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

[Bill Brown]

On 11/29/2022 at 6:11 PM, 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.

 

 

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.

 

Cite please.

 

[W. Niederhut]

38 minutes ago, Bill Brown 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.

 

Cite please.

 

This Spartacus link includes references and a concise summary of Dr. Crenshaw's observations-- including his thoughts about why so many Parkland docs were afraid to tell the truth about JFK's head wounds.

Charles Crenshaw (spartacus-educational.com)

(2) Charles Crenshaw, FK: Conspiracy of Silence(1992)

"Every doctor who was in Trauma Room I had his own reasons for not publicly refuting the 'official line'.... I believe there was a common denominator in our silence - a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble... Whatever was happening was larger than any of us. I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor."

Edited November 30, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Bill Brown]

32 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This Spartacus link includes references and a concise summary of Dr. Crenshaw's observations-- including his thoughts about why so many Parkland docs were afraid to tell the truth about JFK's head wounds.

Charles Crenshaw (spartacus-educational.com)

(2) Charles Crenshaw, FK: Conspiracy of Silence(1992)

"Every doctor who was in Trauma Room I had his own reasons for not publicly refuting the 'official line'.... I believe there was a common denominator in our silence - a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble... Whatever was happening was larger than any of us. I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor."

 

And where is the part where Crenshaw says that he saw a bullet hole in the forehead at the Parkland ER?

 

[Matthew Koch]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

And where is the part where Crenshaw says that he saw a bullet hole in the forehead at the Parkland ER?

 

 

[Bill Brown]

36 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

 

Nothing new.

 

In that screengrab, Crenshaw is very obviously describing the gaping wound seen in the Zapruder film and NOT any bullet hole described in an earlier post by W. Neiderhut.  Just watch the video and listen to what he says; the large gaping wound, not a bullet hole.

 

You guys are proving to be a waste of time.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

Oh my. He did not see such a wound. He did a number of interviews around that time and said he saw the neck wound and a large head wound. He also said he believed the bullet entered the forehead. But he never said he saw such a wound. And then, as I demonstrated, he changed his mind and started specifying the that the large wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. 

He just couldn't keep his story straight. Here are three demonstrations by Crenshaw of the supposed wound location.

He moved it from the level of the ear to entirely above the ear to both above the ear and at the level of the ear within a matter of months. He also had a basic problem with anatomy. When interviewed by the ARRB he marked anatomy drawings to show where he believed he saw this wound. Well, the location he marked on the lateral drawing failed to match the location he marked on the posterior view. This is show below.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

Like Malcom Kilduff on 11/22/63 he pointed to the upper right forehead indicating where JFK was hit.  Somewhere I've read (Horne?) that there were wounds in the hairline above the right eye and slightly in front of the top of the right ear.  The first, right where Crenshaw is pointing to.

 

[Bill Brown]

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Like Malcom Kilduff on 11/22/63 he pointed to the upper right forehead indicating where JFK was hit.  Somewhere I've read (Horne?) that there were wounds in the hairline above the right eye and slightly in front of the top of the right ear.  The first, right where Crenshaw is pointing to.

 

 

Absolutely unrelated to the ridiculous claim that Crenshaw said he saw a bullet hole right there.

 

[Chris Bristow]

For anyone trying to determine if JFK's head/chin bottomed out on his chest there are a few things to consider. Images online often show a person touching the chin to the chest by tucking the chin in as well as rotating the head forward. If you tuck the chin in you reach the chest with maybe 25 degrees less rotation. I assume JFK would not be tucking his chin in because that is a backward motion.
  I think the better test is shown in the images below. The woman is simply rotating the head forward and that makes a big difference.
 JFK was leaning forward about 13 degrees as his middle back area shows(Red line), and his shoulders were hunched forward as seen in his upper back upper back(Yellow line).
 The woman in the image below has her upper back modified to match the hunching of JFK's upper back(Yellow line). The neck and head have been rotated forward to place her chin back on the chest.
 The main point here is when we take the torso and shoulders into account her head rotates all the way to a horizontal position before hitting the chest. JFK is about 40 degrees short of that in 313. JFK's head is 40 degrees short of hitting his chest. Even cutting that in half he is nowhere near his chin hitting his chest in the Z film, imo.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[W. Niederhut]

Pat,

    Do you ever answer any of the questions that people ask you in these discussions?

    All I have see from you on this thread is recurrent dodging of questions, deflections, and lame attempts to "kill the messenger," in Dr. Crenshaw's case.

    You seem to have trouble grasping the concept that the Parkland doctors, including Crenshaw, feared for their lives.

    Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?

    I'll reiterate the key points that you keep dodging.

1) The law of conservation of momentum proves that the fatal bullet was fired from a location in front of the limo.

2)  The radiographic evidence proves that a bullet struck JFK in the right upper forehead.  (As clearly  demonstrated by Dr. Michael Chesser at the recent Lancer conference.)

3)  Multiple medical witnesses at Parkland described an exit wound in the occipital-parietal skull with avulsed brain matter.

4)  Douglas Horne's exhaustive analysis confirms that the Zapruder film was altered to photo-shop out the evidence of the occipital-parietal exit wound and perpetuate the false CIA narrative that JFK was shot from the TSBD.

5)  Doctors at Parkland were fearful of contradicting the Warren Commission Lone Nut narrative.

  

[Matthew Koch]

On 11/26/2022 at 3:29 PM, Bill Brown said:

In other words, a bullet striking a head will not transfer enough of it's kinetic energy to cause the head to move violently. A baseball bat striking the head will indeed transfer almost all of it's kinetic energy and this will cause the head to move violently.

A bullet's (lack of) transfer of kinetic energy. Learn it. Love it.

@Bill BrownWhat is a hollow point bullet and how does it differ from a full metal jacketed bullet? 

[Chris Bristow]

There is a slightly longer clip of Crenshaw in which he drags his hand from the front top of the head to the low position behind his ear.  He states that this was all gone. He does not say the bone was missing or damaged.  But in another clip he explains that he looked inside the wound cavity and saw a trough of missing brain running from the supposed entry wound on the forehead to the rear exit. This is how he came to the opinion that there was a front entry wound, he did not see the entry wound.
 When asked how the wound would have looked if it was a rear entry he says it would have caused a big blowout as he pointed to the parietal area. If there is a place in this interview when he agrees with the official wound location I missed it.
  As far as his raising the location over the years I don't know if we can ascribe something nefarious. Looking at many of the other staff attempting to demonstrate the wound location they often move their hand around a couple times before they settle on the location. They are seen feeling around the back of the head with their fingers and adjusting the location. We have no visual reference for the back of our own head and this is why they have to feel their fingers on their head and move it around some. One of the most common clips of Dr Jones doing this shows him raising the wound twice going from very low temporal occipital to much higher in the occipital parietal. Others like Dr Dulany have moved the wound. In the famous Nova doc he places his hand in the O.C. and says "Occpital Parietal". Yet in an older photo he is hovering his hand above his head(Not touching) and places the wound closer to the official wound.
  We have to give some leeway to the wound positions described. But even if we do the front of the official parietal wound and the Parkland staffs locations are miles apart. The same with the lower or rear part of the wound. The official wound comes nowhere near as low and behind the ear as the official wound.
  Dr Baxter stated openly that he told the staff if they tried to make money off of this he would ruin their careers. In the 80's Crenshaw published a book and the Dr Baxter along with Jenkins, Carrico and maybe Grossman took part in a cheap hit piece on Crenshaw. I say cheap because the author(The publisher of the J.A.M.A journal) made the libelous claim the "We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day." Wow! Of course at least 3 people testified to the WC decades before that Crenshaw was there. Dr Curtis and Nurse Henchcliffe and even Dr Baxter himself! Their willingness to imply a slanderous claim that he might have lied about even being there without checking makes me think it was a cheap hit piece and we should not take it to seriously. It is well known that the WC lawyers asked almost all witness to state for the record the other personnel they saw in the room that day. Not hard to check that even before searchable PDF's.

 

[Pat Speer]

You are repeating stuff debunked years ago, and acting like it's new. I created a website so I could point people there as opposed to explaining why 2 plus 2 equals 4 for the one hundredth time.

As far as your claim the Parkland doctors were ascared of the CIA, or whatever... It's BS. I've met McClelland, and Salyer. And have read dozens of interviews with the other Parkland doctors. And none of them claimed they were in fear for their lives because they saw a wound on the back of the head. If you read their WC testimonies, moreover, this is more than clear. While it can not be disputed Perry was pressured into denying he said the throat wound was an entrance, the doctors as a whole described a head wound quite close to where it is shown in the Rydberg drawing. IOW, Specter and the WC were deceptive regarding the back wound location, but did little if anything to conceal the head wound location. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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?

     

Isn't Dr. Chesser the one who proposed two frontal head shots?  One above the right eye in the hair line, another in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the right ear.  Maybe it was Dr. Mantik.  They are the only neurologist/radiologist to examine the x-rays in the National Archives I know of, professionally, in detail.  Whichever one may have suggested this, I thought the other ultimately concurred.

[Chris Bristow]

29 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

@Bill BrownWhat is a hollow point bullet and how does it differ from a full metal jacketed bullet? 

a lot different. You can easily find x-rays showing bullets logged in the head which means all the bullets energy at impact was transferred to the head. I know that this is an extreme example but a 50. cal sniper rifle will definitely move the head, move it right off the body! I saw a clip once when the top half of the body went left and the bottom half went right.