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

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Could the "third shot" have actually struck JBC?

That would somewhat coincide with the the forward movement of his body. 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

Witnesses say funny things. But...I tend to believe someone who is discussing what happened to themselves after being shot....

 

Connally viewed the films numerous times and said he appeared to be hit slightly after they came from behind the sign in the film. One of the purposes of the multiple viewings was to determine the angles into Connally, and it was determined he was out of position to receive his wounds beyond the low 230's if I recall. In any event, this was a huge problem for the commission, as they believed Kennedy was hit 210-224, and this didn't leave enough time for a second shot into Connally from the presumed assassination rifle. They then embraced the SBT. 

There's also Connally's words in the Z-film. His recollection was that he yelled "No no no. My God, they are going to kill us all" after he'd been shot. And this only made sense. I mean, why would he assume "they" were gonna kill them all if only one shot had been fired that struck one person. Well, lip-readers studying the film have placed "No no no. My God..." at Z-240 to Z-260. 

And then of course there's that pesky lapel flip. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, I don't think there's anything nefarious about Crenshaw. He smelled a rat. And went public. But he wasn't particularly credible. His recollections changed from day to day.

 

I disagree with Pat. I think Crenshaw was indeed credible. I think that Pat just doesn't like what Crenshaw said about the gaping wound.

 

[W. Niederhut]

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

It's already been posted and nowhere in that entire video does Crenshaw say that he saw a bullet hole there.

You were wrong to say such a thing.

 

Bill B.,

     IMO, you're not debating this evidence in good faith.  Not sure what your agenda is here.  Mine is to get at the truth about JFK's murder.

     I posted the references to Dr. Crenshaw's commentaries TWICE for you, and you're still being disingenuous about what Dr. Crenshaw said.

    He said that he took at last look at JFK's corpse before it was placed in the coffin, and had no doubt that JFK was shot in the head from the front.

    In other words, he clearly saw an entry wound on the front of JFK's head, as the cadaver photo shows.

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I disagree with Pat. I think Crenshaw was indeed credible. I think that Pat just doesn't like what Crenshaw said about the gaping wound.

 

A credible witness is one whose recollections are recorded early before they could come under the influence of books and articles, and are consistent. Crenshaw fails to pass that simple test. 

I am not one, however, to believe he was lying, or after fame or money. 

And it doesn't mean one can willy nilly just disregard everything he said. He was consistent with himself and others in that he thought the large wound was further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos. But at times he placed it directly behind the ear, where it is shown in the McClelland drawing, and this was not consistent with what most others said. We can assume then he placed it there after viewing the McClelland drawing. 

Time erodes memories, which are not all that accurate to begin with, and exposure to images and theories amplifies that erosion. 

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bill B.,

     IMO, you're not debating this evidence in good faith.  Not sure what your agenda is here.  Mine is to get at the truth about JFK's murder.

     I posted the references to Dr. Crenshaw's commentaries TWICE for you, and you're still being disingenuous about what Dr. Crenshaw said.

    He said that he took at last look at JFK's corpse before it was placed in the coffin, and had no doubt that JFK was shot in the head from the front.

    In other words, he clearly saw an entry wound on the front of JFK's head, as the cadaver photo shows.

This is just not true. He surmised there was such an entrance based upon what he thought was the location of an exit. He later realized this was weak sauce and came to claim the large wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have found, as well, that a large percentage of CTs claiming to support the witnesses actually HATE the witnesses, and consider them a nuisance because they just won't say what they are supposed to say.

 

The first conspiracy theorist that came to mind when I read what Pat wrote (above) is Pat himself. (Though I wouldn't use a word so strong as "hate.")  Twenty Parkland professionals said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head and Pat says they are all wrong. He says, rather, that the wound was on the top of the head.

 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

    He said that he took at last look at JFK's corpse before it was placed in the coffin, and had no doubt that JFK was shot in the head from the front.

    In other words, he clearly saw an entry wound on the front of JFK's head, as the cadaver photo shows.

From looking at the global wound he said he was shot from the front, yes.

But this is not the same as actually seeing an entry wound.

There is a difference IMHO 

 

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The first conspiracy theorist that came to mind when I read what Pat wrote (above) is Pat himself. (Though I wouldn't use a word so strong as "hate.")  Twenty Parkland professionals said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head and Pat says they are all wrong. He says, rather, that the wound was on the top of the head.

 

Oy vey. if you ever actually studied this case, you'd see that most of the key witnesses at Parkland deferred to the authenticity of the photos and x-rays. Heck, even McClelland said he thought they were authentic and that loose scalp was being pulled up to cover the wound he recalled. And yet, "researcher" after "researcher" has claimed these witnesses prove the photos and x-rays and fake. And have said further that the witnesses' deference to the authenticity of the evidence is from cowardice. It's just crap, IMO. 

"Everyone who says what I don't want them to say must be a coward! Ta-da! Look at me, I've solved this mystery from my armchair! Aren't I fabulous?" 

The truth is that there is a divergence in the evidence. People thought they saw things that are not in the photographic record. Most of those who recalled such things would later accept that they could have been wrong. Because, you know, people's memories are not always accurate. But no, the cult of the back of the head holds that "No they must have been right--because I, Karnak, have divined the truth of all this." 

It's the mirror image of the Warren Commission, IMO. People come to conclusions and then go back and try to make everything fit. In this instance, however, they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. "Yes, we must trust the people telling us the back of the head was blown out because these people are truth-tellers, damn it! And no, we can't trust them when they say they could have been mistaken, or that they really didn't get a good look and were just assuming the back of the head was blown out based upon the brain matter in the hair." 

I've been watching this up close for nearly two decades now.

Custer was a hero after being shown the HSCA's cropped and computer-enhanced x-ray, and stating he didn't recognize it as an x-ray of Kennedy, but he was a weaselly coward after being shown the original x-rays by the ARRB, and identifying them as x-rays he'd taken. 

The same goes for Stringer. People will claim his latter-day questioning of the authenticity of the brain photos (after signing off on these photos repeatedly when he was much younger and his memories much fresher) is a smoking gun, while at the same time his telling the ARRB the back of the head photos are accurate and that there was no blow out wound on the back of the head is a sign of his cowardice. 

And on and on. Ebersole, Riebe, Frazier, heck even Ruth Paine, are all truth-tellers when they say something people are desperate to believe but obvious cowards or XXXXX when they say something people don't want to believe. 

I'm just looking for some consistency. Could people you suspect told the truth about one thing be wrong about another thing. Of course they could. Could people deciding they were wrong about something be wrong in that they were wrong, and actually have been right? Of course they could. 

But this endless speculation that so and so was a coward or was hushed into silence is just crap, IMO. 

[W. Niederhut]

45 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

From looking at the global wound he said he was shot from the front, yes.

But this is not the same as actually seeing an entry wound.

There is a difference IMHO 

 

Jean,

     Dr. Crenshaw said that he looked carefully at JFK before he was put in the coffin, and had no doubt that he was shot in the head from the front.  To me, that doesn't imply a mere deduction from the posterior exit wound.

     I've seen a dead man with a bullet hole in his forehead before, and I recognized the entry wound in JFK's upper right forehead the first time I ever saw the photo.

     Crenshaw was afraid of Murder, Inc.

     A lot of JFK witnesses were afraid to talk for years.  Wayne January comes to mind.

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bill B.,

     IMO, you're not debating this evidence in good faith.  Not sure what your agenda is here.  Mine is to get at the truth about JFK's murder.

     I posted the references to Dr. Crenshaw's commentaries TWICE for you, and you're still being disingenuous about what Dr. Crenshaw said.

    He said that he took at last look at JFK's corpse before it was placed in the coffin, and had no doubt that JFK was shot in the head from the front.

    In other words, he clearly saw an entry wound on the front of JFK's head, as the cadaver photo shows.

 

To "debate the evidence in good faith", one doesn't put words in the witness' mouth, as you've done with Crenshaw.  There is a huge difference between seeing a wound and assuming it's an entry wound and seeing a bullet hole.  You were misleading with your claim that Crenshaw said he saw a bullet hole.  He didn't say that.  It matters.

 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I disagree with Pat. I think Crenshaw was indeed credible. I think that Pat just doesn't like what Crenshaw said about the gaping wound.

 

 

"Gaping wound".  Correct.  Not a bullet hole.  Now tell that to W. Niederhut.

 

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

To "debate the evidence in good faith", one doesn't put words in the witness' mouth, as you've done with Crenshaw.  There is a huge difference between seeing a wound and assuming it's an entry wound and seeing a bullet hole.  You were misleading with your claim that Crenshaw said he saw a bullet hole.  He didn't say that.  It matters.

Geez... I quoted directly from what Crenshaw said.

He said that, after viewing JFK before he was put in the coffin, he had no doubt that he was shot in the head from the front.

Newsflash.  Doctors are trained to carefully observe patients.

I noticed the bullet hole/entry wound in JFK's forehead the first time I ever saw the photo (above.)

I'll leave it at that, and bid you adieu.

[Bill Brown]

20 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez... I quoted directly from what Crenshaw said.

He said that, after viewing JFK before he was put in the coffin, he had no doubt that he was shot in the head from the front.

Newsflash.  Doctors are trained to carefully observe patients.

I noticed the bullet hole/entry wound in JFK's forehead the first time I ever saw the photo (above.)

I'll leave it at that, and bid you adieu.

 

You mentioned what you believe to be a bullet hole in the "death stare" photo.

 

Pat Speer asked you:  "Where is the entry wound? And who said they saw it?"

 

You replied:   "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."

 

But Crenshaw does NOT claim to see such a thing.  Crenshaw described the gaping wound; never anything about a bullet hole.

 

[W. Niederhut]

Good grief.

Dr. Crenshaw said that he saw definitive evidence that JFK was shot in the head from the front.

He was, obviously, referring to the visible bullet hole/entry wound in JFK's forehead.

If Bill Brown and Pat Speer believe otherwise, by all means, let's hear the Brown/Speer Hypothesis about the definitive evidence Dr. Crenshaw saw.

Hopefully, it will be more accurate than the ludicrous Brown/Speer Hypothesis about the backward momentum of JFK's head following the fateful head shot.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/29/2022 at 4:49 PM, Chris Bristow said:

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?

 

Here's the easy way to analyze the situation:

Suppose we have a gun barrel whose bore at the far end is plugged with lead. Suppose we fire a blank, so that we can analyze the effect of the gas on the gun alone.

Imagine that the three-dimensional space of the gun is marked with three perpendicular coordinate axes labeled x, y, and z.  Axis x runs left and right, and axis y runs up and down, as you hold the gun. Axis z runs through the barrel of the gun.

To determine the force on any given piece of surface area, you multiply the gas pressure by the square area of the surface. You add all these forces together to get the total, or net, force. Since force is a vector (i.e. has direction) you need to use vector math. Vector math uses trigonometry and integral calculus, which can be tedious and difficult to perform. But as we soon shall see, we can make it easy with a little ingenuity.

To get started, we note that for every force acting on the surface of the bore, perpendicular to and along the z axis, there is an equal but opposite force acting on the opposite side of the bore. Therefore, when we add these all up, we will get zero.

Moving to the end of the barrel with the lead plug, the force will simply be the area of the circle (pi r^2) multiplied by the pressure. Whatever force that calculates to be, let's call if Fb, for "force on the bullet." Yeah, I know there is a plug there... but later on we'll replace the plug with a bullet.

Things get more difficult at the trigger end of the barrel because of its complex shape. We'd need to calculate the force for every piece of inside surface, take only the z-axis part of it, and add it all up.

This is where we need to be most ingenious. To make the problem easy.

Ignore for a moment the as-yet unknown force at the trigger end of the barrel, while we do a simple thought experiment. At the moment we have only one force acting on the gun, and that is Fb pointing in the z direction, toward the lead plug. Let's (arbitrarily) choose that to be positive. And so the force on the gun is +Fb in the z direction.

+Fb is a non-zero number. So at the moment there is a force acting on the gun, AND THIS FORCE WILL ACCELERATE AND MOVE THE GUN. But how is that possible? All our life experience tells us that the gun will just sit there motionless.

We need there to be ZERO net force on the gun for the gun to remain motionless. What we need is for the force on the trigger end of the barrel to be -Fb. (Whatever number that turns out to be when calculated.) Because that way the total force on the gun will be

          +Fb - Fb

which is zero. And we're done.

We learned that it doesn't matter what shape the trigger-end of the bore is. No matter how complicated, the force will be the same as the force on the simple, circular plug at the other end.

Now, if we remove the plug, we will have a net force of -Fb in the z direction. And so the gun will begin to move toward the shooter.

 

CONCLUSION

Things like rockets, that move due to an escaping gas, are easily analyzed by focusing on the ABSENCE of force created by the orifice.