James R Gordon

Cliff, At the moment I believe so. I intend to also offer a Credit Card option. I will try to have that up and running this week. Sorry to those who do not use PayPal, but I will rectify that very soon. James.

Lawrence, You now do have the means to donate. On Page 1 I have outlined how donations can be made. Tomorrow I will create a more formal how to donate. I have tested it, but if it does not work please get in touch. James

Thank you everyone. I agree that a donation system may well be a good first step. I believe I may have a working Paypal donation system working. I have already donated $2 through two test attempts. each time I was directed to my receiving account. I believe you should be directed to your sending account. However it you are also directed to my receiving account I will have to correct that error. To access the donation system click on Store and Donation See below Image 1 There are two PayPal systems. The top one is an earlier attempt. Click on the lower one. See Image below. Image 2 Once in you are prompted for the amount you wish to donate. See image below. Image 3 After that you are taken to the PayPal donation and ought then to be directed to your own PayPal account through which you can make a donation. Image 4 Hopefully this will work. James

Cliff, Thank you. Mr. Niederhut The Donation systems has not yet been implemented. I will announce when it is up and running. Steve, the donations system will leave it to members whether they want to donate or not and if they do to indicate how much they wish to donate. I am against a system that asks members to please donate X dollars. James

Hi Jim, I am looking into creating a donational process. Hopefully it will be set up reasonably quickly. The increase from $75:00 -that was the price last year - to the present costing is a consequence of the popularity of the forum and its bandwidth. In addition I believe the present cost may. reflect the size of the forum that John set up. The EF is a substantial forum and I suspect is reflected in the monthly fee. As a citizen of the UK I am also conscious of the effect of Brexit on the value of the pound. I hope it will not happen, but there might come such a fall in the pound that the site may well go suddenly dark if the costs are beyond what I can pay. I hope the site can survive, but I cannot assure this forum that in the present situation in the UK that it will survive. If I can get the donations system up quickly that might mitigate in favour of the site surviving. James

Hi all, Since July 2014 I have made the monthly payments to Invision to maintain the Education Forum. For personal reasons I am now having difficulty continuing the payments. I will make the December and January payments - in order to give members some space to reflect but future payments may be in flux. At present Invision requires a monthly payment of $130:00. Members may not recognise that funding the site each and every month can cause difficulty to ones cash-flow and this is one such occasion. Taking over the site from John Simpkin came with obligations. It is possible to back up the site and take it elsewhere - but if we did that the result would not be the site we have today. And cutting the number of forums attached to the site would breach our obligations to John. So it is clear that:- The site must remain with Invision. The site’s composition must remain as created by John Simpkin. Are there members who feel they would like to take the forum forward? If so we would be interested in hearing their views on the future of the site. Aside from the idea of a new owner, another option is to resurrect the Donation button. Would members find that a useful addition to the site? The purpose of this post is to alert the membership that continual funding of the EF can - at times - cause strains. I am happy to listen to members view on this situation. Thank you. James.

The late Sherry Fiester firmly believed in a shot from the South Knoll. I was involved in a debate with her a few years ago. A shot from the South Knoll is much more problematic than one from the North Knoll. You do not have an open target, The occupants of the car - and especially Jackie who is looking into JFK's face - are now restricting a clear shot. In addition the windscreen now is a problem. Theoretically it is an interesting idea, but when you look at the practicalities it becomes a much more problematic. James

You will find a High Res copy of the image here. https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=6011&fullsize=1 When you study the image you will see that the person is actually outside the truck and not in sitting in the back of the truck. The truck is passing him by. There should be threads on this Cancellare image and the topic of this man. James

Yes, this is a fair point. I am not sure how comprehensive such a list will. I am also concerned whether publishing such a list might not infringe rights. I will look into it.

Denis, James Fetzer is not a member. He may have been at some point, but he is not listed in the current membership. James

I agree Ray. The operative phrase is that the idea is posted in the members own words. It is probably better if the source of the idea - the banned member - is not referenced. This way the member has found and idea they believe is interesting and shared it with the forum. Referencing the banned member allows interpretation that it is the banned member and his ideas that are being posted. James

Kathleen, I agree with the way you wanted to give credit to the views of Gary Mack. Gary Mack would never be affected by this ruling: he was never banned. But if - for example - you said X was the view of Brian Doyle that would be different. Because - unlike the late Gary Mack - Brian was banned and Gary was never banned. He just did not post because of conflict with his position. James.

Sandy, I can see what you are trying to distinguish between. The problem is that in either case you have become a surrogate for the banned member. The banned member's views - and why these views are considered to be important, have now been placed on the forum. In a number of instances it was these views - and how they were expressed - that was what got the member banned in the first place. I can appreciate why it could be argued that there should be exceptions to the rule. But the moment the forum allows exceptions then the rule will effectively disintegrate. So - I am sorry - but there can be no exceptions. James.

Eddie, Those are the conditions if you want to post on this forum. There are other forums that are not so concerned about this kind of behaviour, you might prefer to post there.

Paz, From what I know of you Paz, I do not see you as the kind of person who would agree to do such a thing. There is a difference between you and Brian Doyle, you have integrity. James.

Michael, Where earlier today your cross-posting with Tom Scully would not have breached any rules. Were you to post later today or at a point thereafter - then you would be in breach. Be assured you would be dealt with. The members of the admin team are not going to create a rule that punishes one member and not another. Such ambiguity in the rules allows breaching in the rules and for members to argue that what they did was not in breach. What you did with Tom Scully was entirely o.k before today. But as of my posting this thread - if repeated - it will lead to you being disciplined. James.

Jim, Until late today you were not breaking any rules. What happened is that you raised an issue the forum had not anticipated or had rules to cover. Were you to repeat in a new post now then you would be in conflict with the rules. But I know you to be someone who would not do that. Regards James.

A member of this forum alerted me to the fact that one of our current members was essentially the opinions of a banned member - in this case Brian Doyle. What this issue has raised - and it is why I closed the thread till I could find an answer to it - is that if allowed to continue a banned member ( in this case Brian Doyle ) has now found a voice on our forum through another member. Whether witting, or unwitting, the current member has allowed himself to become the surrogate through which this banned member is now able to continue posting. This is not something the members of the admin team can allow to continue. In the next few hours the rules are going to be edited to reflect this change in what is acceptable on our forum. From this point on - even though the rules are yet to be edited - it will be an offence for any current member to voice the opinions and theories of any banned member. Any current member found to be doing that will immediately be place on “two posts a day” - which as everyone knows is actually a euphemism for being denied posting rights. The term of the punishment will be determined by admin. There will be no fixed term, the term therefore could be a short or long period as determined the members of the admin team. James.

I am going to pause this thread for a period of time. I have a reason, but at present I do not want to make it public. James.

Cliff, here is a clearer copy of the Face Sheet. I see DVP has yet to contribute to this topic. The impossibilty of any bullet traveling from the back - ignoring its trajectory angle from the Oswald window to JFK' back - and still exit out the throat seem apparent to all. However, I am sure David will rehash his already heard arguments. James

David. When I initially posted these values I believed I had made an error. Infact I had not I had meerly posted incorrect values. Therefore I stand by my initial position. My position is that the 17.72º trajectory would not strike the 5th rib,bit it may well the 4th rib. Link to File:-

David, I am certain you know exactly what I am saying. But I will spell it out here. A trajectory of 17.72º compared to am trajectory of 27º will ALWAYS will flow vertically upwards. I suggested that such a bullet is likely hit the 4th rib instead of the 5th rib. That is what I meant when I stated that two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination. The same destination being the 5th rib. Do you now understand my point?

David, It has nothing to do with my diagram which may or may not be incorrect, It has everything to do with Maths and Trigonometry. Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination.

David, It has nothing to do with the diagram. It is all about MATHS. One trajectory which is shallower than the other cannot possiblee reach the same target when the other trajectory is 9.28º larger. It has nothing to do with one party stating they dissagree. You cannot disagree ithe MATHS. Maths alwats trumps opinion. Please note I edited my post. When I talk about “game over” I am only referring to Connally's chest wound.

David, You wilfully distort what I said. Nothing in my post was “almost correct”: in describing CE 903 and Robert Shaw’s measurement, everything was precise. It is you who introduce the concept of approximation. It was you - it was not me - who stated that the bullet entered Robert Shaw’s shoulder at 17.72º and when it hit the fifth rib it changed its trajectory to 27º. You - not me - that said “the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 deg re e s.” All I said was that two trajectories - one of 17.72º and another of 27º - starting from the same point cannot both reach the same point. So unless you can explain how in your universe two trajectories with a difference of 9.28º can both hit the same destination point: - regardinng the chest wound to John Connally - it is game over. Avoiding to address a specific point is always seen as an admission of the point. Bluster is not the same as addressing the question and so far bluster is all you have engaged in. James