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

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

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.

This is a canard. Only one wound was noticed at that point. He was pointing to where that wound was observed. 

Think about it. Newman points out a large wound near the right temple. Zapruder points out a large wound near the right temple. And then Kilduff (who himself saw the wound) points out a wound location at the right temple (while citing Burkley). 

And yet, some have spun this to be his pointing to an entrance location (that was not observed by anyone) that led to a large exit on the back of the head (that he did not mention, and never claimed he'd observed).

Embarrassing. 

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Nonsense. The wound on the back of the head described by Grossman was much smaller than the wound described by others. It was disingenuous, at best, to pretend he was describing the "blow-out" wound described by others, particularly in that he also described a large wound in the parietal area, and disavowed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. 

The context is important, Sandy. Gary's list was not used to point out that some witness statements failed to support the accuracy of the autopsy photos, it was used to imply these witnesses had completely disavowed the autopsy photos, and had supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.

And this was total bs. Heck, even today, there is incredible reluctance within the research community to admit the witness statements are at odds with that drawing.

It's embarrassing as heck. It's like Catholics who still worship the Shroud of Turin. It needs to stop.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

On 12/3/2022 at 10:36 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Nonsense. The wound on the back of the head described by Grossman was much smaller than the wound described by others.

 

Dr. Aguilar may not have known the size of the wounds Grossman described when he compiled his list. He got his information -- that there were two large wounds and the one on the occiput was far too large to be an entrance wound -- from the book The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, which I don't have. But if you want to continue believing that your friend Gary Aguilar deliberately and deceptively left that off of his list, who am I to try stopping you?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Gary's list was not used to point out that some witness statements failed to support the accuracy of the autopsy photos, it was used to imply these witnesses had completely disavowed the autopsy photos, and had supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And this was total bs.

 

Nearly ALL early statements of the Parkland doctors DISAGREE with the back-of-head photo.

And early testimony is almost always better than later testimony.

 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:42 AM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

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.

Here is a link to page 194-195 from Mortal Error by Meninger re Donahue's investigation of the JFK saga.

Also a link to photo-27 from Mortal Error showing a non-hollow-point M16 tumbling slug in gelatine.

The AR15 slug that blew some of JFK's head away at Z313 would have been a hollow-point, & would have had a stronger rifling spiral & less tumbling than the later M16.

However it duz tell us that praps Hickey's AR15 did not necessarily have to be a hollow-point.

And a link to photo-28 for a test using a Carcano slug.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52545803465/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52545322556/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52545866078/in/dateposted-public/

Edited December 5, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nearly ALL early statements of the Parkland doctors DISAGREE with the back-of-head photo.

And early testimony is almost always better than later testimony.

 

Yes, and nearly ALL statements of the Parkland doctors disagree with the McClelland drawing.

So why, Sandy, have so many of the most prominent CTs held that drawing up as being representative of Kennedy's "actual" wound? 

It was sleight-of-hand. Look! They say this is incorrect--so this is what really happened. Let's move on.

Only a close examination--an actual examination--of the witness statements over the years suggests a wound about half-way between where it is in the McClelland drawing and where it is in the autopsy photos and x-rays.

I believe you've acknowledged this yourself. 

Now, one can take from this that the photos are fake, etc, but one can't do so, IMO, without also acknowledging virtually every prominent CT has incorrectly placed the wound at the center of the back of the head between the ears. 

Here's an analogy. 30 people witness a car accident. A hit and run. The police take statements from a few of them. And they mostly say the car was green. Then the police make an arrest, of a man who was driving a blue car. Years pass. A book comes out saying the car wasn't blue, it was green. And this leads to more witnesses being tracked down, who say the car wasn't blue, it was red. And some of the original witnesses issue a statement saying "Yeah. we were probably wrong--we said it was green but we now believe it was blue." And this leads to mucho speculation they were pressured into changing their stories, etc. And then someone makes a list presenting all the statements in which people said the car was other than blue, and makes the argument the car was really green--even though the most credible early witnesses now say they think it was blue, and most of the recently tracked down witnesses said it was red. 

In short, people can't have it both ways. They can't say we know the autopsy photos and Z-film are fake because the witnesses and then disregard the witnesses and claim there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head between the ears. 

It's disingenuous and deceptive. 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Matthew Koch]

On 12/4/2022 at 12:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

It's embarrassing as heck. It's like Catholics who still worship the Shroud of Turin. It needs to stop.

The Shroud of Turin and the Miracle of Our Lady Guadalupe are real relics. It's kinda pathetic that you make ad hominem against christianity on the forum 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Nearly ALL early statements of the Parkland doctors DISAGREE with the back-of-head photo.

Yes, ...

 

Wow, really? You agree with what I said?

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

...and nearly ALL statements of the Parkland doctors disagree with the McClelland drawing.

 

Upon reading all the early Parkland descriptions of the wound and averaging them in my mind, that's pretty close to what I imagined. I'd move it a little to the right and up a touch. (But no, not up to the top of the head!)

(I think that those who saw a smaller hole did so because when they saw it with the scalp flaps in the closed position.)

I don't see how you can possibly believe that the Parkland witnesses described a the wound much different than that. Unless you're talking about after some changed their descriptions to more closely match the HSCA version of the wound.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So why, Sandy, have so many of the most prominent CTs held that drawing up as being representative of Kennedy's "actual" wound?

 

Because it's pretty close to what the Parkland doctors said at first.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Only a close examination--an actual examination--of the witness statements over the years suggests a wound about half-way between where it is in the McClelland drawing and where it is in the autopsy photos and x-rays.

 

Well, there's your problem. You haven't taken into account the fact that some of the doctors changed their minds when they discovered that their locations contradicted the official location.

You really should consider only early testimony, whenever possible.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, one can take from this that the photos are fake, etc, but one can't do so, IMO, without also acknowledging virtually every prominent CT has incorrectly placed the wound at the center of the back of the head between the ears. 

 

Center of the head is clearly wrong. The wound was mostly on the right side.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Here's an analogy. 30 people witness a car accident. A hit and run. The police take statements from a few of them. And they mostly say the car was green. Then the police make an arrest, of a man who was driving a blue car. Years pass. A book comes out saying the car wasn't blue, it was green. And this leads to more witnesses being tracked down, who say the car wasn't blue, it was red. And some of the original witnesses issue a statement saying "Yeah. we were probably wrong--we said it was green but we now believe it was blue." And this leads to mucho speculation they were pressured into changing their stories, etc. And then someone makes a list presenting all the statements in which people said the car was other than blue, and makes the argument the car was really green--even though the most credible early witnesses now say they think it was blue, and most of the recently tracked down witnesses said it was red.

 

Ignore the later statements.

The car was green and the police arrested the wrong person.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In short, people can't have it both ways. They can't say we know the autopsy photos and Z-film are fake because the witnesses and then disregard the witnesses and claim there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head between the ears. 

It's disingenuous and deceptive. 

 

Nearly all of the Parkland witnesses said early on that the wound was large, on the back of the head on the right side. It consisted of both occipital and parietal bone. So that is where the wound was.

The back-of-head autopsy photo doesn't show that wound, therefore it is altered or fake. The Z film doesn't show that wound, therefore it is altered.

Some of the Parkland witnesses changed their minds when they learned that the official wound location didn't match the official (altered) location. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) affect our analysis because we  consider only the best evidence, which in the case of witnesses are their early testimonies.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

The Shroud of Turin and the Miracle of Our Lady Guadalupe are real relics. It's kinda pathetic that you make ad hominem against christianity on the forum 

Yes, Pat Speer's scientific ignorance is on full display here, Mathew.

Did you ever visit physicist John Jackson at his Shroud of Turin Research Center in Colorado Springs?

Interesting man.  Most people know very little about the remarkable scientific phenomenology of the Shroud.

Jackson led the STURP group of scientists who first analyzed the Shroud in 1978.

 

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Wow, really? You agree with what I said?

 

 

Upon reading all the early Parkland descriptions of the wound and averaging them in my mind, that's pretty close to what I imagined. I'd move it a little to the right and up a touch. (But no, not up to the top of the head!)

(I think that those who saw a smaller hole did so because when they saw it with the scalp flaps in the closed position.)

I don't see how you can possibly believe that the Parkland witnesses described a the wound much different than that. Unless you're talking about after some changed their descriptions to more closely match the HSCA version of the wound.

 

 

Because it's pretty close to what the Parkland doctors said at first.

 

 

Well, there's your problem. You haven't taken into account the fact that some of the doctors changed their minds when they discovered that their locations contradicted the official location.

You really should consider only early testimony, whenever possible.

 

 

Center of the head is clearly wrong. The wound was mostly on the right side.

 

 

Ignore the later statements.

The car was green and the police arrested the wrong person.

 

 

Nearly all of the Parkland witnesses said early on that the wound was large, on the back of the head on the right side. It consisted of both occipital and parietal bone. So that is where the wound was.

The back-of-head autopsy photo doesn't show that wound, therefore it is altered or fake. The Z film doesn't show that wound, therefore it is altered.

Some of the Parkland witnesses changed their minds when they learned that the official wound location didn't match the official (altered) location. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) affect our analysis because we  consider only the best evidence, which in the case of witnesses are their early testimonies.

 

So you agree then that McClelland should not be counted among the "best" witnesses, because his initial report said the wound was of the left temple. 

And you believe instead that we should accept the initial accounts of the other doctors, even though they later 1) admitted they were wrong, or 2) claimed they really didn't get much of a look, and shouldn't have said anything, or 3) refused to say anything encouraging to conspiracy theorists, and instead embraced single-assassin theorist John Lattimer. 

 

This is the ultimate in sloppy thinking, IMO. I mean, IF Howard Brennan had decided to withdraw his ID of Oswald after considering all the facts of the case, you'd have embraced him, and considered him an important witness. But here is the reverse. Someone says something you WANT to hear, then thinks better of it, but you won't accept their reversal because gol' darn it, YOU want to hear it. 

Do you see what I'm getting at? You can't say you support the witnesses or base your conclusions on the witnesses when you only believe a small part of what they've said, and consider the rest to be lies. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

The Shroud of Turin and the Miracle of Our Lady Guadalupe are real relics. It's kinda pathetic that you make ad hominem against christianity on the forum 

It's not an ad hominem against Christianity, for crying out loud. The Catholic Church tested the shroud and discovered it was created in the Middle Ages, right? So it wasn't the shroud in which Jesus was buried, right? 

And besides, most of the Christians I've known would not consider Catholic relics, whether it be the shroud or the bones of Santa Claus, worthy of worship. They consider them superstitious nonsense, and more in line with voodoo than true Christianity. 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So you agree then that McClelland should not be counted among the "best" witnesses, because his initial report said the wound was of the left temple. 

 

McClelland is one of the best witnesses given that he had an excellent view of the gaping wound and his testimony never wavered on it. His report of an entrance wound on the left temple should be seriously considered, especially since two other witnesses said they saw a small wound there.

On the other hand, it could have been a spot of dried blood or something of that nature.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And you believe instead that we should accept the initial accounts of the other doctors, even though they later 1) admitted they were wrong, or 2) claimed they really didn't get much of a look, and shouldn't have said anything, or 3) refused to say anything encouraging to conspiracy theorists, and instead embraced single-assassin theorist John Lattimer. 

 

Generally speaking, yes. (After deleting the work "instead" from your sentence.)

I would throw out outliers, like Giesecke, and those who had a poor view.

For any who decided later on they didn't have a good view, I might keep ones who I felt were caving to pressure.

 

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

This is the ultimate in sloppy thinking, IMO. I mean, IF Howard Brennan had decided to withdraw his ID of Oswald after considering all the facts of the case, you'd have embraced him, and considered him an important witness.

 

I never told you what I'd do if there was only one or two witnesses.

 

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But here is the reverse. Someone says something you WANT to hear, then thinks better of it, but you won't accept their reversal because gol' darn it, YOU want to hear it. 

 

It depends on why they reversed their testimony.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

McClelland is one of the best witnesses given that he had an excellent view of the gaping wound and his testimony never wavered on it. His report of an entrance wound on the left temple should be seriously considered, especially since two other witnesses said they saw a small wound there.

On the other hand, it could have been a spot of dried blood or something of that nature.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, yes. (After deleting the work "instead" from your sentence.)

I would throw out outliers, like Giesecke, and those who had a poor view.

For any who decided later on they didn't have a good view, I might keep ones who I felt were caving to pressure.

 

 

I never told you what I'd do if there was only one or two witnesses.

 

 

It depends on why they reversed their testimony.

 

Nice dodge. McClelland did not say there was an entrance wound on the left temple (which you can presume led to an exit on the back of the head), he said the wound was of the left temple, period. 

IF he thought there was an entrance wound on the left temple, because he misunderstood Jenkins or whatever, that led to the large defect, he should have said something about there being a GIGANTIC wound on the back of the head. As he didn't, then, it becomes quite clear he thought the wound he saw was by the temple. 

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And besides, most of the Christians I've known would not consider Catholic relics, whether it be the shroud or the bones of Santa Claus, worthy of worship. They consider them superstitious nonsense, and more in line with voodoo than true Christianity. 

 

You're mocking Catholics... do you think they have the bones of Santa Claus? Catholics believe their relics are authentic.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Nice dodge. McClelland did not say there was an entrance wound on the left temple (which you can presume led to an exit on the back of the head), he said the wound was of the left temple, period. 

 

What dodge?

What makes you think McClelland didn't call it an entrance wound?

 

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

IF he thought there was an entrance wound on the left temple, because he misunderstood Jenkins or whatever, that led to the large defect, he should have said something about there being a GIGANTIC wound on the back of the head. As he didn't, then, it becomes quite clear he thought the wound he saw was by the temple. 

 

McClelland did so say there was a large wound on the back of the head. He said it was "extremely blasted" and that he could see that about a third of the brain was gone.