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

[Matthew Koch]

On 11/26/2022 at 3:29 PM, Bill Brown said:

A baseball bat moving toward a human head has kinetic energy. This is what is making the bat move toward the head, the kinetic energy.

When the bat strikes the head from the front, the kinetic energy transfers from the bat to the head, moving the head violently backwards (in the same direction the bat was moving).

The kinetic energy gets transferred from the bat to the head and it is this energy which causes the head to move violently backward.

 

Now.....

 

A bullet moving toward a human head has kinetic energy. This is what is making the bullet move toward the head, the kinetic energy.

When the bullet strikes the head from the front, not enough kinetic energy is transferred from the bullet to the head to cause the head to move violently backward.

Unlike the bat, the bullet keeps almost all of it's kinetic energy as it passes through the head (a very tiny amount of the kinetic energy will ripple out as a shockwave through the tissue).

Because most of the kinetic energy of a bullet that has struck the head from the front stays with the bullet and is not transferred to the head, the head will not move violently backward.

 

In other words, a bullet striking a head will not transfer enough of it's kinetic energy to cause the head to move violently. A baseball bat striking the head will indeed transfer almost all of it's kinetic energy and this will cause the head to move violently.

A bullet's (lack of) transfer of kinetic energy. Learn it. Love it.

Thank for that Junk Science definition Bill, you would make a great 1st grade science teacher!

"A bullet's (lack of) transfer of kinetic energy. Learn it. Love it."

Imagine saying this and not accounting for the difference in transfer of energy based on ammunition. 

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/

Now do your calculation and factor in the large bullet mass and low twist of the barrel. This combination makes the bullet tumble upon impact and transfers more kinetic energy as a result. If say someone used a frangible bullet the energy transfer would be magnified.

 For additional reading on tumbling bullets Bill, maybe see Mortal Error that is the basis for the book. The author was a  ballistics expert that the tumbling bullet from a M-16. The Carcano bullet has similar properties as the M-16 large projectile weight with small twist on barrel. Or maybe just keyword search Tumbling Bullet's transfer of energy. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

     When I look at the Zapruder footage, I see JFK's head tilted forward as he clutches his throat.  Then the fatal bullet very abruptly blows his head violently backward from that forward-leaning position.  Not recoil.

     The law of conservation of momentum dictates that the bullet had to be moving at high velocity from front-to-back-- the same direction as the head (and body) post-collision.

    A mathematical equation would express this as;

m1v1 +m2v2 = m1v3 + m2v4

    where m1 is the mass of the bullet (and fragments) and m2 is the mass of JFK's head (and fragments)

     v1 is bullet velocity (pre-collision)

     v2 is JFK's head velocity (pre-collision)

     v3 is bullet velocity (post-collision)

     v4 is JFK's head velocity (post-collision

    

Addendum: And, to be physically precise, we would have to add to the above equation the mv values of the post-collision skull and brain fragments with their respective velocities.

A significant part of the bullet's momentum was, obviously, transferred to the occipital skull fragment that was blasted backward into the police officer several feet behind the limo.

Edited November 28, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Eddy Bainbridge]

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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

We have a choice ; a strangely moveable blowout at the back/top, or some other solution. I believe the blowout you effectively refer to is evidenced in the Z-film and witnesses on the nearside of the limo. I believe the large rear blowout is unseen in the Z-film, as it has been masked and edited out. It is however reported by most witnesses. Most witnesses say so consistently, some witnesses say so inconsistently.

Once the autopsy is carried out the two wounds are merged by shattered/altered skull. Humes and Boswell appear to talk us through this in the HSCA discussion.

[Pat Speer]

42 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

We have a choice ; a strangely moveable blowout at the back/top, or some other solution. I believe the blowout you effectively refer to is evidenced in the Z-film and witnesses on the nearside of the limo. I believe the large rear blowout is unseen in the Z-film, as it has been masked and edited out. It is however reported by most witnesses. Most witnesses say so consistently, some witnesses say so inconsistently.

Once the autopsy is carried out the two wounds are merged by shattered/altered skull. Humes and Boswell appear to talk us through this in the HSCA discussion.

You're trying to have it both ways. Not one witness saw a large wound on top of the skull and a separate large wound on the back of the skull. They only saw one large wound. Virtually all of them specified, moreover, that it was a large gaping hole of scalp and bone. Well, this precludes this wound's having been an exit wound, as scalp tears at exit, but does not fly away attached to bone. So the problem is been, and has been, what to believe? 

That those describing a wound on the back of the head are mistaken?

Or that the films and photos showing a large gaping hole at the top of the head have been faked? 

When I first started looking into this I was horrified to find that many of the authors and researchers pushing that the photos were faked had thoroughly misrepresented what the witnesses had actually said. And that they had also misrepresented the facts to prop up that there was a gaping hole low on the back of the head, and a small entrance wound on the front of the head. Several prominent writers have even proposed that there was an entrance wound on the forehead (that nobody saw) and an exit wound on the left side of the back of the head (that nobody saw). It's all smoke and mirrors.

The reality is that most of those claiming it was on the back of the head placed it at the top of the back of the head, two inches or so from where it appears in the films and photos. The reality is also that the photos and x-rays reveal that the top of the back of the head was broken from the rest of the head, and that this may have led the hole to appear larger and further back on the skull when Kennedy was laying on his back with his feet propped up in the air. 

I take from all this that those specifying a location inches back from where it is shown in the films were probably mistaken. 

When one studies the evidence under the assumption the films and photos are legit, moreover, it leads directly to the conclusion there was more than one head shot. And it makes little sense to me that "they" would fake evidence suggesting a conspiracy. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Addendum: And, to be physically precise, we would have to add to the above equation the mv values of the post-collision skull and brain fragments with their respective velocities.

A significant part of the bullet's momentum was, obviously, transferred to the occipital skull fragment that was blasted backward into the police officer several feet behind the limo.

Hargis was not hit by an occipital skull fragment. The occipital area was shattered, but intact beneath the scalp. And Hargis drove through a cloud of blood, with perhaps a small fragment inside.

 

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (Note: as so many use Hargis' words to support that the fatal bullet impacted on the front of Kennedy's head, or that the limo stopped on Elm Street, I have highlighted quotes touching upon these issues.) (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald. Note: in 1995 Hargis would tell researchers Ian Griggs and Mark Oakes that he didn't write this article and that it must have been based on a conversation he'd had with a reporter in a hallway) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot… I felt that the Governor was shot first." (Undated typescript of interview with Hargis found within the Dallas-Times-Herald's photograph collection, as reported by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, 1994. This is almost certainly the basis for the 11-22 article) "I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped almost immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed. I racked my cycle and jumped off. I ran to the north side of Elm Street to see if I could find where the bullets came from. I don't think the President got hit with the first shot, but I don't know for sure. When I heard the first shot, it looked like he bent over. I feel that the Governor was shot first. I could be wrong. Right after the first shot, I was trying to look and see if the President got shot. When I saw the look on Connally's face, I knew somebody was shooting at the car...The fatal bullet struck the President in the right side of the head. I noticed the people in the Texas School Book Depository were looking up to see the top. I didn't know if the President stopped under the triple underpass or not. I didn't know for sure if the shots had come from the Book Depository. I thought they might have come from the trestle." (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-23-63 article in the Houston Post) "A Dallas motorcycle officer who was riding two feet from the presidential car described to the Houston Post Friday what he saw when a sniper fired the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally. 'When the first rifle bullet spewed into the open limousine,' said Patrolman J.H. Hargis, 'The President bent forward in the car.' Hargis, a nine-year veteran of the force, said the first shot hit the governor. 'Then immediately after that,' Hargis said, 'the second shot was fired, striking the President in the right side of the head.' The Secret Service man driving the car immediately picked up the phone inside the car and said "Let's go to the nearest hospital.' Hargis said he jumped off his motorcycle and began a search of the building from which the shots were fired. 'I knew it was high and from the right. I looked for any sign of activity in the windows, but I didn't see anybody.'" (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot."

(4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.” (When asked about the blood) "when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet 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 bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going' or 'get going.'" (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from." (8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, investigators working on behalf New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

Edited November 28, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Dr. Cyril Wecht, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science and a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, told a research team from St. Martin's Press that he agreed that FMJ bullets normally don't fragment extensively when they strike skull and that Kennedy's head was struck by high-velocity ammunition:

It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that [like the missile that left dozens of fragments in Kennedy's skull]. And so when you say it [the bullet or bullets that struck Kennedy in the head] behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (In Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 231)

 

.............. When the HSCA had outside experts examine the autopsy skull x-rays, the experts discovered a bullet fragment that had not been noted before. Dr. G. M. McDonnel discovered the fragment. He noted it was embedded in the galea, which is a layer located between the scalp and the skull, and that it was slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object. This fragment is further evidence that Kennedy's head was struck by ricochet material from a bullet that struck the pavement. [My comment -- The ricochet was off the signal arm -- Oswald's first shot -- at say Z113].

Edited November 28, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[W. Niederhut]

Well, here it is.  Basic empiricism for all.

JFK's head is tilted forward as he clutches his throat, then his head is abruptly blasted violently backwards by the impact of the fatal bullet, obviously, fired from in front of the limo.

A bullet fired from behind the limo could not possibly have created such ex nihilo front-to-back momentum of the head, as seen on film.

That is not how Newton's law of conservation of momentum works.

IMO, this is the intuitively (and scientifically) obvious point that Jim Garrison made to the jury in the Clay Shaw trial, while showing them the Zapruder film.

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, here it is.  Basic empiricism for all.

JFK's head is tilted forward as he clutches his throat, then his head is abruptly blasted violently backwards by the impact of the fatal bullet, obviously, fired from in front of the limo.

A bullet fired from behind the limo could not possibly have created such ex nihilo front-to-back momentum of the head, as seen on film.

That is not how Newton's law of conservation of momentum works.

IMO, this is the intuitively (and scientifically) obvious point that Jim Garrison made to the jury in the Clay Shaw trial, while showing them the Zapruder film.

 

His head slams down and slightly forward. It then snaps back and to the left. 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Dr. Cyril Wecht, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science and a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, told a research team from St. Martin's Press that he agreed that FMJ bullets normally don't fragment extensively when they strike skull and that Kennedy's head was struck by high-velocity ammunition:

It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that [like the missile that left dozens of fragments in Kennedy's skull]. And so when you say it [the bullet or bullets that struck Kennedy in the head] behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (In Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 231)

 

.............. When the HSCA had outside experts examine the autopsy skull x-rays, the experts discovered a bullet fragment that had not been noted before. Dr. G. M. McDonnel discovered the fragment. He noted it was embedded in the galea, which is a layer located between the scalp and the skull, and that it was slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object. This fragment is further evidence that Kennedy's head was struck by ricochet material from a bullet that struck the pavement. [My comment -- The ricochet was off the signal arm -- Oswald's first shot -- at say Z113].

The fragment supposedly on the back of the head was first "discovered" by the Clark Panel in 1968. This fragment was then used to support the panel's findings that the bullet entered near the top of the back of the head--an invention designed to conceal that the trajectory proposed by the WC made little sense. This panel was not allowed to discuss their findings with the autopsy doctors, moreover, for fear the autopsy doctors would insists no bullet entered at the location proposed by the Clark Panel, and change their minds. 

In the years since, virtually everyone to view the originals has claimed no such fragment can been on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays. When one properly orients the x-rays, moreover it becomes clear that the fragment visible on the A-P x-ray is right behind JFK's eye socket, the precise location of the largest fragment removed at autopsy. 

So no, not a fragment from a ricochet. 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

On 11/27/2022 at 11:04 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

deleted.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The fragment supposedly on the back of the head was first "discovered" by the Clark Panel in 1968. This fragment was then used to support the panel's findings that the bullet entered near the top of the back of the head--an invention designed to conceal that the trajectory proposed by the WC made little sense. This panel was not allowed to discuss their findings with the autopsy doctors, moreover, for fear the autopsy doctors would insists no bullet entered at the location proposed by the Clark Panel, and change their minds. 

In the years since, virtually everyone to view the originals has claimed no such fragment can been on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays. When one properly orients the x-rays, moreover it becomes clear that the fragment visible on the A-P x-ray is right behind JFK's eye socket, the precise location of the largest fragment removed at autopsy. 

So no, not a fragment from a ricochet. 

I think that u are referring to the 6.5 mm fragment -- the fragment that i am referring to was in the galea (ie on the outside of the skull), & i dont ever remember anyone saying what size the fragment was exactly.

In any case there are they say lots of small lead fragments on the back & right side of outside of head.

I had never heard of that there larger fragment in the galea before today -- i had only seen reference to the lots of small bits on the back & right side.

Plus -- Olivier said that none of his 10 heads had lots of small lead or copper fragments inside, ie from the carcano.  Whereas JFK had lots of small bits inside (from the AR15 hollowpoint).

Edited November 29, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

On 11/27/2022 at 9:29 AM, Bill Brown said:

A baseball bat moving toward a human head has kinetic energy. This is what is making the bat move toward the head, the kinetic energy.

When the bat strikes the head from the front, the kinetic energy transfers from the bat to the head, moving the head violently backwards (in the same direction the bat was moving).

The kinetic energy gets transferred from the bat to the head and it is this energy which causes the head to move violently backward.

 

Now.....

 

A bullet moving toward a human head has kinetic energy. This is what is making the bullet move toward the head, the kinetic energy.

When the bullet strikes the head from the front, not enough kinetic energy is transferred from the bullet to the head to cause the head to move violently backward.

Unlike the bat, the bullet keeps almost all of it's kinetic energy as it passes through the head (a very tiny amount of the kinetic energy will ripple out as a shockwave through the tissue).

Because most of the kinetic energy of a bullet that has struck the head from the front stays with the bullet and is not transferred to the head, the head will not move violently backward.

 

In other words, a bullet striking a head will not transfer enough of it's kinetic energy to cause the head to move violently. A baseball bat striking the head will indeed transfer almost all of it's kinetic energy and this will cause the head to move violently.

A bullet's (lack of) transfer of kinetic energy. Learn it. Love it.

Olivier said that he fired a carcano at 10 heads -- 1 of the 10 fell off the podium.

Had he fired an AR15 with hollow point slugs or soft point slugs or somesuch i say that 10 of the 10 would have fallen.

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

I think that u are referring to the 6.5 mm fragment -- the fragment that i am referring to was in the galea (ie on the outside of the skull), & i dont ever remember anyone saying what size the fragment was exactly.

In any case there are they say lots of small lead fragments on the back & right side of outside of head.

I had never heard of that there larger fragment in the galea before today -- i had only seen reference to the lots of small bits on the back & right side.

Plus -- Olivier said that none of his 10 heads had lots of small lead or copper fragments inside, ie from the carcano.  Whereas JFK had lots of small bits inside (from the AR15 hollowpoint).

It's the same fragment. Sturdivan worked with Olivier and he presented some of the x-rays of the skull tests in his book, and there were some fragments along the bullet path, albeit not nearly as many appear on JFK's x-rays. More problematic regarding the x-rays is that Dr. David Davis, the HSCA consultant brought in to counter McDonnell, said the so-called trail of fragments appeared to be on the outside of the skull. 

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You're trying to have it both ways. Not one witness saw a large wound on top of the skull and a separate large wound on the back of the skull.

According to your website this is not entirely accurate. 

The sixth doctor supportive of the official tracing, Dr. Robert G. Grossman, now a professor and chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, was working next to the senior neurosurgeon present, Dr. Kemp Clark. at Kennedy's head. Grossman told The Globe that he observed two separate wounds: a large defect in the parietal area above the right ear, and a second wound, about one-and-a-quarter inches in diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman. the only physician to report seeing two such distinct wounds, was never called to testify before the Warren Commission or the House Assassinations Committee. Nor were Dr. Dulany or Nurse Patricia Gustafson, one of those who said that Kennedy's gaping wound was in the back of his head. (PatSpeer.com Chapter 18c)

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

According to your website this is not entirely accurate. 

The sixth doctor supportive of the official tracing, Dr. Robert G. Grossman, now a professor and chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, was working next to the senior neurosurgeon present, Dr. Kemp Clark. at Kennedy's head. Grossman told The Globe that he observed two separate wounds: a large defect in the parietal area above the right ear, and a second wound, about one-and-a-quarter inches in diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman. the only physician to report seeing two such distinct wounds, was never called to testify before the Warren Commission or the House Assassinations Committee. Nor were Dr. Dulany or Nurse Patricia Gustafson, one of those who said that Kennedy's gaping wound was in the back of his head. (PatSpeer.com Chapter 18c)

Sorta. Grossman 1) never described the wounds to anyone for almost 20 years after the assassination, 2) insisted the hole on the back of the head was an entrance and not the large wound described by others, and 3) was not even identified as being in the room by any of his fellow doctors. So one shouldn't rely on him, but if one does, one cannot say there was a large blowout wound on the back of the head.