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

[Denny Zartman]

5 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

What kind of bullet & gun was involved in Fig 10.9?

How can a 6 mm hole in the back of JFK's head be called a large wound of entrance?

How can an almost perfect circular 6 mm hole be called tangential?

What makes me wretch is idiots like Wecht who reckon that the SBT is an impossibility.

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Denny Zartman

[Tom Gram]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

it was not just his head, not even close.

His whole body slams backward with terrific force so much so that it bounces off the back seat.

That kind of reaction to a bullet from behind?

And all the indications of a sniper from the front?  Like Holland and Bowers and the smoke etc.

BTW, at the CAPA conference, Steve Jaffe proved that a man small of stature could have escaped through the sewer line.  I had never seen those pictures before, but its true.  

I totally agree that the sum of the evidence very strongly suggests a shooter on the GK. Pat just makes a good case on his website that a bullet impacting at the supposed right-front exit location and driving JFKs head downward could potentially account for the forward/downward movement in 312-313 and subsequent slam backwards. I’m not sure if it’d really work out with what we see in the Z-film, but it’d be interesting to do the calculations to see if the angle of JFKs head could transfer downward momentum back and to the left from a tangential strike from behind. 

Also I’m pretty sure I’ve seen those pictures of the sewer lines. They are in the Garrison files in one of the photographic folders. I’ll try to dig them up when I get a chance. 

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The movement of the head at 313 was mostly down, and the head sprang back as a result. This shot could have come from in front or behind, but the fragment strike on the windshield and the curb strike near Tague suggest behind. 

Again, no way.

Consider three-dimensional force vectors for the fatal bullet, on x, y, and z axes.

Where do you get the obvious front-to-back force vector that instantly slammed JFK's head and body backward with a bullet originating above and behind the limo?

You don't.  It's a physical impossibility, based on Newton's laws of motion.

It wasn't de-cerebrate posturing, because the backward motion of the head was instantaneous with the impact of the bullet.

Nor would a bullet striking the head from above have caused the violent front-to-back momentum.  That's not how Newtonian physics works.

 

[Steve Roe]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Also I’m pretty sure I’ve seen those pictures of the sewer lines. They are in the Garrison files in one of the photographic folders. I’ll try to dig them up when I get a chance. 

Tom don't waste your time on this loony tune sewer stuff by Steve Jaffe, who worked with Jim Garrison (DiEugenio's Icon). Jerry Dealey debunked this nonsense years ago with actual Dealey Plaza sewer maps from the city. http://www.dealey.org/sewtroll.pdf

[Pat Speer]

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Again, no way.

Consider three-dimensional force vectors for the fatal bullet, on x, y, and z axes.

Where do you get the obvious front-to-back force vector that instantly slammed JFK's head and body backward with a bullet originating above and behind the limo?

You don't.  It's a physical impossibility, based on Newton's laws of motion.

It wasn't de-cerebrate posturing, because the backward motion of the head was instantaneous with the impact of the bullet.

Nor would a bullet striking the head from above have caused the violent front-to-back momentum.  That's not how Newtonian physics works.

 

You're reciting a myth. The reality is that a head is attached to a neck, which has muscles, and if you slap it down at the top of the head above the ear the head will snap down and spring back--exactly what is shown in the Z-film. I have demonstrated this at conventions, and I have even found films that demonstrate this, where a kidnapper is shot in the head from the side and his head snaps in the direction of the bullet then spins back towards the shooter.  

Edited November 27, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

I suspect your response was as insulting as mine would have been. But why bother?

[Tom Gram]

39 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Tom don't waste your time on this loony tune sewer stuff by Steve Jaffe, who worked with Jim Garrison (DiEugenio's Icon). Jerry Dealey debunked this nonsense years ago with actual Dealey Plaza sewer maps from the city. http://www.dealey.org/sewtroll.pdf

I recall seeing photos in the Garrison files of a man getting in and out of a storm drain behind the grassy knoll. I’ll try to find and post them later today. If the theory is that someone could have hopped in there and evaded detection it sure looked like there was plenty of room. Maybe I’m remembering wrong but this seems like a pretty straightforward issue. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Tom Gram

[W. Niederhut]

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're reciting a myth. The reality is that a head is attached to a neck, which has muscles, and if you slap it down at the top of the head above the ear the head will snap down and spring back--exactly what is shown in the Z-film. I have demonstrated this at conventions, and I have even found films that demonstrate this, where a kidnapper is shot in the head from the side and his head snaps in the direction of the bullet then spins back towards the shooter.  

Wrong.  I used to get paid to teach physics.

Tell us where you get the major front-to-back force vector that blasted an occipital skull fragment violently behind the limo, while slamming JFK's head and body backward.

Such a bullet could not have come from behind the limo.  It would defy basic physics.

Think about this in terms of Newton's laws of motion in a system consisting of head and bullet.

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Wrong.  I used to get paid to teach physics.

Tell us where you get the major front-to-back force vector that blasted an occipital skull fragment violently behind the limo, while slamming JFK's head and body backward.

Such a bullet could not have come from behind the limo.  It would defy basic physics.

Think about this in terms of Newton's laws of motion in a system consisting of head and bullet.

Well, you're misapplying physics. And history. No fragment was blasted behind the limo. The Harper fragment was found 100 feet or so in front of the limo, and can be seen heading off in this direction in the Zapruder film. Many of those claiming it was blasted behind the limo, moreover, claim Hargis was hit by an explosion out the back of the skull, when Hargis actually claimed the explosion was on the right side of the skull and sent matter into the air, and that he drove through this matter. It goes on and on. In a desperate attempt to prove a conspiracy, a long line of CTs have cooked the evidence to support a shot from the knoll. When there is, in fact, little evidence for such a shot. Smoke on the knoll? Yes. A loud sound from the knoll? Yes. But a bullet impacting from the knoll? Nope, it doesn't add up. 

It's a tragedy, moreover, that in propping up the probability of a shot from the knoll, far too many researchers have ignored the best evidence for conspiracy--that the medical evidence, when absent WC or CT spin--is highly suggestive of two shots to Kennedy's head. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Thus, it was obvious from the first to those who knew what to look for (such as Dr. William Kemp Clark) that JFK's large head wound was a tangential wound.

 

That is factually incorrect.

Pat has done a lot of good work for the JFKA community, but his work on the back-of-head (BOH) blowout wound is just wrong.

What Dr. Clark said was that he was aware of only two bullet wounds in the head area, the one on the back of the head and the one on the front of the neck. And so the BOH wound may have been an exit from the neck wound, or it may have been a tangential wound through which a bullet both entered and exited.

Here are Dr. Clark's exact words, stated shortly after working on Kennedy:

 

"The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, you're misapplying physics. 

That's simply ridiculous.

You need to study the Newtonian law of conservation of momentum.

What was the momentum of the system (head + bullet) after impact?

JFK's head and body were visibly slammed backward by the fatal bullet.

Ergo, the bullet was moving on a vector of front-to-back prior to impact.

You can't generate a front-to-back force vector with a bullet fired from behind the limo.

Edited November 27, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Eddy Bainbridge]

As a starting point: I believe Kennedy's head had two entrance holes (forehead and above hairline in back) and two large exit holes ( back and top right) . My theory is supported by testimony, but the one wound many will debate is the rear entrance. Consider how troubled Hulme's was when this wound could not be seen on photos, and consider why he and Boswell repeatedley stated its location. It simply doesn't fit a cover-up that they were party to. 

The theory explains the wounds, but requires the Z-film to be missing frames. I am convinced the theory explains the apparent bodily reaction of Kennedy better than tangential wounding. It also allows for two large headwounds, which is Pat Speer's theory's weakest point. He relies on some unconvincing reasons why everyone who locates a large blowout at the back is mistaken.

It really boils down to whether the Z-film is genuine around Z313.

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

As a starting point: I believe Kennedy's head had two entrance holes (forehead and above hairline in back) and two large exit holes ( back and top right) . My theory is supported by testimony, but the one wound many will debate is the rear entrance. Consider how troubled Hulme's was when this wound could not be seen on photos, and consider why he and Boswell repeatedley stated its location. It simply doesn't fit a cover-up that they were party to. 

The theory explains the wounds, but requires the Z-film to be missing frames. I am convinced the theory explains the apparent bodily reaction of Kennedy better than tangential wounding. It also allows for two large headwounds, which is Pat Speer's theory's weakest point. He relies on some unconvincing reasons why everyone who locates a large blowout at the back is mistaken.

It really boils down to whether the Z-film is genuine around Z313.

Wait... Two large head wounds. Where do you get that? 

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

That's simply ridiculous.

You need to study the Newtonian law of conservation of momentum.

What was the momentum of the system (head + bullet) after impact?

JFK's head and body were visibly slammed backward by the fatal bullet.

Ergo, the bullet was moving on a vector of front-to-back prior to impact.

You can't generate a front-to-back force vector with a bullet fired from behind the limo.

It's called recoil. The head bounces down and then back. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That is factually incorrect.

Pat has done a lot of good work for the JFKA community, but his work on the back-of-head (BOH) blowout wound is just wrong.

What Dr. Clark said was that he was aware of only two bullet wounds in the head area, the one on the back of the head and the one on the front of the neck. And so the BOH wound may have been an exit from the neck wound, or it may have been a tangential wound through which a bullet both entered and exited.

Here are Dr. Clark's exact words, stated shortly after working on Kennedy:

 

"The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

 

Yes, he was a brain surgeon and not a pathologist. So he was careful with his words. He didn't know what kind of ammo was used. He didn't know from where the shots were fired. But he said the wound appeared to be a tangential wound, and even mentioned this in his testimony, long after he'd been told the pathologists said it was an exit for a shot entering the back of the head.

He'd been a military surgeon and knew better. The HSCA FPP knew better as well. They went to great lengths to avoid this, of course, by pretending there was no gaping hole in the scalp as observed by Clark, Humes, and well, everybody.