James R Gordon

And of course the OTHER explanation for what is seen in the image you posted is that it is just the open pocket, which of course can be tested and it has. And the results are a perfect fit to the rest of the images showing a pocket with NO flap.

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.

That requires you to prove there IS A FLAP in at least one image, and you have failed to do that.

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.

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

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

Looking for help in trying to secure a professionally created DEM of Dealey Plaza. Any help is appreciated. A survey map or topographic map is also something that I am looking for. THX

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.

Could someone please post Z-345 or that general part of the Zapruder film on this thread for me? I'm good with words but lousy with computers. --Thanks

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.

Does anyone have clear images of, I believe it was Lyndal Shaneyfelt, at the Oswald window replicating the assassination.

I seem to remember two images. One with him standing up and one with him kneeling.

I can find examples on the internet, but they are very poor copies.

Does anyone have clear copies.

Thank you.

James.

I am doing a pice of work on the head wound to JFK.

If you look at Fox 6 (the wound as seen from the top of the head) the damage appears only to be shown to the middle of the head.

However the Front lateral X-ray appears different.

Looking at this image am I right is thinking that the x-ray depicts an entire right side of the head has been destroyed?

It appears, to me, that a trough has been ploughed through the RHS of JFK's head.

Is that what it is that I am seeing??

Thank you.

James

Now look at this Myers illustration

Martin

Martin,

I agree that Connelly was taller than JFK, and I absolutely agree that Myers plays "fast and loose" with his data but in this case his representation of the different heights of the two me in the car appear correct.

The croft image, taken a couple of seconds before the assassination began, has them both positioned similar to how Myers also has. Even when you take into account the 3.9º degree slope of Elm Street

Connelly is still siting lower than JFK.

Although Myers is wrong about many aspects of what takes place in the car, maybe he has the relative heights correct.

James.

I offer up this 4pt article to counter the claim that Dr. Carrico said the throat wound was above the collar:

Todd

Todd,

Although you are technically right that Carrico did not specifically say that the wound was above the collar

he did testify to its position by pointing to exactly where he saw the wound. Unlike when Malcolm Perry was asked

to do exactly same thing, no-one commented where he (Perry) was pointing.

You will find the conversation at the bottom of the reference I have included below. What makes

Carrico's testimony different is that Alan Dulles comments exactly where he is pointing to. That is at the top of page 362.

The beginning of this exchange is at the bottom of page 361.

Note the words Dulles says: "And you put your hand right above where your tie is."

I would have thought in anybody's language surely that makes it clear that the wound was above the collar!!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185a.htm

James

Robin,

I agree that FOX 1 does show both parts of the neck wound. Where I disagree is that you do not see both half’s. I believe that the tracheotomy damaged the upper half of it and only small portion of that remains.

That said, what does remain is of crucial importance. It is so because it places where the wound was on the body. For a long time I was of the opinion we could never properly establish exactly where on the neck this wound impacted the body. Although, just like Malcolm Perry, Charles Carrico was asked to point, on his own body, to where the bullet impacted. Where no one said where Perry was pointing, Alan Dulles did say that he was pointing above the knot in his tie.

Recently I devised a method where we might be able to prove Carrico and Perry’s evidence. There is a weakness in this proof and maybe others will be better able to darken the neck area of FOX 1 and remove the over brightness of the flash on the neck area. That said, I believe I can demonstrate exactly where the bullet impacted on Kennedy’s throat.

The crucial aspects of the evidence is the location of the upper part of the throat wound ( not the bottom half which has fallen by this point ) and the picture taken of Kennedy in Fort Worth that morning as he was speaking to the crowd. Why, for me, the Fort Worth image is so important is that it shows that Kennedy had creases in his neck. Further these creases have not changed their position since that morning. Linking these creases, that are also visible in FOX 1, is the way it can be demonstrated where the bullet impacted.

Hopefully others will be more skilled in being able to adjust flash reflection in FOX 1 and thereby more clearly prove what I believe I have proved. I believe my demonstration shows clearly that the bullet entered just above the knot in his tie.

James.

2. No, not quite, The PO side is somewhat different. Street curve, pool length and other details.

John,

From this arial image of the Plaza, it appears to me that there is a similar distance from the wall of TSBD to the middle of Main street and the distance from the wall of the Terminal Annex building to the middle of Main Street.

You mention a difference in the curve of the street [ Commerce Street ]. Actually I don't see a major difference. According to CE 877 they are both 495 feet

Could you elaborate on what these difference are please.

James.

Can forum members help me with the following three questions.

1. Commission Exhibit 877 says that the distance from the Triple Underpass to Houston street is 425 feet. Does anyone know if that distance is to the East or West kerb of Houston street?

2. Is Dealey Plaza a Mirror image. By that I mean from TSBT to the north kerb of Main Street is, I believe, 300 ft. To the middle of Main street, I believe, it is 20 feet. Therefore from the TSBD to the middle of Main Street is 320 ft.

When I say is Dealey a “Mirror Image“, it appears to me, looking at images, that from the middle of Main Street to the Post Office Building is also 320 feet. Am I correct?

3. Looking at images of Dealey Plaza it appears that the elevation of the car park behind the TSBD and the South car park behind the Post Office building have the same elevation. Does anyone know whether that is correct? Gary Mack feels they probably are similar, though he feels that the South car park might be a little lower.

Thank you.

James

Thanks Robin, those are excellent images and a great help.

Looking at Muchmore and Nix, I have a feeling that by Z 312, the Queen Might have been even closer.

Again thanks for the images.

James

The photo linked below was (purportedly) taken on the afternoon of the assassination by LIFE Magazine's Allan Grant. There are curtains and curtain rods in place:

David,

I have real problems with the idea that the Grant image was taken on the afternoon of the 22nd.

First I can't believe that the police, who would be searching and examining this room would allow a commercial photographer to come in and take a picture.

Second. See Image below

The image on the right, from Dale Myers "With Malice" shows the state of the room once the police were finished with it.

What I find interesting is that the bundle of bedclothes can be seen in the Grant image, with a blanket over them.

So in the afternoon these bedding items are bundled at the bottom of the bed and covered, and at night they are uncovered.

Third The inner curtain rail, which can hardly be seen in the Grant image, is not bent. Yet if this image was taken after the police had searched the room,

This inner curtain rail is not bent. Yet the evening picture shows it clearly bent. Myers makes it clear that it was the police who bent this rail.

Fourth In the Grant picture, apparently taken in the afternoon, we can see the outer white curtain rail. However at night it is no longer to be seen.

Fifth The image I showed, which comes from the Weisberg collection, and was taken on the Saturday the 23rd we see the person replacing the outer white curtain rail.

For these five reasons I doubt the Grant image was taken on the afternoon of the 22nd. It had to have been taken after the Weisber image.

I am sorry for the size and quality of the image, but I appear to be close to my storage quota

James.

David,

I noticed the image you posted of Oswald's room. However you omitted to inform us when it was taken.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but maybe you will address it.

In the image you show Oswald's curtain rails are in place.

The one I have posted, is documented to have been taken on Saturday 23rd. And in that image the curtain rails are being put back in place.

Now Oswald always claimed that he took his curtain rods to work. If you are right and he actually took the rifle, why was it necessary to replace his curtain rods.

Had someone taken them down since he had left for work????

James

They look bumper to bumper to me.

I realize that we can only see Hill here. There is an even better picture which shows the full compliment of Queen Mary-right on top of Kennedy's limousine as well. Where they should be! But 25 to 30 feet? I don't think so.

Peter,

You are right. Muchmore and Nix show them around a 5 foot difference in distance at Z 312......Maybe even less.

I have yet to measure the distance between them.

James

I am sorry to raise an issue that I know has been discussed by forum members, but I can't, for the life of me, find the earlier thread. I am in the middle of a project and I could do with the answer to three points.

1. Do we know what height John Ready was?

2. Does anyone know the dimensions of the "Queen Mary": the SS follow car.

3. Does anyone know the height of the runner board above the road.

I know these issues have been addressed, but I am sorry I can't find the thread.

Thanks.

James Gordon

Gordon zoomed right in on the Greer with a gun issue just as others disagree over his endorsement of Madelyne Brown's party, and he misstated Hornes own statements about the issue.

You can disagree with a dozen or more of the thousand or so items that Doug Horne uses to reach his conclusion that the military records of the assassination support the probability it was a coup without disagreeing with his conclusions.

The way I am beginning to look at it, if Oswald was framed, as all the evidence seems to indicate, and those who really killed JFK did control the body, AF1, the autopsy and the Z-film, and altered the evidence to indicate there was only one assassin, then following the false trail should lead you to the real killers.

BK

Bill,

Either I expressed myself poorly, or my posts were not correctly read.

It is true that I do not agree with the alteration of the Zapruder film and Greer was just one example. Nor does Horne suggest this is a possible theory (although he does state that in Vol 4 ) because in Vol 5 he explains why the Greer point is just one example of proof that the film was indeed altered.

That aside, I have made it very clear, in earlier on this topic, that I find the medical evidence persuasive and thought provoking. For me these chapters, which comprise four volumes of the books, are well worth the cost of purchasing the set.

I would not want people to think I am anti Inside the ARRB, just because I am critical of the theory on the alteration of the Zapruder film.

James

I take Mr. Gordon with a grain of salt.

Well David, that is considerably more than I would take you for

Jack, you forgot #6 on your top 5, the William Greer "Bionic Man" head snap. To me, that's the most suspicious.

Good call John

"Blody Treason" has a great section on the Superman head turn from Greer

Dean,

Bill Greer's head turn is another of these fantasy's generated by very poor analysis of the images.

True Noel Twyman does indeed have a section on it and even persuaded someone to replicate it.

I won't go in to all the details here. I'll refer members to an article I wrote, which was part of a combined reply to "Death in Dealey Plaza" ( where this theory yet again reared it's head) The article points out the errors of this very silly theory.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...greer-turn.html

James.

The body would have been removed from the casket during the swearing-in, when Jackie was up front (having been summoned to participate, I believe, by LBJ, I guess to add insult to injury or to rub it in). Presumably the only person then with the body was Godfrey McHugh.

That description is David Lifton's, Doug Horne's is different. Again, because of the lack of index I can't immediately locate the page.

Doug Horne's argument is that the moving of the body took place immediately the casket was o n board and before Jackie boarded the plane.

That is where I have a problem. I understood that Jackie entered the plane immediately after the casket was loaded. I can't see where there was time to remove the body.

James.

Neither is "Greer firing a shot" one of them as some boneheads would have you believe. He examines

that issue and finds persuasive evidence that it could have happened. He does not advance it any

further than that.

Jack

And there you are wrong Jack. The idea of Bill Greer killing Kennedy is one of the real "bonehead" ideas in JFK research. More than one researcher has demonstrated the stupidity of that idea. I read through chapter 13 and I followed Doug Horne's basic thesis, which was very like David Lifton's that he was having difficulty getting what Dallas and Bethesda said about the wounds to agree. One of this issues he raises is how could one bullet create all that damage. And it is from the question, as well as evidence of what he believes really happened in Bethesda that night as well as other evidence that he proposed the four head shot theory. Now I have doubts about the mathematical possibility that four shots could hit a target at the same time, but I could see there was logic to his thinking.

However, and here is the point, he should have immediately realised that one of those shots should not be one of the stupidest ideas in JFK research. You say, and you are absolutely right, that in Volume 4 Pages 1150 and following Doug says it only could have happened. However although he may say that in Volume 4, it is clear that he believes it. That is why in Volume 5 he goes on to comment that because we cannot see the gun in Greer's hand that is clear evidence that Zapruder has been altered. That would appear to be the reason he also comments that Moorman has been altered by washing Bill Greer out of the picture. So we do not see Bill Greer shooting at Kennedy.

The reason why, for me unlike other members I do not see this as superficial, is because it reflects on the quality of Doug Horne's research. Doug Horne is a serious researcher. There is a wealth of good material in his work and I certainly intend to study these books in detail. But, if Horne has decided to propose such an infantile idea as Greer killing Kennedy, then does that not reflect on the quality of his work? I would have expected Doug Horne to dismiss the idea for the stupidity that it is. I would have expected him to realise that if there were four shots, one of the certainly could not have been Bill Greer. And if, as you say it a suggestion that he did not intend to advance any further, then he certainly should not have further supported and advanced it in volume 5.

But he does and I am wondering what else I will find when I have undergone a more thorough reading.

It may be a small point on its own but I suggest that it does reflect on the kind of research that is within these volumes.

James