James R Gordon

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

Michael, I have hidden your post. There is no need to get personal. James

A little while back - DVP accepted that Robert Shaw had defined the angle of the wound through Connally's chest as 27º - However he insisted that the bullet struck Connally at an angle of 17.27º and only when the bullet struck the 5th rib it changed its trajectory angle to 27º. If the bullet did indeed struck Connally at 17-27º it would not strike the 5th rib. Reason it was now on a shallower angle and would miss the 5th rib. I suggested on P. 12 - in a quickly put together graphic - that if that was indeed the entry angle then the bullet would actually strike the 4th rib and the location of the exit wound would be different. No surprise DVP did not reply. James

I agree James, though I doubt DVP will ever agree. I remember quite a while ago Gary Murr kept saying to me it is the steep angle of Connally's wound that gives you a clue to where the shot came from. I did trajectory analysis on this and was able to determine a source from that trajectory. Whether I am right or wrong is another matter. One of the great lessons that Gary taught me was to study the wound and see where that leads you. Of course this is blasphemy for DVP, but I always thought it was sound advice. It led Gary and me to determine where the Connally's injury to his arm came from. I never wavered from the identity of the source and Gary informed me a few days ago he is now also convinced that this location has to be the source. Ar some point I will have to share my sources for the assassination but for the present DVP would not appreciate it and use the information to mock. Something he enjoys exploiting. James.

It is not a lie, it is a political statement. The problem with the SBT is that there was no serious thinking about the implications of the theory. Though I have agreed not to argue the point there is no way a missile could travel from JFK's back wound to his throat without encountering the spine. By the same token nobody took seriously the the steepness of Connally's wound. YOU say that until it strikes the rib the bullet trajectory is 17.72º As I pointed out that might work but the rib is likely to be the 4th rib rather than the 5th. And that is because you are starting with a shallower trajectory. A trajectory of 17.72º will not travel in the same places in the body that a trajectory of 27º. Soon I will address exactly how the bullet traveled through Connally's body. The WC dealt in generalities hoping everyone would not ask any annoying questions. Well too bad soon I will be asking difficult questions.

So David if we are in agreement here what does that say about the SBT and the 17-27º trajectory? James

And there I was thinking it was your your “very weak "The SBT Was Impossible" claim? ” The link between Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier is that each emphasise the very steep trajectory of the wound to John Connally. Their angles maybe different but each tells the same story: the bullet that was fired and John Connally suffered came from a very steep angle. First - even though Frazier worked on the clothes and therefore his angle was obviously not as accurate as Robert Shaw's determination both worked on primary evidence. Even though the angles are different there is a correlation between them. Amd finally I have only just brgun on Frazier's work. I cannot explain why, but a change has taken place within me and I am now going to see this discussion through to the bitter end. I have onlyjust begun, there is a series of topics I will hereafter be introducing. And in most cases I will be working from primary evidence.

Even David if you are right, when Connally is positioned as he believved he was when he was struck the trajectory angle is 27º. True Robert Shaw comments that is is not a large difference, but it is a difference. Even if Connally was seated the first time when he is seated correctly we get the TRUE trajectory angle of 27º.

In the FBI SA Robert Frazier undertook most of the work on John Connolly’s clothes. The image below comes from Robert Frazier’s workbooks. The image below is from original scans gathered at NARA II, and is courtesy of John Hunt. These are not calculations that are not open for debate. Nobody here - and I include myself - is in any position to challenge Robert Frazier’s work. Frazier did a series of calculations. The one below was a trajectory angle for the bullet that injured Connally while he was in a seated position. His calculations for the trajectory angle - based on the the fact that Connally was seated - was 40º. So much of this argument has been focused on the WC 17.72º trajectory angles. Now we have two angles describing the passage of the bullet through the chest of John Connally that are beyond question. 1 Robert Shaw’s measurement of 27º. He was the surgeon who worked on John Connally and he was the surgeon who in front of the WC measured John Connolly’s wound. 2. Robert Frazier who had full access to John Connolly’s clothes and made measurements on them and calculated based on the holes in the jacket the angle of trajectory was 40º. The WC SBT is a political proposition. Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier were simply focused on what was the angle of the bullet through the body of John Connally. There is a world of difference between the WC and these two gentlemen. The WC were focused on creating an answer to what they thought had happened. That is very different to the work of Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier. In addition I assume everyone has noted that both real calculations are way above the calculation and supposition of the WC. Link to File:-

David. I have created a quick diagram to explain the change of initial trajectory fro 27º to 17.72º I have pulled the lines out a bit but they are close to the area of the body where the bullet struck struck Connally in the back. The Black line represents 27º. The Red line represents 17.72º. As I commented reducing the trajectory value will force the line vertically higher. As I suspected when the bullet hits a rib it will likely be the 4th rib. I suspect your scenario will work but the consequence will mean that the injuries received by Connally will be different. James Link to Image:-

David Von Pein Said:- What's the source for that "standing" conclusion? I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony about a "standing" measurement being taken. I looked for it too, and I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony that confirmed what position JBC was in when the 25-degree angle was taken. Did I miss it? Can you cite it for me? The actual conversation before the WC is below. Mr Dulles: Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were seated now the way he waist the chair? That means that the 25º degree angle that has just been taken was when Connally was standing That is why Dulles asks what would the angle be if he were seated. Dr. Shaw That is a good question. Of course, we don’t know exactly whether he was back or tipped forward. But I don’t think there is going to be much difference Mr Dulles Were you seated in about that way, Governor? Governor Connally Mr Dulles, I would say I was in about this position when I was hit, with my face approximately looking toward you, 20º off of centre Dr. Shaw Yes; I got 27º David Von Pein Said:- I disagree (again). Maybe you can draw a chart to illustrate your point about how JBC's rib couldn't possibly have been hit if the bullet enters his back at 17+ degrees....then continues on that same 17+-degree trajectory until it gets to the area of JBC's fifth rib....then the bullet hits the rib and changes to a steeper angle (whether it be 25 or 27 degrees). Can the "impossibility" of such a bullet journey be visually demonstrated via a schematic/chart? That'd be nice to see, if possible. After I posted I realised I had made an error. The change in the value would be a vertical one and not a horizontal one. Put simply it would not be the 5th rib the bullet would strike but the 4th or 3rd rib. The exit point would also be different. Your position might work but it would give you a different outcome and different injuries to Connally. James

David Von Pein Said:- No, the trajectory is not "27 degrees throughout". And nobody said it was. The TOTAL DECLINATION ANGLE between the two wounds in Connally was said to be approx. 25 degrees (again see WCR, p.107 please; plus, as you cited previously, 4 H 137-138 indicate two different measurements made by Dr. Shaw on Connally's body---the first one was 25 degrees, the second was 27 degrees). So, for a brief period after entering Connally's upper back, the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 degrees. The bullet then hit the rib, causing the steeper deflection. But I don't know why you would insist that the steeper (25 to 27º) angle had to necessarily START at the instant the bullet struck Connally's upper back. The steeper trajectory angle very likely began when the missile hit the fifth rib, with the angle being measured between the two bullet holes (which seems logical to me). You say “I don't know why you would insist that the steeper (25 to 27º) angle had to necessarily START at the instant the bullet struck Connally's upper back.” Very simple to reply. The 27º degree is the angle measured as Connally was seated before he was struck. Yes 25º is a smaller angle but that was the angle when he was standing. Accuracy may have no importance to you but I feel it is important to use the angle that accurately describes Connolly’s position. The 27º degree trajectory angle is total. It does not begin 25º and then move to 27º. It is 27º all the time. I thought you would have realised that. However lets look at your proposition. The trajectory angle begins at 17.72º and when the bullet strikes the rib changes to 27º. 17.72º trajectory is a 9.28º shallower trajectory. That trajectory would miss the rib, because with that trajectory the bullet is further away from the ribs. The bullet would only not strike the ribs and allow the change in trajectory angle. It also would mean that the bullet wouldn’t exit where we know it did. The chart you used does not describe 17.72º it is based on 27º. Whatever angle that line actually describes it was a recollection by Shaw. His correction created a line that looked more correct. The actual accurate trajectory angle was the one he measured on Connally before the WC. James

David Von Pein Said:- Nothing preposterous about it in the least. The bullet struck the rib and changed its trajectory. It's to be expected. The same thing happened with the head shot too. Do you ever think through what you say? Lets look at your explanation. In your opinion the bullet starts its journey with a trajectory of 17.72º and when it comes into contact with the rib changes its trajectory to 27º. So it starts a journey - that was measured throughout as 27º - now at 17.72º. That means the bullet starts its journey 9.28º shallower: i.e. towards Connolly’s right side. If that is the bullet’s trajectory the bullet will not hit the rib because it now has too shallow a trajectory. The bullet can only strike the rib if its trajectory angle is 27º throughout, and you are saying it only becomes 27º once it strikes the rib. And there is the flaw in your argument. James

David Von Pein Said:- Bull. The extra 8 degrees of deflection (from 17 to 25) BEGINS after the bullet struck the rib. It's right there on Page 107. You just don't like the explanation. Nothing new about that. First it is an extra 10 degrees. Though the WC make no reference they know exactly what that 25º measurement referred to. It was a measurement taken when Connally was standing before the Commission. You are happy to reference a report that wilfully distorts the record to get an answer they are happier with. The correct measurement of the trajectory angle is 27º. Connally was seated in the car when he was shot, he was not standing up in the car. 4H137-138. “You just don't like the explanation.” Well that is rich coming from someone who happily accepts a distorted record. So you - and the WC - are happy to quote the lower figure even though both of you are well aware that figure describes Connally standing erect. It is an embarrassing joke to believe that until the 5th rib the angle of trajectory was 17.92º and once the bullet hit the 5th rib it changed to 27º. Only in your mind and that of the WC was the trajectory through Connally part 17.92º and part 27º. And you believe such a preposterous explanation!!! “Nothing new about that.” James

David Von Pein Said:- So, was there an airplane or helicopter or hot-air balloon hovering above Dealey Plaza that day? Because lacking such an "aerial" explanation, then where could any assassin have been located in order to cause a 27-degree downward angle through Connally's chest. Could any make-believe shooter on top of ANY of the rooftops in the area have created a 27-degree “Where” is for a different conversation and a different day. What is clear is that this wound could not have come from the Oswald window. You have established that the trajectory for that location was 17.92º. If the Oswald window were the location then the trajectory for the Connaly wound has to be 17.92º: that is the maths for that location. Therefore if Robert Shaw assisted by Charles Gregory measure the angle of Connolly’s wound in front of the Commission and conclude it was 27º then there are only two explanations:- 1. It cannot have come from the Oswald window. 2. It had to come from somewhere else - however inconvenient that is for the WC James

David Von Pein Said:- It was deflected by Connolly’s 5th rib. ( Just as explained in the WCR on Page 107.) Why do you think this was impossible is beyond me. When the bullet struck the 5th rib it was about half way on its journey down Connally’s chest. If the bullet did not change its trajectory until it reached the 5th rib it would never have reached the 5th rib. It would have come out at the top of Connolly’s shoulder in line with the 17.72º trajectory angle. The 27º trajectory angle does not begin at the 5th rib it begins immediately the bullet enters Connolly’s shoulder. Why do you think this was impossible is beyond me? You have just demonstrated to this entire forum why it is beyond you. This is the fatal flaw in the SBT. A bullet cannot change its trajectory by 9.28º without an explanation.There is only one explanation why the trajectory angle changed by 9.28º: that shot was taken from a different location. James

David Von Pein Said:- CTers have NEVER offered up a valid and reasonable alternative to the SBT....and they never will, since the SBT is the correct solution (by a mile)----with or without the awful Rydberg drawings. The more pertinent question is not about whether CTers have offered up a reasonable alternative to the SBT, you are totally unable to explain the SBT something that you passionately believe in. When the SBT enters Connolly’s back it changes its trajectory angle from 17.72º to 27º. I am allowing you that that this bullet entered JFK at a lower position to exit at a higher position. When members suggest alternatives you immediately say “where are the bullets, where are the bullets” and in doing so immediately change the subject. This is your theory. This is what you believe: a single bullet went from the Oswald window to finally embedding a part of itself into Connolly’s left leg. So please explain why does this SBT change its trajectory angle by 9.28º after it enters Connally’s back?? James

I have visited the web page you referred to and as I expected it was all 26 Volume explanations. 1. You are aware that when Gregory removed the lead fragments - and it was fragments and lead fragments - he placed them into a 1oz medicine glass. I have no reason to doubt him I have identifies 5 individual items from the xray I have of Connally's arm. 2. For reasons I am still looking into the FBI only received one item: Q/C9 3. It is now fairly certain the original iten was brokern up into several smaller items. That can be supported if you look at a hi-res image of the edges of the pieces. 4. When the FBI tested the items they cleaned the item afterwards by scraping it - thereby reducing its weight. 5. I am still looking into the originnal weight of Q/C9. But when calculating the weight you need to also add what was scraped off to get an accurate figure. 6. I do not yet know the final weight but the weight you record on your web page is a joke. I have read reports that when the estimated combined weight is added to CE 399 the total is way above the maximum weight for a pristine bullet. 7. These are lead fragments. Yes the core of CE 399 is lead, but looking at the base of CE399 and Q/C9 I am at a loss to see how they could be part of each other. James