man" is a composite of what how much of this man Altgens can see + the image of B. In Altgens you do not see just "Headless man." You see both and you are suggesting that it is only "Headless man" whereas it is a composite of two figures. Therefore it is impossible to say whether he is, or is not, stockier. I can also see how you could be persuaded that this man is dressed all in white. But that is probably also a mistake. If you look at the image above you will see a row of people standing in front of him. On the right is a woman with a white top and behind her is another woman. And behind that woman appears to be part of the shape of someone else. This person is in front of "Headless man." That shape is in white and it that which is obscuring the man legs and suggesting that he is wearing white trousers. Because the image of this person is blocking the lower part of "Headless man" you cannot see the colour of his trousers. James.

I don't know if this adds anything to the debate but at the time of the assassination Oswald was 1 inch higher than Lovelady at 5 foot 9 inches. However Lovelady was 20 lbs heavier than Oswald at 170 lbs compared to oswalds 150. That means that at the time of the assassination Lovelady was around 2.5 stones heavier than Oswald. James.

Pat, I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping. It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap. James.

Craig, I can't see how you can say that. It seemed obvious to me that what I boxed in yellow is the flap to the pocket. I'll just leave it that we disagree on whether the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a pocket. James.

Craig, Although I disagree with Jim on whether it was Oswald on the steps, on the issue of a flap to Loveldy's pocket, Jim is absolutely right. Although I don't believe it is Oswald on the steps, I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. That said the argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view unimpeachable. James.

I am hoping members can help me here. I am about to model both the Kennedy car and the Queen Mary. For both cars I need the following images for reference in accurately building the cars:- i. An image looking at the car sideways. I need it be as close to sideways as is possible. ii. An image looking into the front of the car. Again as straight on as possible. iii. An image looking into the back of the car. There are a large number of images of the cars on the Internet, but none that are as precise as I want. I rather not skew the images I have to get the perspective correct. I not confident that in doing so I would not also change the essential dimensions. I could also do with some decent copies of the plans of the cars. The ones I have, although useable if necessary, are not very clear. Also does anyone know how high the runner board is on the Queen Mary. I could guestimate, but I'd rather not. I do hope members are able to help me out. Thank you. James.

Jim, I agree that although the shirt worn by Lovelady in either the Groden or Jackson images, clearly has a pocket, it does not have a flap. I suspect that David Lifton is correct when he stated that, for whatever reason, Lovelady did not wear the exact shirt he wore that day but a similar looking one. How that discrepancy helps to prove Oswald was standing in the doorway eludes me. James

Anthony, I don't know where you can secure a DEM of Dealey Plaza. I imagine even if you could it would cost an arm and a leg and a new mortgage. The only one I know that is complete is Dale Myers, but I doubt he would give away a copy, even if you were to pay. I am creating my own which I hope to complete by the end of the year. As for Survey maps the most accurate is the Drommer map. You can download various versions. It is not complete, you will have to continue Elm Street to the Tripple Underpass yourself. Don Roberdeau's map, which does include the Tripple Underpass, can be downloaded and is excellent. I can't speak too highly of the wealth of info he provides. More than once his map has got me out of a sticky problem. Don provides excellent information on topology heights. He was helpful on info about the size of Tripple Underpass, Don has included the height of the handrail and well as ground level. That way you can calculate the height of the underpass, which is 24 feet. Using Drommer and Don's map together allows you to work out a variety of important info. If you want to create the complete plaza, as I have done, then the documents on the renovation of Dealey Plaza include a very fine map of the entire plaza excluding building. But it does gives you constitution street, which the other maps do not do. The shape of Constitution street is quite different from that of Elm. CE 877 is an important document as it gives info on building heights and street lengths by which to verify your model. The Plaza Renovation documents also include further information about building data that is not included in CE 877. Hope that is of help. James

Robert, Though I understand the argument you make here, I am not sure I agree. I think Christ' point about bystanders is a very valid reason to have doubts. However, by starting a Z285 you have omitted a crucial point that might explain what you are seeing. In the frames preceding Z285, we see Jackie turn her attention from JFK to John Connelly. This, because he is screaming in pain. At Z285, the frame you start with, Jackie returns her attention to JFK. Rather than a shot that no one reacts to other than the passengers, is it not possible that what gets Kellerman's and Greer's attention is Connelly's screams? I find it difficult to interpret Jackie doing anything else at Z312, than be looking at JFK's face/neck. Perspective and clarity of the frame make it difficult to be certain. However the logic of the reality of the moment make it difficult for me to accept that she is doing anything else than finding out what is wrong with her husband. James.

Thomas here is the image you wish to be posted. Hope it is of help to you. James

Dean, Thanks. I did not know of the one with him kneeling looking through the scope. I am with you about the care and preservation of JFK books. I am the same. That said, I do remember another image when he is fully standing. Hopefully someone will have it. Again, many thanks for the images. James.