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

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

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 XXXXX 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. 

 

You know nothing about me. I am in many ways still the newbie bringing fresh ideas to this forum while arguing against stuff that should have been tossed decades ago. 

As far as Christianity... I am not a Christian. I am not a believer. But I do not have a bias against those who do believe...in Christianity. Roman Catholicism is another story. It is, in the eyes of many if not most American Christians, a distortion of Christianity, incorporating elements of paganism, etc.

It has been a haven for scoundrels, for decades, if not centuries. I mean, it's hard to get over that whole Inquisition thing, and that whole rubbing up against Hitler thing. 

Now, that said, I find some Catholic Churches insanely beautiful, and find some Renaissance-era Christian-themed art inspiring. And, yes, I applaud the works of charities of all stripes and denominations. So I am not one to talk of the Church as a great evil (a la Tony Alamo, who papered the parking lots of my youth with papers denouncing the Virgin Mary as the Whore of Babylon). I see it as yet another flawed institution, kinda like the Republican Party. Reform it. Don't destroy it.

P.S. You know why it's called the Renaissance, right? It's because the Church, which celebrates the return of Jesus from the dead, killed scientific and artistic progress in its tracks, once it gained control of Western Society. Pretty much stopped it dead. The Renaissance was the re-birth of science and art. It got moving not because the Church changed its ways, but because an emerging class of businessmen embraced science as a way of getting ahead, and embraced art as a way of immortalizing themselves (as opposed to Biblical characters) in paintings and sculptures. 

So...yikes...Capitalsim saved western society from...the Church. 

P.P.S. Pope Francis is kinda cool. 

 

Let this be my final words about religion, at least until the next time I run into John Newman at a bar and ask him about the apocrypha. 

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Matthew Koch]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You know nothing about me. I am in many ways still the newbie bringing fresh ideas to this forum while arguing against stuff that should have been tossed decades ago. 

As far as Christianity... I am not a Christian. I am not a believer. But I do not have a bias against those who do believe...in Christianity. Roman Catholicism is another story. It is, in the eyes of many if not most American Christians, a distortion of Christianity, incorporating elements of paganism, etc.

It has been a haven for scoundrels, for decades, if not centuries. I mean, it's hard to get over that whole Inquisition thing, and that whole rubbing up against Hitler thing. 

Now, that said, I find some Catholic Churches insanely beautiful, and find some Renaissance-era Christian-themed art inspiring. And, yes, I applaud the works of charities of all stripes and denominations. So I am not one to talk of the Church as a great evil (a la Tony Alamo, who papered the parking lots of my youth with papers denouncing the Virgin Mary as the Whore of Babylon). I see it as yet another flawed institution, kinda like the Republican Party. Reform it. Don't destroy it.

P.S. Pope Francis is kinda cool. 

 

"As far as Christianity... I am not a Christian. I am not a believer. But I do not have a bias against those who do believe...in Christianity. Roman Catholicism is another story."  Thanks for admitting you are biased. 

Pope Francis is kinda cool! No, Arch Biship Viganó is, but you are to ignorant to know that!

I've got you pegged. It's funny how much bias was in that response while claiming to be unbiased. You like Francis because he commits heresy, and the Church being infiltrated by Freemasons and Intelligence (like David Ferrie) agents goes way over your head, maybe educate yourself because your Hitler Jesuit insinuation shows just how ignorant your really are!  https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Plot-Destroy-Church-Within/dp/1622828461

[W. Niederhut]

11 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. 

       Well, Pat, I shouldn't hijack this thread to discuss the scientific phenomenology of the Shroud of Turin, but there is far, far more to the scientific story than you imagine-- including the issue of the carbon-dating, which has been widely misinterpreted by the mainstream media and the general public.  There are a number of significant problems with the carbon-dating of the Shroud, including the fact that the Shroud was burned in a 16th century fire, and patched with fabric at the time.

       More significantly, people who have studied physics and human anatomy will recognize that the image on the Shroud is an exact micro- and macro-anatomical reverse, 3-D, radiographic image of a crucified man.  No artist could have rendered such anatomic exactitude in a reverse, 3-D image.  Nor could any artist have "forged" the micro-anatomical details that are scarcely visible to the naked eye-- including the back wounds from a three-pronged Roman flagrum.

      It was not painted, but "burned" onto the 1st century herring-bone fabric, causing a uniform discoloration of the micro-fibrils of the cloth.  Forensic pollen analysis has shown pollen from the Jerusalem area, Syria, and Eastern Mediterranean, consistent with the history of the Shroud being stolen by Frankish Crusaders from the Blachernae Church at the Phanar during the sack of Constantinople in 1204 A.D.

     Facial blood stains on the Shroud are also an exact match with the facial blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been enshrined in a reliquary in Oviedo Spain since the early 7th century.

    So, no, the Shroud is not a "forgery" of any kind, not is it Medieval in origin.

    Former Air Force Academy physicist John Jackson has demonstrated quite convincingly that the anatomic image on the Shroud could only have been imprinted on the cloth by some unusual type of radiation emanating from the body of a crucified man.

(PDF) John P. Jackson and the Shroud of Turin Research Project | Joe Marino - Academia.edu

New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ (usatoday.com)

New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ (usatoday.com)

 

      

Edited December 6, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

You guys STOP ARGUING!    I think I can put an end to all this acrimony! And this is all science!

 

I've got some great news!, They got some of Jesus's DNA from the Shroud of Turin

And guess what? It's just like we knew! They tested and found out Jesus is the Son of God!

Now all those religions who were saying it was unfair that we invoked our  prophet as the "Son of God"

Can eat it!  We got bragging rights again!---isn't that sweet!

 

But as George Bush Sr.said  after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,  "Don't wanna  gloat!"

We don't want to start up a Holy War!

So be cool about it!

 

But I know Chris B. and Matthew are big Jordan Peterson fans, so Spread the Word to Jordan!

 

 

Tough luck Pat! But that's what you get for taking on the renown authors of JFKA and as it turns out, God himself!

But we'll pray for you.

[Bob Ness]

Here we go again. Newbee member derailing the thread and off we go. This is why I get frustrated in this forum. The shroud of Turin has exactly what to do with the kinetic energy of a bullet?

Not long ago I slammed some new posters and no doubt was thought of as piling on ad hominem attacks on people who were basically here to start flame wars. Our overworked mods need help from longer term members to keep this stuff down to a minimum.

I don't care about your opinions on CV 19, Trump, republicans, democrats, Biden or whatever. I've been guilty at times myself. 

Pat's ill-advised remark can be addressed and dispensed with instead of this ridiculous back and forth on a post that is about something not only entirely different, but so far away from the "Shroud" as to be on another planet.

Please.

[Matthew Koch]

21 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Here we go again. Newbee member derailing the thread and off we go. This is why I get frustrated in this forum. The shroud of Turin has exactly what to do with the kinetic energy of a bullet?

Not long ago I slammed some new posters and no doubt was thought of as piling on ad hominem attacks on people who were basically here to start flame wars. Our overworked mods need help from longer term members to keep this stuff down to a minimum.

I don't care about your opinions on CV 19, Trump, republicans, democrats, Biden or whatever. I've been guilty at times myself. 

Pat's ill-advised remark can be addressed and dispensed with instead of this ridiculous back and forth on a post that is about something not only entirely different, but so far away from the "Shroud" as to be on another planet.

Please.

Bob, it was an Old Forum member that referenced the shroud, and the thread has not been about the kinetic energy of a bullet for a while, had you been reading the thread and not just the christian part, I think you would know that, and that a "Newbie" forum member had been involved in the thread, where as the person complaining wasn't. I fully agree with your statement: I don't care about your opinions on CV 19, Trump, republicans, democrats, Biden or whatever. I've been guilty at times myself. But Bob, I would add  that instead of just complaining. Complain about the slide in the thread and make a comment that gets us back on track. If people continue to not follow the spirit of the thread, then message a mod. Personally, I think Pat attacking Catholicism like he is shows his bias which was the point of the "derailment" and Pat further showed to not be very knowledgeable on the subject.. Which, I think is relevant. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

That's why you say look at my website and wouldn't help the people with the temple reference on a document 

 

Huh ?   Pat happens to be one of those guys that will really make some time to give detailed answers to questions.  Also on things that are not on his website.  And if he is giving an additional reference to his website it is simply a plus. 

 

[Guest]

On the specific issue, Pat has replied to that numerous times on this forum (and on others, during conferences, meetings, the works....).   In plus, he has explained his views in great detail on his website.

So to me it's only normal he make a reference to that.  

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

This is such bunk. I hope that it doesn't get discussed any further, and I certainly will not after this comment. I'll simply point out that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is definitive, and has not been refuted. Fanti's method (which you link to) is not scientific, not standard, and not accepted by the larger community. It in fact seems to have been devised just for the express purpose of re-dating the Shroud. 

The premise that the Shroud was created by "unusual type of radiation emanating from the body of a crucified man" is absolutely ridiculous. So if you start with a ridiculous premise, you can try to "scientifically" justify it all that you want. You are still chasing a chimera.

Miles,

    Your post is bunk.  You, obviously, need to do some remedial reading on the subject of the remarkable scientific phenomenology of the Shroud of Turin.  Nor do you understand the perceptual impact of your own positivistic assumptions.

     I should know.  I've been there and done that in my younger years.

     What's interesting about your profound ignorance on this subject is that, in modern culture, we tend to believe that confirmation biases only obtain in the case of religious believers.

     The truth is that atheists and agnostics have their own positivistic a priori beliefs and confirmation biases that may impair their ability to accurately perceive the scientific data.

      You cannot accurately perceive the scientific phenomenology of Shroud because you begin with the assumption that it is bunk-- i.e. that such a radiographic image could not possibly have been imprinted on a Hebrew burial shroud.

      Your perceptual problem is what St. Augustine was getting at when he wrote, in the 4th century, that "sometimes we need to believe in order to see."  In terms of modern cognitive psychological theory, Augustine was correct.

    As for the 1988 carbon-dating, do you know anything about the fabric sample that was used?  (It's not that the C14/C12 ratio wasn't measured accurately in the lab, it's that the sample used for the dating was part of the fabric used during the 16th century repair of the burned Shroud.)

     If the Shroud originated in the 13th century, how could the facial blood stains precisely match those on the Sudarium of Oviedo, brought to Spain in the early 7th century?  Explain your "logic."

    And explain how the anatomically exact, reverse, 3-D image was imprinted on the cloth-- including microscopic details that are invisible to the naked eye.

    Back up your bunk.

    I'm all ears.

Edited December 6, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Matthew Koch]

On 11/29/2022 at 10:50 AM, Pat Speer said:

Nope. The braking was not sudden enough to cause a sudden lunge forward. (Let's not forget that many CTs suspect Greer's involvement because he slowed to a near stop--thus making JFK an easier target--and only took off after the fatal shot was fired...A sudden slam down on the brakes before a jump forward would have, on the other hand, made JFK a more difficult target.) It should also be pointed out, I believe, that the  driver-did-it excuse for Kennedy's movements was a myth originally pushed by the likes of Baden to explain why Kennedy went backwards after he first jolted forward. (He was just sitting there, y' see, and the driver floored it and caused him to fall back in the seat.) It simply isn't true. 

As far as your other point, compare JFK's head to Jackie's. What you might be thinking of is that Tink Thompson (under the influence of David Wimp) came to believe the forward motion of the head was an illusion, caused by the blur in image 313. But that's just desperate, IMO. Compare the back of JFK's head against his shoulder. It's absolutely clear his head goes forward. 

Jean Paul's comment caused me to go find my citation, So I guess the thread is back on topic.. 

The most cogent evidence that the President's head wound was caused by a bullet originating from the front is the backward jut of the head seen in the Zapruder film. Unlike the Hollywood version of shootings, the momentum imparted by a bullet is relatively small compared to an adult body mass and the push to the body is almost imperceptible. In President Kennedy's case, he had been shot through the neck first, inducing a flaccid paralysis such that his head lolled unsupported by the neck muscles. Contrary to the assertions of the government ballistics experts, the rearward velocity of Kennedy's head, 1.6 ft per sec, is commensurate with the velocity expected to be imparted by the momentum of a rifle bullet. The Warren Commission and the news media misled the public about the direction of the President's head movement. The Forensic Pathology Panel invoked a mechanism, the motion of the car, as an explanation for the President's rearward movement, which had been discredited many years previous. The limousine did not accelerate until long after the President was already down in the backseat. On the contrary, dr limousine driver hit the brake a split second before the fatal shot causingedt the Passengers to lurch forward. The President's forward motion was reverse impact causing his head to snap backwards.

A second theory to explain away the head movement invoked a neurogenic surge inducing a muscular convulsion that threw the President's body backwards. In fact "snuff' films show that the heads of victims shot execution-style do sometimes jut back towards the shooter. Muscle spasms or convulsions are common after-effects of penetrating head wounds, but these and another reflex called decerebrate rigidity are delayed in onset. President Kennedy's head started backwards at impact without a delay. –P. 369 Hear No Evil

[Matthew Koch]

13 hours 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

 

More Citation on temple strike on JFK 

 

 

 

The limousine arrives at Parkland Hospital. Secret Service Agents Hill, Kellerman, and Greer observe Kennedy's head wounds. Beginning with the exit wound caused by the shot from the right front, Kellerman: "He had a large wound [diameter of 5 inches] . . . on [the right rear portion of the head]. . . . To the left of the ear . . . and a little high . . ."; Greer: "His head . . [the right rear side] . . . was all blown off"; Hill: "The right rear portion of his head was missing . . . one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." The point of entry by the same shot is also detected. Kellerman: "Entry [hole the size of the little finger] into this man's head was . . . the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear.'"

As the press will soon quote a bystander outside Parkland: "I could see a hole in the President's left [from viewer's perspective] temple and his head and hair were bathed in blood."'

" . . It appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple.' Seth Kantor, a Scripps-Howard reporter, jotted down in his notebook at Parkland hospital the phrase `en­tered . . . right temple. . . .' Only an hour and half after the as­sassination [NBC] reported that 'the President was struck in the right temple by the bullet' . . "' –P.406 Act of Treason. 

 

At Parkland Hospital, Texas State Trooper Hurchel Jacks saw the President's body. He said about the head wound: "It appeared that the bullet had struck above the right ear or near the temple" (XVIII, H-801). If there was a hit on the right side, delivered from the right, then the left side of the head would be the logical place to look for some exit point of

the missile or any part of it

A Left Temporal Wound?

We must examine the eyewitness testimony to determine if there is evidence of any outlet channel on the left portion of the President's

head.

The New York Tunes of November 23, 1963 (page 5, columns 7 and 😎 carried a story entitled "10 Feet from President" This story refers to Norman Similas, 34 years of age, from Willowdale, Toronto, Canada, who was 10 feet from the President when a bullet struck his head. He saw the following:

_{I could see a hole in the President's left temple and his head and hair were bathed in blood.}

A.P. Photographer, James P. Altgens, who took the famous picture of President Kennedy registering his first hit or hits, was on the south side of Elm Street, to the left of the President. He said:

_{There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. (VII, It- 518)}

The fact that the head hit caused particles to fly southward indicates force having been applied from the north. This is evidence of a shot

from the grassy knoll through the right parietal and out the left temporal region. –P.52

 

Officer Martin, therefore, while riding his motorcycle to the left rear of the President was splattered with blood and material from the President's head while riding into a wind. This also supports a shot from the right of the President, through the right side and out the left side of the skull. We will now focus on the testimony of the other policeman, Bobby W. Hargis, who was riding his motorcycle abreast of Officer Martin.

_{Mr. Hargis. I was at the left-hand side of the Presidential limousine.}

_{Mr. Stern. At what part of the President's car?}

_{Mr. Hargis. Well—}

_{Mr. Stern. Front, or rear?}

_{Mr. Hargis. Oh. Rear.}

_{Mr. Stern. Riding next to Mrs. Kennedy?}

_{Mr. Hargis. Right.}

_{Mr. Hargis told of hearing two shots.}

_{Mr. Stern. Did something happen to you personally in con­nection with the shot you have just described?}

_{Mr. Hargis. You mean about the blood hitting me?}

_{Mr. Stern. Yes.}

_{Mr. Hargis. Yes, when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood...(VI, 11-294)}

So Officers Martin and Hargis, riding on the left rear of the Presi­dential limousine, had themselves and their vehicles splattered by blood, brains, and fluids flying from the head of the fatally struck President. It would be surprising indeed if a bullet fired from the rear, impacting on the right rear of the President's head and exiting from the right side of his read, had propelled material to the left and rear of the limousine. –P.54

 

This is strange. Still stranger is the fact that Dr. Marion Jenkins of Parkland Hospital also made the identical report of a left-temporal wound:

_{Dr. Jenkins. I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.}

_{Mr. Specter The autopsy report discloses no such develop­ment, Dr. Jenkins.}

_{Dr. Jenkins. Well, I was feeling for—I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also. (VI, H-4)}

In summary, on the question of ihe possible existence of a left-tem­poral wound, Dr. Jenkins "thought there was a wound there also."

Six people in all thought there was a wound in the left temporal area of the skull. If these six people were mistaken, the Government can prove them in error by producing the X-rays and photographs taken at the autopsy. These six witnesses are backed up by the evidence of the splattering of Officers Martin and Hargis who were to the left and rear of the Presidential limousine. All of the above points directly to a hit from the right and not from the rear of the President. The evidence against the Government theory that the bullet which struck President Kennedy in the head was delivered from the rear is considerable.

Let us now examine the evidence which the Commission offered to support its hypothesis. –P.56

 

Mr. Specter about damage in the right occipital-parietal portion of the 
skull. But what he told did not conform to the tiny, neat, little hole 
which the Government needed to support a hit from the rear. Said Dr.

Akin:

_{The back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance protruding.}

So, off to Dr. Paul Conrad Peters went the hapless Mr. Specter:

_{Dr Peters. I noticed that there was a large defect in. the occiput It seemed to me that in the right occipital-parietal area that there was a large defect There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.}

_{Mr. Specter Did you notice any holes below the occiput, say, in this area below here?}

_{Dr. Peters. No. (VI, H-71)}

Dr. Peters was willing to discuss a large hole in the occipital-parietal area with Mr. Specter. But small holes no.

Dr. Adolph Hartung Giesecke, Jr. was the next doctor to have his memory conjured by the pertinacious Mr. Specter. He told of a "very large cranial wound" on "the left-hand side of the bead." This was abso­lutely of no help to Mr. Specter, who tried again:

_{Mr Specter. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole below the large area of missing skull?}

_{Giesecke. No…(VI, H-74)}

Dr. Jackie Hansen Hunt, the anesthesiologist, did not see the wounds. Nor more useful to the government theory was Dr. Kenneth Everett Salyer:

_{Mr Specter. What did you observe with respect to the head wound?}

_{Dr. Salyer. I came in on the left side of him and noticed that 
his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at 
least from the point of view that I could see him, and other}

_{than that—nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound—cranial wound.}

Registered Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron also failed Mr. Specter:

_{Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what?} 

_{Miss Bowron. The back of his head.}

_{Mr. Specter And what was that condition?}

iss Bowron. Well, it was very bad—you know. Mr. Specter. How many holes did you see?

Miss Bowron. I just saw one large hole,

Mr. Specter Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss Bowron. No, sir. (VI, II-136)

Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry can't help Mr. Specter either:

Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically?

Dr. Perry. I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury to the sight occipi­toparietal area, but I did not do a minute examination of his head.

Mr. Specter. Did you notice a bullet hole below the large avulsed area?

Dr. Perry. No; I did not. (VI, H-11)

Can Dr. William Kemp Clark come to the aid of Mr. Specter? Here is his testimony:            

_{Dr. Clark. 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.}

_{(VI, H-21)}

Mr. Specter _{Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's bead?}

Dr. Clark. _{No, sir; I did not. (VI, H-25)}

Dr. Clark did say, however, that the wound "could have easily been hidden in the blood and hair" (VI, H-25). Mr. Specter went on to Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland. Dr. McClel­land was free in his discussion of a large wound in the skull:

_{Dr McClelland. As I took the position at the head of the table...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, apparently, by the force of the shot 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 some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (VI, I-1-33)}

Well, Mr. Specter was looking for just a little hole in the occiput, and this is what he got.:

_{Mr. Specter. Did you observe any other wound on the back}

_{of the head?}

_{Dr. McClelland No. (VI, H-33)} 

Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter represented another chance for Mr. Spec-

ter.

_{Dr Baxter. The only wound that I actually saw—Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood loss mixed with it and around it.}

_{Mr. Specter. Did you notice any bullet hole below the large opening at the top of the head?}

_{Dr Baxter. No; I personally did not. (VI, 11-41-42)} –P.59-60 False Mystery. 

 

Kellerman is saying two things: That there had to be more than three shots, and that there was a "flurry" of shots. Immediately after this, Arlen Specter goes to work on this testimony to be sure it does not say what was just said, and gets something else. The trouble that Specter has is just about every other witness implies one way or another the things that Kellerman has implied: That there were more shots.

MR. SPECT'ER: The topic we are on now, Mr. Kellerman, is your own

way of relating the description of the wounds, starting with four wounds on President Kennedy. . . .

"I can eclipse an awful lot here and get into the morgue here in Bethesda, because that is where I looked him over. . . . This all tran­spired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size." (Demonstrates)

MR. SPECTER: (Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of five inches.) Would that be approximately correct?

"Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head."

MR. SPECTER: Indicating the rear portion of the head. "Yes."

More to the right side of the head?"

"Right. This was removed," Kellerman replied.

mR. SPECTER: When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?

MR. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.

"All right."

REPRESENTATIVE FORD: Above the ear and back?

KELLERMAN: To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.

MR. SPECTER: When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?

"It was absent when I saw him."

"Proceed."

"Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here." "Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?"

(Did Kellerman say left and not right? We suspect that some of these transcripts were rewritten. Mrs. Kennedy's and Roger Craig's are exam­ples.)

"Right. But it was in the hairline, sir."

"In his hairline?"

"Yes, sir."

"What was the size of the aperture?"

"The little forger, sir."

"Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent?"

"Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below."

"You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half two inches, below."

Here, the opinion of the autopsy doctors is backed up: The entry hole—or at least one of them—is just below the large exit wound. But it isn't in the same place.

The point of this is that Kellerman tells us the entry hole in the head is at "the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear." What we have here is a completely different placement of an entry wound, if "to the right of the ear" means what we might think, that there was a hole in the right temple ^area, where there was some discussion at the autopsy of gray metal on the bone there. It is where a bullet would have hit if it had been fired from the Grassy Knoll. –P. 168-69 High Treason 2.

Another visual Bugliosi uses to endorse his shot from the rear at Z 313 is a still film of Kennedy's head tilting slightly forward at the time the bullet explodes. Bugliosi plays this up quite strongly: for him it proves this shot came from the rear. He makes his discovery of it quite dramatic?' If the reader recalls, this was the Cecil Kirk fallacy we exposed through medical researcher Milicent Cra­nor in Chapter 3. Namely that, according to medical-ballistics experts, with a through and through bullet, whichever direction it enters from is irrelevant. It will be the top of the head that opens widest. This is due CO the phenomenon of cavitation. (Please see the discussion of Kirk in Chapter 3 for a fuller explana­tion.)

Two other things about this photo also escaped Bugliosi. It appears that the front of JFK's head is being impacted at this frame. And it appears to be a lot of damage. And as Doug Horne points out in his book Inside the ARRB, Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home, who helped pick up Kennedy's body from the autopsy room, says he saw a hole in Kennedy's right temple. It was in the hairline, and is actually partly visible in some photos. It was a neat wound and "did not have to be hidden by make-up, and was simply plugged by him with some wax during the reconstruction." Robinson recalled it being about a quarter inch in diameter."

The third argument Bugliosi uses to counter the backward movement of JFK is this: a 6.5 mm Western Cartridge bullet could not have the kind of impacting force to drive JFK backwards as shown in the film. Bugliosi also then asks himself: How does a human body react when being hit by a bullet?” I found this self-query slightly humorous. Bugliosi is in his seventies. So he was alive during the Vietnam War. He apparently forgot one of the most famous images from the Tet offensive. This is the film taken in Saigon during the uprising when an Army of South Vietnam officer summarily executes a suspected Viet Cong guerilla. He fires his pistol into his head at close range. The impacting force drives the victim backward and drops him to the grounde. –P.113 Reclaiming Parkland. 

 

 The HSCA interview with Thomas Robinson of Gawlers Mortuary reads as follows:

Q: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?"

                        

ROBINSON: "Yes."

Q: the hair?"

ROBINSON: "Somewhere around the temple." Q:     "Approximately what size?" 

ROBINSON: "Very small, a quarter of an inch."

Q:        "Quarter of an inch was all the damage?

Had it been closed up by the doctors?"

ROBINSON: "No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax in it"

Q:        "Were there any other wounds on the head

other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?"

ROBINSON: "Thai's all."

Q:        "Did you get a good look at that wound on

the right temple area?"

ROBINSON: "Oh yes, I worked right over for some time." 

Q:        "What did you feel caused that wound?"

ROBINSON: "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of

shrapnel." –P. 275 Hear No Evil. 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Here we go again. Newbee member derailing the thread and off we go. This is why I get frustrated in this forum. The shroud of Turin has exactly what to do with the kinetic energy of a bullet?

Not long ago I slammed some new posters and no doubt was thought of as piling on ad hominem attacks on people who were basically here to start flame wars. Our overworked mods need help from longer term members to keep this stuff down to a minimum.

I don't care about your opinions on CV 19, Trump, republicans, democrats, Biden or whatever. I've been guilty at times myself. 

Pat's ill-advised remark can be addressed and dispensed with instead of this ridiculous back and forth on a post that is about something not only entirely different, but so far away from the "Shroud" as to be on another planet.

Please.

Bob,

   For the record, I agree with your comments about the staying on topic here.

   Just to clarify, I didn't bring up the topic of the Shroud.  I merely responded to scientifically inaccurate comments about the Shroud by Pat Speer and Miles Massicotte.

   I studied the scientific and historic data on the Shroud in considerable detail about 30 years ago, and even met with Air Force Academy physicist John Jackson at the time, who led the 1978 Shroud of Turin University Research Project (STURP.). Jackson is sort of the James DiEugenio of Shroud research-- a scientist and walking encyclopedia.

   I probably should have said nothing, but I deplore ignorance and public misperceptions.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

JC (bloody shroud).

JFK (bloody shirt).

JBC (bloody shirt).

JLK (bloody skirt & suit).

JDT (bloody police shirt).

Shrouds were the oldenday Xrays i suppose -- later we got photos, more recently ultrasounds, & nowadays scans & computer 3D models.

But the book of the JC assassination is a best seller, it claims that there was a Jewish conspiracy. I suspect that it was only an accident. Just saying.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bob,

   For the record, I agree with your comments about the staying on topic here.

   Just to clarify, I didn't bring up the topic of the Shroud.  I merely responded to scientifically inaccurate comments about the Shroud by Pat Speer and Miles Massicotte.

   I studied the scientific and historic data on the Shroud in considerable detail about 30 years ago, and even met with Air Force Academy physicist John Jackson at the time, who led the 1978 Shroud of Turin University Research Project (STURP.). Jackson is sort of the James DiEugenio of Shroud research-- a scientist and walking encyclopedia.

   I probably should have said nothing, but I deplore ignorance and public misperceptions.

It's not like I have never engaged in this sort of thing, and I apologize for having done so and climbing down throats a while ago to others. 

We get new exuberant members (which is great) here and I think longer term people can help to rain it in for the mods. One author vanished over what I suspect was flaming and that's a resource that probably won't come back.  I don't know that for sure but a little more focus would probably be a good idea.

The posters who wandered off here are valuable people to have around for discussion and I don't want anyone to misunderstand my point.

Thanks for understanding. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

"cut....  maybe educate yourself because your Hitler Jesuit insinuation shows just how ignorant your really are!.... cut  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Pat was referring to the Jezuit question under Hitler when he wrote  "and that whole rubbing up against Hitler thing."

I think he was referring to the Pope's behaviour during WW II.   

Just an illustration a (shortened) review by Hoffmann on John Cornwell's "Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII."   

Hoffmann : "Acomprehensive brief against the man who dominated Vatican diplomacy long before he was elected pope in March 1939. A veteran envoy to Germany, Eugenio Pacelli helped the Vatican reach the agreement with Berlin in 1933 that helped Hitler destroy the resistance of many German bishops and the Catholic Center Party. Throughout World War II, the Vatican refrained from condemning National socialist persecution of the Jews, even though Pius xii at times tried to help the anti-National socialist underground and supplied the Allies with intelligence. But when the Nazis rounded up the Jews of Rome in 1943, and again when they deported Hungary's Jews in 1944, the Vatican remained silent. Furthermore, Cornwell shows, Pacelli supported authoritarian regimes such as Franco's Spain and believed in a strong link between Jews and Bolshevism.... cut" 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans