A Bullet's (lack of) Transfer Of Kinetic Energy

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

46 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Bill, Nalli states in that article that the ITEK study determined that JFKs head showed the only observable forward motion between 312-313. As per my previous comment in this thread, the ITEK study actually determined that Jackie moved forward essentially just as much as JFK. I don’t know how legitimate ITEK’s calculations are, but for Nalli to tell his readers that one of his own sources concluded the exact opposite of what it actually concluded reflects either massive incompetence, or something else. 

Don’t even get me started on Nalli’s jet effect paper. I’m sure you are aware that Nalli had to be corrected on the standard weight of a human brain, and his simple pendulum model has no foundation whatsoever in the real world, not to mention the JFK assassination.  

We assume that in Z312 the AR15 slug has not yet hit jfk's head. But it might have already hit & entered but had not yet reached say halfway throo -- in which case in Z312 the slug might have already bumped the head forward a little (impact effect).

In Z313 the AR15 slug impact effect has already ended -- & the jet effect has already ended (the jet effect mainly pushed the head down)(plus backwards).

So, in Z313, the head has already been given a full measure of acceleration by the impact effect -- & has already been given a full measure of deceleration by the jet effect.

I think that in some circumstances the (later) jet effect can be more powerful than the (earlier) impact effect. In other words in some cases a say exploding melon (or say a can of coke) might roll back towards the shooter.

In Z312 Z313 Z314  etc there is varying amounts of blurriness & shaking & jiggle of the camera etc -- but jfk's head movements (relative to his body)(relative to Z312) are obvious to the naked eye -- at Z313 the impact effect has won the contest. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[W. Niederhut]

49 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

I probably know less about the photographic evidence and Zapruder film alterations than most of the people on this forum, but this photo, certainly, shows the fatal entry wound--above the right eye. 

And the doctors at Parkland described this entry wound and the occipital-parietal exit wound.

Also, Douglas Horne has meticulously documented how the CIA altered the Zapruder film (and their Life magazine stills) to animate out the occiptal exit wound, (and debris) and animate the red temporal blob in your clip.

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

 

 

 

Addendum:  From Douglas Horne's above exposition of the CIA's alterations of the Zapruder film.

     If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood.  Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23^rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia.  The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday.  No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22]  In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital.

Edited November 29, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

54 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

I probably know less about the photographic evidence and Zapruder film alterations than most of the people on this forum, but this photo, certainly, shows the fatal entry wound--above the right eye. 

And the doctors at Parkland described this entry wound and the occipital-parietal exit wound.

Also, Douglas Horne has meticulously documented how the CIA altered the Zapruder film (and their Life magazine stills) to animate out the occiptal exit wound, (and debris) and animate the red temporal blob in your clip.

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

 

 

 

Where is the entry wound? And who said they saw it? 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

You are using the same logic that Mark Fuhrman used in his book thesis lols the head shot lost it's jacket and went on to hit the curb where Teague was. https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Act-Murder-November-1963/dp/0060721545

Sounds like you have never spent time with guns if you believe something like that.

Your take It's also very close to Gerald Posners take that the bullet hit a twig and lost it's jacket and went on to hit the curb by Teague. I think Occums razor on this is explained by more than one person shooting at the president. Watch the video on the frangible round you might learn something. 

LOL. Well, Fuhrman was right about a few things. He did, after all, reject the SBT. 

As far as the last bit, what crap. Posner, taking his cue from Lattimer as I recall, claimed the bullet lost its jacket after striking a twig and was strongly deflected. Striking a skull on a tangent and proceeding in the same general direction is not remotely the same as striking a twig and being seriously deflected. In striking on a tangent, the effective width of the skull increases dramatically. Heck, some of the bullets fired by Olivier fragmented, and he was aiming straight into the back of the skull. 

Not that I would trust them, but Keneth Rahn and Larry Sturdivan wrote an article which demonstrated that a large fragment of a bullet breaking up inside the skull could retain enough velocity to strike a curb several hundred feet away. I've never seen this countered by the CT side. Never. In my estimation, moreover, the bullet broke up atop the skull. Free sailing. And let's not forget that nearly half the bullet found in the front section of the limo (which we can presume struck the windshield and windshield frame) was never found. 

When one looks at the trajectory of these fragments at 313 from up above, one can see, moreover, that a fragment along a similar trajectory that passed just above the windshield would go down and land somewhere near Tague. T-A-G-U-E. As the cut in the curb was eventually examined, and lead, but not copper, was discovered, one can presume this was the landing site of the lost fragment from the head shot. And that's not even to mention that Tague felt he was hit by a fragment from the second shot, and the eyewitness testimony strongly suggests the second shot (heard by most witnesses) was the head shot, and not the third. 

Once again. It all adds up. So why not accept what adds up? 

[Matthew Koch]

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Once again. It all adds up. So why not accept what adds up? 

The Dictabelt, the film, the witness statements, and the blur analysis all line up.. Yet you reject that!

Yet, it's funny how you will bend over backwards for an theory that is quite frankly Unbelievable. So we have evidence that lines up but Pat Speer rejects it infavor of "Could of Analysis" Not that I would trust them, but Keneth Rahn and Larry Sturdivan wrote an article which demonstrated that a large fragment of a bullet breaking up inside the skull could retain enough velocity to strike a curb several hundred feet away. I've never seen this countered by the CT side. Never. In my estimation, moreover, the bullet broke up atop the skull. Free sailing. And let's not forget that nearly half the bullet found in the front section of the limo (which we can presume struck the windshield and windshield frame) was never found.  

The thing you don't understand which is obvious based on your "Debunking" of the dictabelt that you don't understand the difference between Academia and Science. There are no tests you did, you just nit pick academia details and think it's science. This is also why to announce meaningless things like I could have written a book on this. Would of could of should of.. but you didn't.. Like I said it's a waste of time talking to you. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Where is the entry wound? And who said they saw it? 

It's above the right eye in this photo, just below the hairline.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw claims that he saw it in the Parkland ER.

Numerous physicians and staff at Parkland also clearly described the occipital exit wound-- corresponding with the Harper fragment of skull found in Dealey Plaza.

In contrast to the small, visible entry wound here, a bullet fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano in the TSBD would have blown off the right half of JFK's face on exiting.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh, of course! I shouldn't have taken those comments I read so seriously... these people aren't all physicists after all.

Okay...

(Those not interested in the math should drop down to my conclusions.)

Upon leaving the barrel, the bullet has (1/2)mv^2 of kinetic energy and the gun has an EQUAL amount of kinetic energy in the opposite direction. For the bullet it is

Eb = 1/2 Mb Vb^2

and for the gun it is

Eg = 1/2 Mg Vg^2

where E is kinetic energy, M is mass, V is velocity, and ^2 means mathematically squared. Subscript b is for bullet and subscript g is for gun.

From these equations we can see that the reason the kinetic energies of the gun and bullet can be the same, despite their vast difference in speed, is that that the gun is much heavier than the bullet.

As I said, the energies in the bullet and gun are equal upon the bullet's exit, so we let the two equations equal each other

1/2 Mg Vg^2 = 1/2 Mb Vb^2

Using algebra to solve for the velocity of the gun, we get

Vg^2 = (Mb/Mg) Vb^2

sqroot( Vg^2 ) = sqroot( (Mb/Mg) Vb^2 )

Vg = sqroot( Mb/Mg ) Vb

where sqroot means the mathematical square root.

Following are the characteristics of the Carcano rifle and bullet, as far as I could find. (Not that I believe that gun was used... In fact, I don't.):

Mass of the gun:      3860 g     (8.5 lb)
Mass of the bullet:  10.5 g
Bullet velocity:         2300 fps
Barrel Length:           3.33 ft      (40 in)

If the gun is held far enough away from the shoulder that the bullet exits the barrel before the butt hits the shoulder, the velocity of the gun before it hits the shoulder will be

Vg = sqroot( Mb/Mg ) Vb

Vg = sqroot( 10.5/3860 ) 2300 fps

Vg = 120 fps

Wow, that's faster than I expected. If someone shoots the rifle without holding onto it, it will go flying back at 120 feet per second!

Let's see how far the gun needs to be held from the shoulder so that it doesn't hit the shoulder till right after the bullet exits the barrel. Because that is the point in time where our calculated velocities are made.

When the gun is fired, the bullet begins with a zero velocity and then is flying at 2300 fps when it exits the barrel. We would need to know how quickly the barrel's gas pressure increases in order to determine the acceleration of the bullet as it travels through the barrel. Instead, lets just assume that the speed of the bullet increases linearly. This will give us an approximate answer to our question.

The average velocity of the bullet from one end of the barrel to the other is (0+2300)/2 = 1150 fps. Dividing the length of the barrel, 3.33 ft, by that velocity gives us the appropriate time for the bullet to exit, which is 0.003 seconds.

Now, the question is, how far will the gun move toward the shoulder in that period of time. We multiply the speed of the gun, 120 fps, by that time and we get approximately 0.36 feet, or 4.3 inches.

 

Conclusions

It takes about 0.003 seconds after firing for the bullet to exit the barrel of a 40" Carcano rifle.

If you fire an 8.5 lb, 40" Carcano rifle with the butt 4.3" away from your shoulder, the gun will fly toward your shoulder and hit it at a velocity of 120 fps about 0.003 seconds later.

At that point, the gun and bullet will each have received the same amount of energy from the blast, but the gun will continue receiving energy till the pressure of the hot gas drops to ambient level.

It would be useful to know roughly how much more energy the gun receives from the blast after the bullet exits the barrel.

 

The gas taking longer to leave the barrel is another thing I did not consider.
   Would the surface area on the rear of the bullet vs the surface area at the back of the barrel be considered when calculating the force applied? Would the back of the barrel be the shell and I guess the surface area on the inside back surface of the shell?

Edited November 30, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is gruesome as heck but when you focus on the back of his head and his right shoulder it is 100% clear that his head snaps forward and then springs back at a much slower velocity. 

Whatever processing that was done to clean up that clip makes it hard to judge.   
The head movement can be misleading because we only get one single frame to evaluate it. There are other frames in which Jackie and J.C. make similar movement of 2 to 3 inches. In those frames we get to see the movement in the context of the frames before and after. What is clear is they are not making a violent movement.
 But we can do the math and it shows his head was moving forward from 3 to 6 mph. If his head moved during both the shutter open and shutter closed time it was 3 mph. If all the moment happened while the frame was open at 313 then 6 mph. The head movement of Jackie and J.C. are pretty solid proof that those head movements are not violent.
  I think anyone who is going to consider the bounce back theory should sit down and duplicate the position. I think it will be obvious that his head was at least 20 degrees short of making contact with his chest.
 It could still be argued that the head hit the chest in between 313 and 314 when the shutter was closed. But there is no evidence in the Z film that proves the head bounced off the chest.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's above the right eye in this photo, just below the hairline.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw claims that he saw it in the Parkland ER.

Numerous physicians and staff at Parkland also clearly described the occipital exit wound-- corresponding with the Harper fragment of skull found in Dealey Plaza.

In contrast to the small, visible entry wound here, a bullet fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano in the TSBD would have blown off the right half of JFK's face on exiting.

 

 

Where are you getting your information? To my understanding, Crenshaw surmised there was an entrance wound on the front of the head, but never said he saw one. And, oh yeah, this was 30 years after the fact. There is most certainly no record of him even surmising such a wound prior to his coming forward, decades after the shooting. 

His colleagues, most of whom spent a much longer time observing the president's body than Crenshaw, thought Crenshaw  was off his rocker. One even questioned his presence in the emergency room. But, thankfully, he was mentioned by some as being present in the room when the others testified before the WC. So we know he wasn't just making stuff up. 

 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Brandon Herrera fires a fmj carcano into a dummy skull & at 14:20 we see that there aint much deformation of the slug.

His slug is pointed, ie it aint the same as Oswald's rounded slug.

And his angle of entry aint as tangential as the jfk entry -- a more tangential entry might give more slug deformation & slug yaw & more explosion.

And Brandon's slug was from close range – i suspect that from 100yd the slug would have been slower & would have suffered more deformation.

But the slug sure did make a mess of the dummy skull – there was an explosion of brain – but not as much explosion as we might expect from a hollow point AR15.

Anyhow, i reckon that Brandon's silly little tests show us that the 2 bits of jacket found in the limo could not have been from the headshot at Z313 -- they were from the ricochet at pseudo Z113.

Notice that the dummy skull duznt appear to suffer any impact effect nor any jet effect – alltho it ends up going back towards the shooter, but this is koz it is blown back by the explosion of the water bottle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrNRCxow-Ek

Edited November 30, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Where are you getting your information? To my understanding, Crenshaw surmised there was an entrance wound on the front of the head, but never said he saw one. And, oh yeah, this was 30 years after the fact. There is most certainly no record of him even surmising such a wound prior to his coming forward, decades after the shooting. 

His colleagues, most of whom spent a much longer time observing the president's body than Crenshaw, thought Crenshaw  was off his rocker. One even questioned his presence in the emergency room. But, thankfully, he was mentioned by some as being present in the room when the others testified before the WC. So we know he wasn't just making stuff up. 

 

Pat,

    Did you study the photo of JFK's cadaver that I posted above?

   There's a bullet hole in his upper right forehead.  Have you ever seen a dead man who was recently shot in the forehead?  I have.  That's an entry wound.

     Can you imagine the CIA pressure the Parkland docs were under to forego acknowledging that JFK was shot in the forehead?  The implications were obvious.  Those guys probably feared for their lives, as did Crenshaw.

    As for the related Parkland ER medical testimony, the doctors and nurses clearly described a prominent occipital-parietal exit wound with extravasating brain matter.  The fatal bullet blew out the fragment of JFK's posterior skull that was later found in Dealey Plaza.

    And the CIA film editors, obviously, animated the Zapruder film (35 mm copy) to erase the photographic evidence of the posterior exit wound, as Douglas Horne documented in great detail (per my reference above.)

    You guys are obsessing about an animated "blob" Zapruder frame that was, obviously, altered by the CIA to conform to their Lone-Nut-in-the-TSBD narrative.  It doesn't resemble the reports of the head shot by those who saw the original 8mm Zapruder film.

    Next question.  If there was an obvious occipital-parietal exit wound in JFK's skull, where did the fatal bullet enter the head? 

1) From the rear?

2) from the side?

3) from the front?

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

    Did you study the photo of JFK's cadaver that I posted above?

   There's a bullet hole in his upper right forehead.  Have you ever seen a dead man who was recently shot in the forehead?  I have.  That's an entry wound.

     Can you imagine the CIA pressure the Parkland docs were under to forego acknowledging that JFK was shot in the forehead?  The implications were obvious.  Those guys probably feared for their lives, as did Crenshaw.

    As for the related Parkland ER medical testimony, the doctors and nurses clearly described a prominent occipital-parietal exit wound with extravasating brain matter.  The fatal bullet blew out the fragment of JFK's posterior skull that was later found in Dealey Plaza.

    And the CIA film editors, obviously, animated the Zapruder film (35 mm copy) to erase the photographic evidence of the posterior exit wound, as Douglas Horne documented in great detail (per my reference above.)

    You guys are obsessing about an animated "blob" Zapruder frame that was, obviously, altered by the CIA to conform to their Lone-Nut-in-the-TSBD narrative.  It doesn't resemble the reports of the head shot by those who saw the original 8mm Zapruder film.

    Next question.  If there was an obvious occipital-parietal exit wound in JFK's skull, where did the fatal bullet enter the head? 

1) From the rear?

2) from the side?

3) from the front?

 

Oh boy. I have studied the medical evidence--both the films and x-rays--and the witness statements--as much as anyone, including those who've seen the originals. I have also studied dozens of books and hundreds of articles on forensic pathology, forensic radiology, and gunshot wounds. And I have reported what I have discovered on my website (in what amounts to four or five books) on YouTube. and at a dozen or so conventions.  

And I am not some crank pumping out silly theories... I was tasked with demolishing the SBT at the 40th anniversary of the Warren Report, and have met with and shared information with the likes of Wecht, Thompson, Aguilar, and Lifton. 

So you can trust me when I assure you that there is no bullet hole in that photo. if you see one, you are dreaming. There is a dark shape that matches up with the scalp tears in the right lateral photo, but no bullet hole. There were bullet fragments found at the front of the head and Dr. Chesser thinks he's discovered some small fragments at the front of the head that might designate an entrance. But I'm not aware of anyone who's viewed the body, or the original photos, who has claimed there was a readily visible bullet hole in that photo. 

To be clear, some CTs think a shot impacted at the front of the head and blew out the back of the head. But they are not exactly consistent on this. In 2013, Groden and then Thompson gave presentations in which they argued the large defect was a tangential wound, exactly as I'd been claiming for the previous decade. I later noticed Doug Horne and David Mantik making similar claims. But they were not in agreement with me, or with each other. Mantik and Horne as I recall claim there was a small entrance hole in the forehead that was hidden by the hair at Parkland and in the photos, that they linked to an exit on the left side of the back of Kennedy's head. To me, this is ridiculous. They've matched up a small hole no one saw with a large exit no one saw. 

Now, I do believe Mantik has offered up some support for this, in that he cites two "witnesses" who claimed (decades later, of course) they viewed photos showing an entrance hole, or some such thing. But none of the confirmed witnesses at Parkland or Bethesda, including I believe Crenshaw, has ever claimed they saw such a wound. It's a fantasy, IMO.  

As far as the Z-film you are so troubled by... The Gerda Dunkel gif was taken from the digitized version of the original film. She stabilized it and ran it through a program that adds extra frames to smooth out the movements. It matches up perfectly with all other versions of the film. As stated, the forward movement of Kennedy's head between 312 and 313 was noticed by Thompson while working for Life Magazine in 1967, and working with the original, and slides made from the original. 

Now, in looking back there is another point I should address. The largest bone fragment found outside the limo--and the one described by a pathologist at first glance as occipital--was the Harper fragment. It was found roughly 100 feet in front of the limo's location at Z-313. It is almost certainly the fragment seen rocketing forwards at 313. Harper marked this location on maps for researchers numerous times, from the 60's to the 80's as I recall. It was found on the grass opposite the steps. Unfortunately, the FBI's initial report on this fragment was written before they'd used the films to locate Kennedy's location at the time of the shot, and people mourning Kennedy had dumped wreaths near the steps--the presumed location for the shooting of those viewing the Moorman photo. So the initial report on the Harper fragment made out it was found behind the limo's location at Z-313, when it was actually found well in front of its location at Z-313. It should be noted, moreover, that Mantik, for one, has come to recognize this fact, and has taken to musing someone moved it to this location from its original location behind the limo. 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Where are you getting your information? To my understanding, Crenshaw surmised there was an entrance wound on the front of the head, but never said he saw one. And, oh yeah, this was 30 years after the fact. There is most certainly no record of him even surmising such a wound prior to his coming forward, decades after the shooting. 

His colleagues, most of whom spent a much longer time observing the president's body than Crenshaw, thought Crenshaw  was off his rocker. One even questioned his presence in the emergency room. But, thankfully, he was mentioned by some as being present in the room when the others testified before the WC. So we know he wasn't just making stuff up. 

 

PS: In re-reading my section on Crenshaw, I was reminded that in his first comments after going public--nearly 30 years after the shooting--he initially surmised there was a bullet entrance on the forehead (that he did not see), and came under fire from his colleagues. He then clarified his position on radio station WBAI. He said "The head wound was tangential in nature, coming in over the right side, above his ear, and leaving a large exit area, avulsed area in the right-rear part of the head. There was loss of part of the parietal, temporal and most of the occipital lobe of the right cerebral hemisphere, with exposure of the cerebellum. It was about two-and-a-half to two- and-three-fourths inches in diameter. It was more or less circular." 

So, yeah, even Crenshaw came to believe it was tangential wound. 

[Matthew Koch]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh boy. I have studied the medical evidence--both the films and x-rays--and the witness statements--as much as anyone, including those who've seen the originals. I have also studied dozens of books and hundreds of articles on forensic pathology, forensic radiology, and gunshot wounds. And I have reported what I have discovered on my website (in what amounts to four or five books) on YouTube. and at a dozen or so conventions.  

And I am not some crank pumping out silly theories... I was tasked with demolishing the SBT at the 40th anniversary of the Warren Report, and have met with and shared information with the likes of Wecht, Thompson, Aguilar, and Lifton. 

So you can trust me when I assure you that there is no bullet hole in that photo. if you see one, you are dreaming. There is a dark shape that matches up with the scalp tears in the right lateral photo, but no bullet hole. There were bullet fragments found at the front of the head and Dr. Chesser thinks he's discovered some small fragments at the front of the head that might designate an entrance. But I'm not aware of anyone who's viewed the body, or the original photos, who has claimed there was a readily visible bullet hole in that photo. 

To be clear, some CTs think a shot impacted at the front of the head and blew out the back of the head. But they are not exactly consistent on this. In 2013, Groden and then Thompson gave presentations in which they argued the large defect was a tangential wound, exactly as I'd been claiming for the previous decade. I later noticed Doug Horne and David Mantik making similar claims. But they were not in agreement with me, or with each other. Mantik and Horne as I recall claim there was a small entrance hole in the forehead that was hidden by the hair at Parkland and in the photos, that they linked to an exit on the left side of the back of Kennedy's head. To me, this is ridiculous. They've matched up a small hole no one saw with a large exit no one saw. 

Now, I do believe Mantik has offered up some support for this, in that he cites two "witnesses" who claimed (decades later, of course) they viewed photos showing an entrance hole, or some such thing. But none of the confirmed witnesses at Parkland or Bethesda, including I believe Crenshaw, has ever claimed they saw such a wound. It's a fantasy, IMO.  

As far as the Z-film you are so troubled by... The Gerda Dunkel gif was taken from the digitized version of the original film. She stabilized it and ran it through a program that adds extra frames to smooth out the movements. It matches up perfectly with all other versions of the film. As stated, the forward movement of Kennedy's head between 312 and 313 was noticed by Thompson while working for Life Magazine in 1967, and working with the original, and slides made from the original. 

Now, in looking back there is another point I should address. The largest bone fragment found outside the limo--and the one described by a pathologist at first glance as occipital--was the Harper fragment. It was found roughly 100 feet in front of the limo's location at Z-313. It is almost certainly the fragment seen rocketing forwards at 313. Harper marked this location on maps for researchers numerous times, from the 60's to the 80's as I recall. It was found on the grass opposite the steps. Unfortunately, the FBI's initial report on this fragment was written before they'd used the films to locate Kennedy's location at the time of the shot, and people mourning Kennedy had dumped wreaths near the steps--the presumed location for the shooting of those viewing the Moorman photo. So the initial report on the Harper fragment made out it was found behind the limo's location at Z-313, when it was actually found well in front of its location at Z-313. It should be noted, moreover, that Mantik, for one, has come to recognize this fact, and has taken to musing someone moved it to this location from its original location behind the limo. 

 

Imagine saying this and leaving out the l shaped incision and "apparent surgery of the head area" Like I already said in best evidence Lifton already went onto the downward angle. There is a white hole in the spot that William is mentioning. It is hypothesized that Mortician wax was put into the hole to cover it up. It's very problematic that you talk about the autopsy info as if it is totally valid. When I had lunch with David Mantik he explained the 3 shots to the head theory. Which is where your Tangential Wound comes from being hit by more than one bullet plus the frangible bullet blew the harper fragment into the air. People's heads don't explode like that unless it's a frangible bullet. Like I said you are an academic which is why you had to pad your opinion with academia. This is why I feel like your are just a typical boomer that want to prove he knows more than others and isn't out to actually find out what happened. You should know enough to know the autopsy has enough problems in it you can't do what you are doing and just say I read I bunch of medical books.. what they actually mean is what I think.. 

[W. Niederhut]

Pat,

     Have you studied Dr. Michael Chesser's analysis of the head wounds at the recent Lancer conference?

     Chesser presents irrefutable evidence of a right frontal entry wound, as seen in the cadaver photo I posted above.

     The entry wound was right frontal-- above the right eye near the hairline.

     The distribution of the metallic fragments, as seen in the lateral skull X-rays, is consistent with a right frontal entry, as confirmed by Dr. Charles Crenshaw and other witnesses referenced in Dr. Chesser's lecture.  The larger metallic fragments are distributed further from the point of impact than the smaller.  So that bullet entered through the forehead, not the posterior regions of the skull.

      And that frontal head shot is what knocked JFK's head violently backward.

     Also, you never answered my question (above) about the large occipital-parietal exit wound (with avulsed brain matter) reported by numerous medical personnel at Parkland.

     If that was an exit wound, as described, where must the bullet have entered the head?