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

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Olivier was a xxxx. U will not find even one instance of a fmj carcano breaking up inside a human skull anywhere anytime.

Olivier's breaking up did not exist. But, if it did exist, it would have involved breaking up as the slug hit the skull for a second time near the eye & nasal area, & the fragments would have had to have been collected somehow downstream.

But i say that there would not have been any large fragments -- carcanos have a very thick brass jacket -- difficult to break.

And when they break up the jacket always breaks into two -- plus u will have a lead slug or whats left of it -- & praps just a few small lead fragments (no snowstorm).

Olivier was a xxxx.

We can agree that a FMJ bullet that enters a skull intact would be unlikely to break up while passing through brain tissue. But FMJ bullets will break up when hitting a hard substance--such as bone--at an angle. Here is an image from one of the first books on FMJ ammunition. It demonstrates the break up of a bullet after hitting bone. (Hmmm. It looks just like the fragments found in the front section of the limo. Hmmm. I wonder why...)

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

Interesting.. Thanks, I did not know there was a difference in jackets. 

Mortal Error – page 222 ….

In search of customers , then, Macdonald, Stoner, and Mullens headed for the Far East………

………. It was on this journey that Stoner discovered just how lethal the AR-15 really was. To pass the time, Stoner and Mullen would hang green coconuts from strings for target practice.  A standard .30 caliber round passed cleanly through the target, leaving a neat hole. But when the men fired the thin-jacketed .223 round at the hanging target, the coconut literally exploded.

Stoner had planned the AR-15 around the .223 bullet to take advantage of the tumbling, explosive disintegration inherent when a small, high-velocity round strikes semiliquid material. But even he was surprised at how destructive the weapon proved to be, Mullen said. Indeed, the .223 slug demonstrated all the deadly characteristics of a soft-point or hollow-tipped bullet. Its full – albeit very thin – metal jacket, however, technically made the bullet legal under the Geneva Convention warfare rules. …………..

I might add that later the M16 the rifling was decreased to increase the tumble. But Hickey's AR15 would have had the original rifling.

Hickey hit JFK from say 22 ft – probly about the same range as Stoner's coconut.

So, whereas Hickey's ammo was probly hollow-point – i reckon that a standard-point AR15 could have  done the dirty deed.

The failure of the AR15 to put a hole in the dent in the chrome trim above the mirror more or less confirms that Hickey's ammo was indeed hollow point.

Also, Hickey's slug veered 6 deg to make the crack in the windshield. A hollow-point would be unlikely to veer that much in the 6" or so in JFK's head – however, tests have shown that the veer is increased if a hollow-point firstly strikes a surface on an angle, which it did (a tangential strike of JFK's skull).

The carcano slug has 8% zinc -- the AR15 had 0% zinc.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

We can agree that a FMJ bullet that enters a skull intact would be unlikely to break up while passing through brain tissue. But FMJ bullets will break up when hitting a hard substance--such as bone--at an angle. Here is an image from one of the first books on FMJ ammunition. It demonstrates the break up of a bullet after hitting bone. (Hmmm. It looks just like the fragments found in the front section of the limo. Hmmm. I wonder why...)

A fmj can flatten when hitting hard bone.

During ricochet a carcano jacket always breaks into 2 pieces. Plus the remnant lead slug. Plus some fine lead splatter.

The brass bits ricochet off steel (the western guy rod of the overhead signals) at an angle -- the lead slug at a different angle -- & the splatter at a third angle.

No1 duznt appear to have broken into 2 pieces of brass/copper -- hence it aint as per what was found in the limo.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The first part of chapter 3b on my website is a detailed history of the development of the single-bullet theory. To write this chapter, I re-typed (and made readily available) the WC staff and FBI memos regarding the various showings of the Z-film. You might want to check it out. 

Thanks---BTW I recently re-read Chapter 4 on your website, regarding the Sixth Floor window, and showing pictures of agents scrunched up into position to simulate making a shot from that window. It was a reminder on how confining the space was. 

Whatever someone's views, the four-power scope was almost certainly not useful in such a setting (for many other reasons, but including field of view), meaning LHO was reduced to using the iron sights and shooting from an awkward position. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Ben, IMO what I feel like the error you are making is you need more corroboration. 

What I mean is you need either the dictabelt or witness statements to line up with a shot at that point in the film. The turn over his shoulder is a reference to when they are behind the sign. This corresponds with Jackie turning her head to look at her husband. I have the life magazine with Connally and that is accurate that he thought the shot came no later and 236. Life tried to revive the controversy, Josiah Thompson is part of the issue, but some one put the kibosh on the series and Thompson instead of working on that published 6 Seconds in Dallas.

The first generation critics mostly because of Thompson's error thought the shot struck when the reactions started. Josiah Thompson and others thought JFK was hit right when he came out from the sign and Connally was hit around 236. He even cited your main point; Connally's testimony. The Jackie Head Turn and the Lapel flap are the points on the film IMO where they are hit. The 1/2 second later around 12 frames is the reaction to the strike. 

MK--

Yes, there are intelligent experts with different points of view than mine. 

It is exasperating. Believe me, I have read quite a bit on the topic, starting on and off back in the 1960s, and getting serious again with the advent of the internet. 

I have read most of and maybe all of Pat Speer's excellent website. (I tended to read PS's website in jigs-and jags, so maybe I have missed something). 

On this particular topic, the Z-film and JBC's testimony, JBC's wife, and the testimony of JBC's surgeon all line up. 

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)

Witness testimony is always iffy. And cherry-picking witness statements is done in every trial, and in the JFKA by all sides. 

But really...getting shot and pushed forward seems like a simple witness statement. 

Well, I have posted topics twice on the Ed Forum on the JBC shots, and stated my case, so I will give it a rest. 

I will re-iterate I trust what JBC said in verbatim WC and HSCA transcripts more than what JBC reportedly said in an internal WC memorandum, in a room full of experts and LIFE magazine staffers. 

(BTW--seems like the Z-242 shot theory to JBC does not line up with the "bang......bang-bang" statements made by many witnesses.)

I confess to not understanding any part of the dictabelt. I understand what people say they found out, and that they clean the tape of extraneous sounds (motorcycle motor) and so on. 

I have no problems with there being four audible shots and perhaps even more that were inaudible. JBC's wound through the dorsal (wristwatch) side of his wrist is an interesting topic. Dr. Shaw thought the wound could not have been received by a bullet passing through JBC first. 

Well, carry on. 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The first part of chapter 3b on my website is a detailed history of the development of the single-bullet theory. To write this chapter, I re-typed (and made readily available) the WC staff and FBI memos regarding the various showings of the Z-film. You might want to check it out. 

Thanks Pat. I have read all or most of the your excellent website, and will re-read sections indicated. 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Absolutely. 

Using Pat's website will save a lot of time.  I have noticed a bunch of interesting files in the archives are hidden amongst other larger files (that also contain a bunch of useless stuff, very time consuming). 

E.g. the "interesting"  stuff regarding this topic begins at page 64 of this file : 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62298#relPageId=64  

Once you have good keywords, that can help as well (like "visual aids" and o/c Eisenberg).

I know there are bundled files on some topics, but one is never sure they are complete.

So like Pat indicates, going to his website will help A LOT 

 

 

 

JP thanks for the tips. I will wade in....hope all is well with you. 

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

MK--

Yes, there are intelligent experts with different points of view than mine. 

It is exasperating. Believe me, I have read quite a bit on the topic, starting on and off back in the 1960s, and getting serious again with the advent of the internet. 

I have read most of and maybe all of Pat Speer's excellent website. (I tended to read PS's website in jigs-and jags, so maybe I have missed something). 

On this particular topic, the Z-film and JBC's testimony, JBC's wife, and the testimony of JBC's surgeon all line up. 

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)

Witness testimony is always iffy. And cherry-picking witness statements is done in every trial, and in the JFKA by all sides. 

But really...getting shot and pushed forward seems like a simple witness statement. 

Well, I have posted topics twice on the Ed Forum on the JBC shots, and stated my case, so I will give it a rest. 

I will re-iterate I trust what JBC said in verbatim WC and HSCA transcripts more than what JBC reportedly said in an internal WC memorandum, in a room full of experts and LIFE magazine staffers. 

(BTW--seems like the Z-242 shot theory to JBC does not line up with the "bang......bang-bang" statements made by many witnesses.)

I confess to not understanding any part of the dictabelt. I understand what people say they found out, and that they clean the tape of extraneous sounds (motorcycle motor) and so on. 

I have no problems with there being four audible shots and perhaps even more that were inaudible. JBC's wound through the dorsal (wristwatch) side of his wrist is an interesting topic. Dr. Shaw thought the wound could not have been received by a bullet passing through JBC first. 

Well, carry on. 

 

 

 

 

The easiest way to understand it IMO is that there are basically two groups of ear witnesses. The two main groups are people who where told they heard 3 shot and so they either remember the first volley of shots or the second volley. Most heard the second which is Bang.. Bang,Bang. The third group, is people who heard more than 3 shots.

To be honest all three are accurate for the most part. The dicta-belt lines up with the witness statements both line up with the Zapruder film. Now granted there is evidence for more than 5 shots. So either they weren't audible from the other side of the plaza, or people were probably using suppressors. 

[Chris Bristow]

On 12/1/2022 at 3:01 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Your explanation was detailed and clear, but I'm not sure life experience tells us the rifle would not move. All things being equal I suppose it would just lay there but I still can't see the forces as equal.

 I would expect that if I put a firecracker in a closed can with a bottom of  6 in and the top only 3 in  the bottom would absorb more energy and the can would jump in that direction.

The lead plug would have a smaller diameter than the inside back surface of the shell. It seems to me it should receive more of the force.

I think a master cylinder conveys the principal I'm  thinking about. The initiating plunger is smaller than the secondary one. So the power transferred to the secondary plunger is greater than the force applied by the initiating plunger.

In your explanation reaching fb-0 is based on the premise that the gun should not move if plugged. I'm not confident in the premise.

 Aside from small details I think your basic statement was correct and the kickback largely represents the energy going out the barrel.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:23 AM, Pat Speer said:

On 12/1/2022 at 6:54 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Below is a compilation of what the Parkland professionals said, Pat. Please show me which ones said early on that the gaping wound was on the top of the head. (If you can find any.)

 

Dr. Gary Aguilar's List of Head Wound Witnesses at Parkland

Note 1: "Occipital" and "cerebellar" refers to the lower back of the head. "Temporal" refers to the low area around the ear.

Note 2:  As can be read below, nearly all the Parkland professionals said early on that the gaping wound was at the lower back of the head. But some changed their minds when it came to their attention that that the Warren Commission contradicted them, saying that the gaping wound was at the top of the head.

1) KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

o
o
o

11) ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also "Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

o
o
o

 

On 12/2/2022 at 1:23 AM, Pat Speer said:

Ok. I'll offer a few quick comments to demonstrate why Gary's list is deceptive. 

 

Noted, that you think Gary Aguilar's list is deceptive. I don't think it is deceptive at all.

(For those who don't know, Dr. Gary Aguilar is a highly respected JFKA researcher, author, and lecturer. He appears in DiEugenio's and Stone's documentary.

 

On 12/2/2022 at 1:23 AM, Pat Speer said:

1. Clark: Clark did indicate that the wound was on the back of the head. It's clear he believed it. But he also went along with the autopsy report. One can assume then that he was either a coward or a dedicated professional--medical professionals routinely defer to doctors more expert than themselves (believe me, I know). And in fatalities, the expert is the pathologist. There's also this: while Clark never consented to an interview about Kennedy's wounds after his WC testimony, he did collaborate with single-assassin theorist Dr. John Lattimer, and comment on the research community. He claimed ""The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." So it seems possible Clark was not as sure of his initial recollections as one might assume.. As far as David Naro, who came out of nowhere to claim Clark opened up about the case to him, there is a credibility issue. Naro came out of nowhere, made some outrageous claims, and then disappeared. No one in the research community knew him before, and no one kept in touch with him after. He had no tapes or notes or anything to prove Clark said what he claimed Clark had said, And he had no photographs or personal letters or anything to prove he actually knew Clark. Unfortunately, my time on this forum has reinforced that some people just make stuff up to get attention. We can suspect Naro was one of those. 

2. McClelland; Gary hides that McClelland's initial report said the wound was of the left temple. As he was looking at the President upside down, it seems clear McClelland meant the right temple, and sure enough, a summary of the initial reports was published in which his mistake was changed to read right temple. Now, some have turned around and said well he meant that the bullet entered the left temple and exited the back of the head. But that's not how reports are supposed to be written. An emergency room doctor does not write what he thinks happened--he writes what he observed--and McClelland admits he failed to see an entrance wound on the left temple. So if one is to defend McClelland under the impression he reported a wound he did not see on the left temple, and failed to report a wound he did see on the back of the head, well then one is in effect arguing that their favorite truth teller is an incompetent idiot. And this isn't the only problem with McClelland's credibility. He was interviewed by a reporter within a week or so of the assassination, and he told the reporter the throat wound looked like an entrance. But here's the kicker. He also told this reporter that there was nothing about the head wound to indicate the fatal shot was fired from In front of Kennedy. Well, this makes no sense if he really saw a "blow-out" low on the back of the head, as claimed by all too many. It's clear, moreover, that McClelland was highly malleable. After reading the reports of Clark et al indicating the wound was on the back of the head, he began saying the wound was on the back of the head. He would later admit he was a lone-nutter until he saw the Zapruder film, and that (not JFK's body) convinced him the fatal shot was fired from the front. He would also come to claim he'd created or had helped in the creation of the so-called McClelland drawing, when he'd had noting to do with it. And he would end up making (and selling) drawings showing a head wound in the location it is in the McClelland drawing, even though he told the Boston Globe and the ARRB the drawing was incorrect. Nice Guy. Bad memory. 

11. Grossman: Gary makes out that Grossman's observation of a wound on the back of the head supports the blow-out wound described by others. This is grossly (pun intended) unfair. Grossman insisted the wound on the back of the head was an entrance and that there was a large explosive wound at the top of the head. To wit, the wound on the back of the head described by Grossman was approx. 1/10 the size of the wound described by others. But Gary hides that away. Subsequent to the creation of this list, moreover, Grossman co-wrote a number of articles arguing for a single-assassin. So Grossman's presence on this list is an embarrassment.  

In the end there are problems with Gary's presentation. of most of the witnesses. Those who changed their opinions to match what Gary wants us to believe (such as McClelland), are presented as dedicated truth tellers, and those who came to think better of their original impressions (such as Carrico, Jenkins and Perry) are presented as unreliable. It's propaganda. 

 

I asked you to show me which of the Parkland doctors said early on that the gaping wound was on the top of the head. I see that you couldn't find any.

 

[Richard Price]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but all the talk of transfer of energy as it relates to the sudden movement of JFK's head at frame 313 has me wondering if the possible frame removal that has been discussed many times on the forum might apply here.  I cannot recall the numbers off hand, but I know a number of the photo/film experts have weighed in on what was necessary to alter the speed (MPH) of the limo to get to the numbers used by SS/FBI/WC.  If the frames were replaced into the film, would it not slow the speed of the head snap, thereby making it less drastic and more in line with what would be expected per the transfer of energy?  I know the speed of the limo was being addressed and also the quick disappearance of blood spray/splatter, but I'm not sure if anyone addressed the slowing of the head snap.

Many thanks to Chris Davidson, David Healey and all the others who have meticulously documented the frame removal, overlay processes, speed alteration and the math behind it all.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

On 12/1/2022 at 4:01 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

 

Expand  

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Your explanation was detailed and clear, but I'm not sure life experience tells us the rifle would not move. All things being equal I suppose it would just lay there but I still can't see the forces as equal.

 

I think the physicists who first thought of this problem also had problems with it. They probably thought something like, "Really?! The area (square cm) of the lead plug just happens to be the sum total of the area on the other end of the barrel? No matter how complicated in shape it is? Certainly that's too much of a coincidence to be true!"

But then after trying different shapes at the other other end, and noting that the object never moves, they came to the conclusion that it must be true. And this was a new principal they had discovered, and they so noted it the physics books they were writing.

Afterward they would learn how to apply trigonometry to physics, and it would all become clear. (Which I will explain next. It's easy!)

 

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 I would expect that if I put a firecracker in a closed can with a bottom of  6 in and the top only 3 in  the bottom would absorb more energy and the can would jump in that direction.

 

I'm glad you brought that up. Because once you understand that, it will all come together.

But first I'll simplify it  a little. Let's say the can is 10" tall (from end-to-end), and 1" in diameter. It has a normal end on the bottom, but the top end is tilted by 45 degrees. So the shape of the top lid is an oval and its dimensions are 1" x 1.41".  (1.41 is he square root of 2.)

Lets suppose the pressure of the gas in the can is 10 psi.

The area of the bottom lid is (pi)R^2  =  3.14(1/2)^2  =  0.785

The area of the top lid is (pi)(R1*R2)^2  =  3.14(1/2*1.41/2)^2  =  1.11

where pi = 3.14, R is the radius of a circle, and R1 and R2 are the two radii of an oval. Symbol * is multiply and ^ is "to the the power of.")

Multiplying these by the pressure (10 psi) we get

     Fb  =  7.85 lb

     Ft  =  11.1 lb

for the forces on the bottom and top plates, respectively.

Now subtract the bottom force from the top to get the total force in the up direction:

     F  =  11.1 - 7.85  =  3.25 lb

And we have a non-zero force, pointing up. Therefore the can will begin the levitate.

Which we know can't happen. This means we did something wrong.

What we did wrong is forget that force is a vector (i.e. has direction). The direction of a force applied to a surface by a gas is always perpendicular to the surface. The bottom plate is attached normally, and so the direction of that force is along the axis of the cylinder... let's call it the Z axis. However, recall that the top plate is attached at a 45 degree angle. It's 11.1 lb of force is directed 45 degrees away from the Z axis!

This means that only some of that force is in the Z direction. (The reminder is in the X and/or Y directions.) The next question is, how do we determine how much force that is? This is where trigonometry does it's magic.

An extremely useful thing you learn in physics is how to determine what percentage of a force in two-dimensional plane is pointing in the direction of interest. It's extremely simple... you simple multiply the force by COS(angle) or SIN(angle), depending upon which of the two directions you are interested in. So let's do that.

     Fz  =  Ft COS(angle)

where Fz is the amount of force on the top lid in the Z direction. Computing that, we get

     Fz  =  11.1 COS(45 degrees)  =  7.85 lb

Now, when we subtract the two forces in the Z direction, we get

     F  =  Fz - Fb

     F  =  7.85 - 7.85  =  0 lb

And our can does not move!

So we conclude that when we add all the forces in the Z direction, we'll need to use trigonometry on angled surfaces. If there are any curved surfaces, we'll need to use integral calculus for those.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Noted, that you think Gary Aguilar's list is deceptive. I don't think it is deceptive at all.

(For those who don't know, Dr. Gary Aguilar is a highly respected JFKA researcher, author, and lecturer. He appears in DiEugenio's and Stone's documentary.

 

 

I asked you to show me which of the Parkland doctors said early on that the gaping wound was on the top of the head. I see that you couldn't find any.

 

If you fail to see that Gary's list--in which he presented Grossman, an LN who said he saw a small entrance on the back of the head and a large exit at the top of the head, as evidence for a large blowout wound low on the back of the head--was grossly deceptive, then your opinion is not to be trusted.

As stated, I am friends with Gary. I have talked with him on the phone a number of times. I have had dinner with him on several occasions. I have even spent the night at his house. He has a dour expression on his face most of the time, but he is actually quite funny. He made the list to make a point--that there was evidence in contradiction to the official story. But I don't believe he intended it to be taken as proof of anything, only that there was reason to doubt. When I talk with Gary he is very careful about certain things. He is very reluctant to say certain people lied, for example, and prefers to say they had confirmation bias. I think that confirmation bias affected his list. And if I sat down with him to discuss the list, I am confident he would re-write parts of it. 

As far as your last misguided jab, I assume you know, because after all you have "studied" this case, that Dr. Giesecke told the WC the wound was from the vertex to the ear. But that doesn't really matter. More important is that Newman, Zapruder, and Kilduff pointed out the wound's location within a short time of the shooting, and all pointed to the right temple area--the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and films. And no, you can't dismiss them because they weren't doctors. As stated ad nauseam, medical professionals are not trained to accurately recall the precise location of a wound, and there is no reason to believe they would do so. Their job is to save the patient in front of them, not record the wound locations of a DOA, or near DOA. That's the coroner''s job. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

If you fail to see that Gary's list--in which he presented Grossman, an LN who said he saw a small entrance on the back of the head and a large exit at the top of the head, as evidence for a large blowout wound low on the back of the head--was grossly deceptive, then your opinion is not to be trusted.

 

Dr. Grossman said he saw a wound on the occiput that it was too large to be an entrance wound (2 cm I think). And he saw a longer wound (3 cm I think) above the ear, also an exit wound. The latter one could be seen only when the hair was pulled on.

Aguilar's list is about the gaping wound that everybody saw. So the one above the ear is an extra wound that doesn't belong on the list.

By the time Grossman was questioned for the ARRB, he had changed his mind about the direction of the wound on the occiput. At that time he said it was an entrance wound. This was after Dr. Aguilar compiled his list.

So no, I don't see any deception in Grossman's entry in the list.

 

[Paul Bacon]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

More important is that Newman, Zapruder, and Kilduff pointed out the wound's location within a short time of the shooting, and all pointed to the right temple area--the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and films.

Kilduff pointed to the entrance wound in his press conference announcing Kennedy's death.  That was the location of the "right temple area".  He was not pointing to indicate that ridiculous amorphous blob we see in the Zap film.