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

[Pat Speer]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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

 

Yes, they have the bones of Santa Claus. St. Nicholas. They sent slivers of his bones to all the Churches named in his honor, including the Greek Orthodox Church in my old neighborhood. I used to go in there during the annual Greek festival to pay my respects by the Silver container in which his bone sliver was kept. 

[Pat Speer]

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What dodge?

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

 

 

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.

 

 

McClelland made no mention of a wound on the back of the head for months and months after the shooting. His earliest report said the wound was of the left temple, and when he spoke to Richard Dudman he said there was nothing about the wound to indicate the shot came from the front. 

He changed his testimony to match the reports of his fellow doctors. 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour 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. 

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. 

Shires and/or Price were probably responsible for the early "left temple" newspaper reports. Shires/Price had access to the Parkland reports, but did not actually see the body.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Shires and/or Price were probably responsible for the early "left temple" newspaper reports. Shires/Price has access to the Parkland reports, but did not actually see the body.

It's in McClellland's own report. 

 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.

Asst. Prof. of Surgery

Southwestern Med.

School of Univ of Tex.

Dallas, Texas

 

[Micah Mileto]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's in McClellland's own report. 

 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.

Asst. Prof. of Surgery

Southwestern Med.

School of Univ of Tex.

Dallas, Texas

 

Yes, but there were early newspaper reports of a wound in the left temple, and those did not necessarily have to come from McClelland/Perry.

The earliest known public reference to a wound in Kennedy’s back may have been the 11/27/1963 article in the Boston Globe, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black. The article described it’s source of information as “an unofficial but authoritative source”… “This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets. It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken”. It read “...the sniper, firing from above and behind the President, first hit the President on the right side of the back part of his neck. This bullet passed through the windpipe and came out at the throat, just below his Adam's apple, making the large wound which doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital noted. This wound might not have been fatal, considering the quick medical attention which the President received”. The throat wound is oddly referred to as “large” instead of small. The wounding of the head was described with a reference to a wound in the left temple - “When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound”... “This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this” (Link).

The 11/27/1963 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, attempted to summarize the available information on the shooting. It described the published frames from the Zapruder film, and the body movements of Kennedy and Connolly shown. Despite this, Kennedy’s throat wound was still given a description that sounds like a bullet entry - “The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course. "If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound”. In describing the wounding of the head, it says “A second blast from the high-powered rifle ripped into the right rear of his head at about a 4 o'clock position”. There is also another strange reference to the “left temple” information - “Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital”… “One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple”. Dr. Shires was not reportedly there to see Kennedy’s body. The article points out that frames from the Zapruder film show Kennedy’s reactions before the head shot, adding that “They serve to deny a rumor that the President may have sustained the throat wound from a shot fired at ground level”. The possibility was also raised of bullets lodged in Kennedy’s body, and that “they would have been removed at an autopsy in the Bethesda Naval Hospital…”. Connally’s wounds were still described as coming from the rear - “...Gov. John Connally had turned to see what happened. A third shot rang out. It struck the governor in the back. The bullet was deflected to his right wrist and lodged in his left thigh…” (Link [link 2] [link 3] [link 4] [link 5]).

 

David Lifton made various comments on educationforum.ipbhost.com between 2012-2022, about a time in March 1978 when he made contact with journalist Bill Burrus, author of the 12/12/1963 article from the Dallas Times Herald KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK, one of the first stories that leaked the existence of the back wound. Lifton said that he spoke to Burrus over the phone and also once in person at a bar in Manhattan, New York. According to Lifton, the meeting at the bar was multiple hours, and it was recorded on tape. As Burrus reportedly explained, an authoritative source called him on the phone and spoke with him multiple times on the night of 12/11/1963, identified themselves, and informed him about the back wound, and the autopsy’s official conclusion of a bullet entering the back and exiting the throat. Lifton said that Burrus refused to directly give him name the source, but revealed to him that the Herald article’s dateline “Bethesda, Maryland” was a false cover to hide the true source of the information (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 258041; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 282455; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, topic 22325; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 310219; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 343430). Lifton’s 1980 book Best Evidence did include a reference to a March 1978 interview with Burrus, as well as a note which read “In 1978 I learned that Burrus’ information indeed came from the navy autopsy report, but was not given to him by a Bethesda pathologist” (Best Evidence by David Lifton, 1980, Part II: A New Hypothesis, Chapter 7: Breakthrough, Distinguishing the FBI and Navy Versions). Lifton also wrote on the Education Forum that Burrus may have tried dropping hints about the caller’s identity. In 2012, Lifton said of the alleged caller’s identity, responding to another comment claiming that Burrus’s source must have been Dr. Robert McClelland, “Pat, Where do you get the idea that Dr. McClelland was Burrus' source? I interviewed Burrus at length--in person, in New York City--in 1977 or 1978. It was all tape recorded and I spent an hour or more with him, and then spent hours transcribing it Let me assure you that Dr. McClelland was NOT Burrus' source. (Where are you getting that idea from??) Furthermore, the person who was Burrus' source --and I am doing this from memory, today, in 2012--was providing Burrus with authoritative information about the Bethesda autopsy conclusion. The source was either Dr. Clark or, more likely, Dr. Tom Shires. One or the other, and I have a sheaf full of notes about this, and about the identity of a third party who (I learned, from Burrus) knew who the source was, and who I was attempting to contact. (But there were 100 other things going on at the time, and I never did.)” (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 258041), and in 2022 Lifton commented “...As I later determined, the caller was Dr, Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, and the Dallas physician who pronounced Kennedy dead. Burrus's story is important because it permitted me to identify the Dallas doctor who was involved in behind the scene machinations to plant a story about the Bethesda autopsy results-- attempting to plant a story strongly stated Kennedy was shot from behind, and implying the source was some Navy official in Washington, when the source was himself”... “Burrus was the science writer for the Dallas Times-Herald, and when the caller identified himself, Burrus was speechless. Dr. Clark was calling to tell him "the truth" about the Dallas autopsy results-- and specifically, the trajectory of the shots that struck JFK. There could be no hotter news story at the time, but there was an important condition -- Burrus must not ever reveal the source. Burrus was being provided information that some "higher authority" clearly wanted published as a news story as soon as possible. Each detail was important; the language had to be precise; with Burrus calling back his source more than once on that evening to verify this or that point; and to make sure that he "got it right."...” (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 310219).

Edited December 6, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

 

edited

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Yes, but there were early newspaper reports of a wound in the left temple, and those did not necessarily have to come from McClelland/Perry.

The earliest known public reference to a wound in Kennedy’s back may have been the 11/27/1963 article in the Boston Globe, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black. The article described it’s source of information as “an unofficial but authoritative source”… “This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets. It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken”. It read “...the sniper, firing from above and behind the President, first hit the President on the right side of the back part of his neck. This bullet passed through the windpipe and came out at the throat, just below his Adam's apple, making the large wound which doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital noted. This wound might not have been fatal, considering the quick medical attention which the President received”. The throat wound is oddly referred to as “large” instead of small. The wounding of the head was described with a reference to a wound in the left temple - “When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound”... “This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this” (Link).

The 11/27/1963 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, attempted to summarize the available information on the shooting. It described the published frames from the Zapruder film, and the body movements of Kennedy and Connolly shown. Despite this, Kennedy’s throat wound was still given a description that sounds like a bullet entry - “The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course. "If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound”. In describing the wounding of the head, it says “A second blast from the high-powered rifle ripped into the right rear of his head at about a 4 o'clock position”. There is also another strange reference to the “left temple” information - “Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital”… “One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple”. Dr. Shires was not reportedly there to see Kennedy’s body. The article points out that frames from the Zapruder film show Kennedy’s reactions before the head shot, adding that “They serve to deny a rumor that the President may have sustained the throat wound from a shot fired at ground level”. The possibility was also raised of bullets lodged in Kennedy’s body, and that “they would have been removed at an autopsy in the Bethesda Naval Hospital…”. Connally’s wounds were still described as coming from the rear - “...Gov. John Connally had turned to see what happened. A third shot rang out. It struck the governor in the back. The bullet was deflected to his right wrist and lodged in his left thigh…” (Link [link 2] [link 3] [link 4] [link 5]).

 

David Lifton made various comments on educationforum.ipbhost.com between 2012-2022, about a time in March 1978 when he made contact with journalist Bill Burrus, author of the 12/12/1963 article from the Dallas Times Herald KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK, one of the first stories that leaked the existence of the back wound. Lifton said that he spoke to Burrus over the phone and also once in person at a bar in Manhattan, New York. According to Lifton, the meeting at the bar was multiple hours, and it was recorded on tape. As Burrus reportedly explained, an authoritative source called him on the phone and spoke with him multiple times on the night of 12/11/1963, identified themselves, and informed him about the back wound, and the autopsy’s official conclusion of a bullet entering the back and exiting the throat. Lifton said that Burrus refused to directly give him name the source, but revealed to him that the Herald article’s dateline “Bethesda, Maryland” was a false cover to hide the true source of the information (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 258041; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 282455; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, topic 22325; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 310219; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 343430). Lifton’s 1980 book Best Evidence did include a reference to a March 1978 interview with Burrus, as well as a note which read “In 1978 I learned that Burrus’ information indeed came from the navy autopsy report, but was not given to him by a Bethesda pathologist” (Best Evidence by David Lifton, 1980, Part II: A New Hypothesis, Chapter 7: Breakthrough, Distinguishing the FBI and Navy Versions). Lifton also wrote on the Education Forum that Burrus may have tried dropping hints about the caller’s identity. In 2012, Lifton said of the alleged caller’s identity, responding to another comment claiming that Burrus’s source must have been Dr. Robert McClelland, “Pat, Where do you get the idea that Dr. McClelland was Burrus' source? I interviewed Burrus at length--in person, in New York City--in 1977 or 1978. It was all tape recorded and I spent an hour or more with him, and then spent hours transcribing it Let me assure you that Dr. McClelland was NOT Burrus' source. (Where are you getting that idea from??) Furthermore, the person who was Burrus' source --and I am doing this from memory, today, in 2012--was providing Burrus with authoritative information about the Bethesda autopsy conclusion. The source was either Dr. Clark or, more likely, Dr. Tom Shires. One or the other, and I have a sheaf full of notes about this, and about the identity of a third party who (I learned, from Burrus) knew who the source was, and who I was attempting to contact. (But there were 100 other things going on at the time, and I never did.)” (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 258041), and in 2022 Lifton commented “...As I later determined, the caller was Dr, Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, and the Dallas physician who pronounced Kennedy dead. Burrus's story is important because it permitted me to identify the Dallas doctor who was involved in behind the scene machinations to plant a story about the Bethesda autopsy results-- attempting to plant a story strongly stated Kennedy was shot from behind, and implying the source was some Navy official in Washington, when the source was himself”... “Burrus was the science writer for the Dallas Times-Herald, and when the caller identified himself, Burrus was speechless. Dr. Clark was calling to tell him "the truth" about the Dallas autopsy results-- and specifically, the trajectory of the shots that struck JFK. There could be no hotter news story at the time, but there was an important condition -- Burrus must not ever reveal the source. Burrus was being provided information that some "higher authority" clearly wanted published as a news story as soon as possible. Each detail was important; the language had to be precise; with Burrus calling back his source more than once on that evening to verify this or that point; and to make sure that he "got it right."...” (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 310219).

McClelland wrote his report on the 22nd. Someone reading his report probably told his conclusions to the media.

OR

The reporter was watching TV on the 22nd, and saw Bill Newman point to his left temple when he said Kennedy was hit in the temple. (He was holding his kid in his right hand, and was just pointing to A temple, not THE temple.)

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

McClelland made no mention of a wound on the back of the head for months and months after the shooting.

 

Well yeah... because that is when he testified for the WC. LOL. At which time he described the large wound on the back of JFK's head.

 

44 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

His earliest report said the wound was of the left temple, ...

 

In his 11/22/63 report McClelland said, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." He obviously meant that the bullet hit him in the left temple.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Just noting...

Someone might say JFK was shot in the left temple...meaning JFK's left temple, as seen from the front.

That is, if you have a front-face portrait of JFK, you point to the left side of his head (in the photo), to indicate JFK's right temple.

You might even call it "JFK's left temple." 

 

[Chris Bristow]

Dr McClelland said it was "a wound of the left temple". That easily could be a simple mistake. But I wonder if a doctor is going to describe what killed  a person would he talk about the entry wound or the exit wound? Seems when I hear about someone getting shot they describe where the entry wound was.  But this issue of why he said "left temple" requires far too much speculation to be of any real value.

 I think most people understand that McClelland never agreed with the autopsy photos regarding the issue of that big hole in the back of his head. It has been  misrepresented by deceptive sound bites from that Nova documentary and  some people believe it. He didn't even agree that the back of the head photo wasn't a forgery, he simply theorized that they may have pulled the skin up over the wound.

The most compelling argument from Parkland is obviously the sheer number of people who reported the wound in the rear. The second compelling Factor is that the skeptics have to Cobble together a dozen different reasons to explain the consistency of those testimonies. Add a lot of speculation about people's thoughts and motivations and some appeal to Authority and they still have a very flimsy case.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

On 12/3/2022 at 7:28 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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!)

 

 

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.

 

 haven't forgotten this I'll get back to you in a day or two.

[Matthew Koch]

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

 

William I hadn't heard of John Jackson I will check him out. I looked into the shroud acouple of years ago I was amazed that the advancements in technology actually pointed toward the shroud not being man mad. 

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Dr McClelland said it was "a wound of the left temple". That easily could be a simple mistake. But I wonder if a doctor is going to describe what killed  a person would he talk about the entry wound or the exit wound? Seems when I hear about someone getting shot they describe where the entry wound was.  But this issue of why he said "left temple" requires far too much speculation to be of any real value.

 I think most people understand that McClelland never agreed with the autopsy photos regarding the issue of that big hole in the back of his head. It has been  misrepresented by deceptive sound bites from that Nova documentary and  some people believe it. He didn't even agree that the back of the head photo wasn't a forgery, he simply theorized that they may have pulled the skin up over the wound.

The most compelling argument from Parkland is obviously the sheer number of people who reported the wound in the rear. The second compelling Factor is that the skeptics have to Cobble together a dozen different reasons to explain the consistency of those testimonies. Add a lot of speculation about people's thoughts and motivations and some appeal to Authority and they still have a very flimsy case.

Only one head wound was noticed at Parkland. That the wound was on the temple was claimed on TV three times before any of the doctors had written their reports. McClelland's report is not an outlier, then, in that he was actually the fourth source of the day to indicate the wound was on the temple. In his report he mentions a massive wound and then says the cause of death was a wound of the left temple. No mention of entrance or exit. 

Is it possible he meant that there was an entrance wound on the left temple and an exit on the back of the head? Sure. But that would mark him as an idiot, or a non-idiot guilty of an enormous blunder. Only an idiot or one guilty of such a blunder would write that the cause of death was a wound he did not see, and was not inspected, and fail to mention that "Oh yeah, there was a giant gaping wound on the back of the head!" 

It's worth noting, moreover, that the reports of emergency room doctors are just formalities, and are not studied or even considered by coroners or forensic pathologists when coming to their conclusions. Why? Well, it goes back to why forensic pathologists exist to begin with. They exist because the reports of emergency room doctors as to cause of death etc are notoriously inaccurate. It appears that people tasked with keeping someone alive are not particularly good at remembering the details of that person's injuries, and that someone else is needed to set the record straight. In the medical world, moreover, there is a rift, where doctors tasked with saving lives look down upon those tasked with dissecting corpses. That those dissecting corpses are given the ultimate authority to over-rule the emergency room docs as to cause of death, location of the wounds, etc, probably only adds to this rift. No one likes to be second-guessed, and when you are second-guessed by those who were not there, and those whom you think are not as skilled as you in saving lives, well, that's a burn. 

I have read several books which discuss this rift. And I think this explains Dr. Clark's reluctance to discuss the case after his WC testimony. He knew that forensic pathologists have the last word, and didn't want to be seen as someone disrespecting the order of things. He was like Al Gore, in a way. He felt he was correct, but knew that feeling would only lead to trouble, professionally and personally. So he sucked it up, the way doctors are supposed to do. 

I mean, how often do cops come forward and say their fellow cop shot without a warning, or should have waited a bit longer before shooting? Almost never. It's the same with doctors. Emergency room doctors don't publicly second-guess autopsy protocols. It just isn't done. 

And studies have shown why. A study was performed in which gunshot wounds of entrance and exit as determined at autopsy were compared to how these wounds were described in the reports of emergency room doctors. This study found that the ER doctors were routinely incorrect and that in cases where there were multiple entrances and exits the ER doctors shouldn't have written anything, as their descriptions were no better than guesses. Dr. Perry clearly knew this. That is why he stressed till his death that the throat wound looked like an entrance, but wouldn't swear it was an entrance.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well yeah... because that is when he testified for the WC. LOL. At which time he described the large wound on the back of JFK's head.

 

 

In his 11/22/63 report McClelland said, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." He obviously meant that the bullet hit him in the left temple.

 

Only one wound was noticed at Parkland. it follows that he was describing that wound.

[Matthew Koch]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

On November 25th you said this about John McAddams: "Absolutely. I spent a lot of time on his newsgroup and got to know John a bit. He saw discussion of the assassination as an  avenue through which he could assault and insult liberals. He wasn't interested in truth as much as he was interested in attacking the libs, who he saw as morally weak, and intellectually compromised socialist ninnies. He was not a Catholic. But he was a missionary. "

Then it was pointed out that you were in error that John was not Catholic. You said: Thanks for the correction. I got mixed up because Marquette is Catholic. But I knew John was Protestant. He was an aficionado of Christian a cappella music. Very Protestant. 

 

You contradict yourself alot in your posts, I am going to start pointing it out more because you are a biased researcher who doesn't believe he's biased. 

It's not an ad hominem against Christianity. Oh Please Pat, I know you are biased, but you are smart enough to know what a presupposition is. You are referencing the fedora atheist presupposition that Christianity is not true. You reenforce that presupposition with the Voodoo reference. 

Next you double down with this curious statement: And besides, most of the Christians I've known would not consider Catholic relics...  Imagine if you said Sunni Muslims don't consider S h I t e  Relics, because you basically did notice the logic discontinuity?

I'll admit my bias. I see you as an 'Old Goat' that likes to inflate his ego by showing he knows more than new researchers and isn't interested in the truth just proving he knows more than others. That's why you say look at my website and wouldn't help the people with the temple reference on a document that is on the left side, and when there is someone like McClellen you start swinging on the mental gymnastics monkey bars by saying his testimony isn't valid or is later made up. Because you've got a subterfuge gotcha game going that you think is clever.. but it really isn't. 

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Matthew Koch
Changed xxxx censorship to read S h i t e in reference to the muslim sec