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

[Matthew Koch]

1 minute ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Pat was referring to the Jezuit question under Hitler, 

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" 

 

 

Ever heard of Edwin Black or the Haavara agreement Aka the Transfer Agreement?

 Edwin Black also broke the Chicago JFK plot. 

 

[Bill Fite]

9 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

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. 

FWIW - I've seen a documentary on WW2 while in France.  In it the SS have lined up victims kneeling facing a pit.  They are then executed by a rifle shot to the back of the head.  They fall forward into the pit driven by the momentum of the bullet.

[Bill Brown]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:19 AM, Bill Fite said:

FWIW - I've seen a documentary on WW2 while in France.  In it the SS have lined up victims kneeling facing a pit.  They are then executed by a rifle shot to the back of the head.  They fall forward into the pit driven by the momentum of the bullet.

 

Nonsense.

 

[Bill Fite]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Nonsense.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:36 AM, Pat Speer said:

On 12/6/2022 at 1:38 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

On 12/6/2022 at 7:36 AM, Pat Speer said:

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

 

Apparently McClelland saw two wounds. An entrance on the left temple and a large exit on the right rear.

Dr. Jenkins and Father Oscar Huber also said early on they saw a wound on the left temple. Undoubtedly a small (entrance) wound given that nobody else noticed it.

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Apparently McClelland saw two wounds. An entrance on the left temple and a large exit on the right rear.

Dr. Jenkins and Father Oscar Huber also said early on they saw a wound on the left temple. Undoubtedly a small (entrance) wound given that nobody else noticed it.

 

McClelland was asked about this a number of times. He said he never saw a wound on the left temple, and was fooled into thinking there was such a wound when Jenkins pointed at Kennedy's left temple. The problem is that he failed to report anything about the wound he would later claim he'd inspected, and told Richard Dudman a few days later there was nothing about Kennedy's head wound to indicate the shot was fired from in front of Kennedy.

So McClelland's subsequent claim was that he reported on a wound he did not see, but failed to report on the wound he did see. 

I take from this that the wound he saw was actually by the temple, and that he changed his recollections to match others. 

And no, he wasn't threatened by someone before talking to Dudman. He denied that he was ever pressured by anyone, long after he took to claiming the back of the head was blown out. 

As he would later come to claim he'd created the "McClelland drawing" made without his knowledge or input, it seems clear to me that the man was highly susceptible to suggestion, and that he almost certainly came to believe he'd observed what he later claimed to observe. But we have strong reason to doubt the wound he saw was where he would later claim he said it was. 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Nonsense.

 

So, Bill, you're still struggling with the law of conservation of momentum, eh?

Do you think it was just a kooky Newtonian conspiracy theory?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

McClelland was asked about [the left temple wound] a number of times. He said he never saw such a wound,...

 

I don't think so Pat. Citation or quote please.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

... and [McClelland] said he was fooled into thinking there was such a wound when Jenkins pointed at Kennedy's left temple.

 

McClelland didn't say that, Pat. It was Jenkins who did. That's what he told Gerald Posner. (Despite the fact that Jenkins was the one who testified to the WC about there being a left-temple wound!)

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The problem is that [McClelland] failed to report anything about the wound he would later claim he'd inspected, and told Richard Dudman a few days later there was nothing about Kennedy's head wound to indicate the shot was fired from in front of Kennedy.

 

Citation or quote please.

 

[Pat Speer]

41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think so Pat. Citation or quote please.

 

 

McClelland didn't say that, Pat. It was Jenkins who did. That's what he told Gerald Posner. (Despite the fact that Jenkins was the one who testified to the WC about there being a left-temple wound!)

 

 

Citation or quote please.

 

Why waste my time? 

You need to read the transcripts, and watch the videos, and read the books, and come back with some support for your claim McClelland actually saw a wound on the left temple. 

 

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Why waste my time? 

You need to read the transcripts, and watch the videos, and read the books, and come back with some support for your claim McClelland actually saw a wound on the left temple. 

 

I think you are arguing semantics at this point... 

https://jfkfacts.org/rip-dr-robert-mcclelland-the-most-important-jfk-witness/

‘From the grassy knoll’

McClelland concluded, on the basis of what he saw that day, and what he saw in a home movie of the assassination taken by a bystander, that Kennedy had been struck by a gunshot fired from in front, not behind.

“That bullet came from the grassy knoll, the picket fence,” McClelland said of the fatal shot, referring to the area in front of the presidential motorcade at the moment the shots rang out. 

Dr. McClelland indicates where President Kennedy was fatally wounded. 

How the New York Times handled McClelland’s eye-witness testimony is a textbook case of the journalism profession’s strange approach to the JFK assassination story. McClelland was a superb witness. Only one trained medical professional (his friend and colleague Dr. Kemp Clark) had a close a view of Kennedy’s head wound so soon after he was shot. McClelland went on to a distinguished career. 

Yet the Times did not report what he saw and what he said about JFK’s head wound until he was dead. For some reason, McClelland’s testimony, contradicting the Warren Commission, was not regarded as news. The Times obituary gingerly avoids any suggestion that McClelland might have been right or that his testimony was unique. In the headline, the Times reported that McClelland saw the “gravity” of the President’s wound, not that he expressed a judgment about the shot from the front. In fact, he was a credible eyewitness whose well-informed account undermined the government’s much-disputed version of events

 

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

I think you are arguing semantics at this point... 

https://jfkfacts.org/rip-dr-robert-mcclelland-the-most-important-jfk-witness/

‘From the grassy knoll’

McClelland concluded, on the basis of what he saw that day, and what he saw in a home movie of the assassination taken by a bystander, that Kennedy had been struck by a gunshot fired from in front, not behind.

“That bullet came from the grassy knoll, the picket fence,” McClelland said of the fatal shot, referring to the area in front of the presidential motorcade at the moment the shots rang out. 

Dr. McClelland indicates where President Kennedy was fatally wounded. 

How the New York Times handled McClelland’s eye-witness testimony is a textbook case of the journalism profession’s strange approach to the JFK assassination story. McClelland was a superb witness. Only one trained medical professional (his friend and colleague Dr. Kemp Clark) had a close a view of Kennedy’s head wound so soon after he was shot. McClelland went on to a distinguished career. 

Yet the Times did not report what he saw and what he said about JFK’s head wound until he was dead. For some reason, McClelland’s testimony, contradicting the Warren Commission, was not regarded as news. The Times obituary gingerly avoids any suggestion that McClelland might have been right or that his testimony was unique. In the headline, the Times reported that McClelland saw the “gravity” of the President’s wound, not that he expressed a judgment about the shot from the front. In fact, he was a credible eyewitness whose well-informed account undermined the government’s much-disputed version of events

 

There is a lot more to this story. 

In his 11/22 report, McClelland described a wound of the left temple.

He told a journalist shortly thereafter there was nothing about this wound to indicate a shot from the front. 

Months later, after the reports of McClelland and his co-workers were published in a medical journal, and he saw that he was was the only one to describe a wound on the temple, he testified before the Warren Commission, and described a wound on the back of the head.

Years later, when contacted by Harold Weisberg, he denounced Garrison's investigation, and said he supported Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission. He told Weisberg that Garrison's people had contacted him and wanted to know about his claim there was wound of the left temple, and that he'd told them it had been a misunderstanding, and that he'd been misled by Jenkins. 

Five years or so later he saw the Zapruder film on TV. He would subsequently claim he thought the shot came from the front, and muse that there must have been an entrance on the front of the head that went unseen. Still later, he would say the shot from the front created a large wound of entrance and exit. 

Shortly after this he was shown the so-called McClelland drawing, created for Tink Thompson in 1967. McClelland said the wound depicted was too low on the back of the head to reflect the wound he saw. He was also shown the autopsy photos, and said they looked legit but that sagging scalp must have been pulled over the wound on the back of the head. 

Around this time, he became a darling of the research community. Under their influence, his claims became less and less credible. He started claiming he'd supervised or even drew the so-called McClelland drawing, and apparently sold drawings in which he pointed out the location of the wound he saw--which was now low on the back of the head, in the location of the wound in the drawing--which he'd repeatedly said was inaccurate. 

I met him. He was a gentle man, with a soft voice. I don't believe he lied about any of this stuff. His recollections were just erratic, that's all. He was human. 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I met him. He was a gentle man, with a soft voice. I don't believe he lied about any of this stuff. His recollections were just erratic, that's all. He was human.

 

I'm debating him. He is a gentle man, with a soft voice. I don't believe he lies about any of this stuff. His reasoning is just erratic, that's all. He is human.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 12/9/2022 at 3:07 AM, Bill Fite said:

 

So these men are leaning forward and on a downward slope... yet it is the bullet's impact which causes them to fall forward.  Ha  Okay.  Whatever you say.

Good grief.

 

[Bill Fite]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

So these men are leaning forward and on a downward slope... yet it is the bullet's impact which causes them to fall forward.  Ha  Okay.  Whatever you say.

Good grief.

 

If you look they have already been shot  and are falling forward.  

[Bill Brown]

17 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

If you look they have already been shot  and are falling forward.  

 

Yes, they've already been shot and of course they're falling forward, as they're on a downward slope.  Natural human tendencies also tell you that they're leaning forward before the shot.

 

You said a documentary, not a still film frame.  Where's the footage?