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

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

There is a slightly longer clip of Crenshaw in which he drags his hand from the front top of the head to the low position behind his ear.  He states that this was all gone. He does not say the bone was missing or damaged.  But in another clip he explains that he looked inside the wound cavity and saw a trough of missing brain running from the supposed entry wound on the forehead to the rear exit. This is how he came to the opinion that there was a front entry wound, he did not see the entry wound.
 When asked how the wound would have looked if it was a rear entry he says it would have caused a big blowout as he pointed to the parietal area. If there is a place in this interview when he agrees with the official wound location I missed it.
  As far as his raising the location over the years I don't know if we can ascribe something nefarious. Looking at many of the other staff attempting to demonstrate the wound location they often move their hand around a couple times before they settle on the location. They are seen feeling around the back of the head with their fingers and adjusting the location. We have no visual reference for the back of our own head and this is why they have to feel their fingers on their head and move it around some. One of the most common clips of Dr Jones doing this shows him raising the wound twice going from very low temporal occipital to much higher in the occipital parietal. Others like Dr Dulany have moved the wound. In the famous Nova doc he places his hand in the O.C. and says "Occpital Parietal". Yet in an older photo he is hovering his hand above his head(Not touching) and places the wound closer to the official wound.
  We have to give some leeway to the wound positions described. But even if we do the front of the official parietal wound and the Parkland staffs locations are miles apart. The same with the lower or rear part of the wound. The official wound comes nowhere near as low and behind the ear as the official wound.
  Dr Baxter stated openly that he told the staff if they tried to make money off of this he would ruin their careers. In the 80's Crenshaw published a book and the Dr Baxter along with Jenkins, Carrico and maybe Grossman took part in a cheap hit piece on Crenshaw. I say cheap because the author(The publisher of the J.A.M.A journal) made the libelous claim the "We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day." Wow! Of course at least 3 people testified to the WC decades before that Crenshaw was there. Dr Curtis and Nurse Henchcliffe and even Dr Baxter himself! Their willingness to imply a slanderous claim that he might have lied about even being there without checking makes me think it was a cheap hit piece and we should not take it to seriously. It is well known that the WC lawyers asked almost all witness to state for the record the other personnel they saw in the room that day. Not hard to check that even before searchable PDF's.

 

To be clear, I don't think there's anything nefarious about Crenshaw. He smelled a rat. And went public. But he wasn't particularly credible. His recollections changed from week to week.

Now that said, it's obvious he was unfairly maligned as not even being in the room. The record is clear he was in the room, but was not involved in any up-close procedures. He relied upon his recollection of a few seconds...almost 30 years afterwards. Such recollections are notoriously unreliable, particularly in that in this case a number of books had come out claiming the back of the head was blown out, etc. It seems clear, for that matter, he was influenced by the so-called McClelland drawing, first published by Thompson back in 67. This drawing, based on McClelland's testimony, proved so corrosive to credible memories that McClelland himself took to claiming he'd supervised the drawing, or made it himself. When this was malarkey. Thompson (on this forum) and Horne (in his books) made it quite clear McClelland had nothing to do with the drawing. And not only that, when the Boston Globe showed this drawing to some Parkland witnesses, they said the drawing was less representative of the what they remembered than the autopsy photos. But not Crenshaw. It seems likely he saw the drawing and remembered it as being an accurate depiction of something he saw for just a few seconds.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Isn't Dr. Chesser the one who proposed two frontal head shots?  One above the right eye in the hair line, another in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the right ear.  Maybe it was Dr. Mantik.  They are the only neurologist/radiologist to examine the x-rays in the National Archives I know of, professionally, in detail.  Whichever one may have suggested this, I thought the other ultimately concurred.

Chesser is a protege' of Mantik's. He went into the Archives to support Mantik's work, and has been reluctant to disagree with Mantik on anything ever since. I've met him. He's a nice guy. But his reluctance to break from Mantik on anything makes it hard to take him seriously, IMO. Sorry, Mike. 

[W. Niederhut]

27 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Isn't Dr. Chesser the one who proposed two frontal head shots?  One above the right eye in the hair line, another in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the right ear.  Maybe it was Dr. Mantik.  They are the only neurologist/radiologist to examine the x-rays in the National Archives I know of, professionally, in detail.  Whichever one may have suggested this, I thought the other ultimately concurred.

Ron,

      If I understand his analysis correctly, Dr. Chesser has described evidence of a possible keyhole fracture of the right temporal bone, suggestive of an oblique shot to the right side of the head.

      He has done a very impressive analysis of the metallic fragment trail from the right frontal head shot-- in a distribution that is completely inconsistent with a posterior entry wound, as claimed by the WCR and HSCA fraudsters.

     I find it, frankly, absurd that a non-physician like Pat Speer would presume to impugn Dr. Chesser's reputation and expert analysis of the neurological evidence.

     Is Pat Speer board certified in neurology?

Edited December 1, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Bill Brown]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Is Pat Speer board certified in neurology?

 

Why not first address your (still unsupported) claim that Crenshaw said he saw a bullet hole?

 

[Matthew Koch]

43 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

a lot different. You can easily find x-rays showing bullets logged in the head which means all the bullets energy at impact was transferred to the head. I know that this is an extreme example but a 50. cal sniper rifle will definitely move the head, move it right off the body! I saw a clip once when the top half of the body went left and the bottom half went right.

At the end of this clip the difference between rounds is shown by shooting cantaloupe melons. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

42 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

@Bill BrownWhat is a hollow point bullet and how does it differ from a full metal jacketed bullet? 

Do we need to clarify this?

A deer rifle bullet.  Rounded lead tip or even somewhat blunt.  Mushrooms on impact creating a somewhat larger wound than the original bullet.

An FMJ, tip shaped like a missile, sharp, pointed.  Jacketed in copper or steel.  Meant to pierce flesh and bone.  May go through a victim, depending on the bone it hits.

A hollow point.  Rounded tip.  Hole int the tip.  Expands, may fragment on bone impact.  Leaving an expanding trail of "stars" in JFK's cranium.

 .22 Long Rifle hollow-points are similar in shape to round-nosed bullets, with the exception of offering a small, hollowed tip for expansion on contact with the target. One new innovation on this design is the segmented hollow-point, which is intended to break apart as it expands, increasing effectiveness on tissue.  

[W. Niederhut]

35 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Why not first address your (still unsupported) claim that Crenshaw said he saw a bullet hole?

 

Bill,

Go to the 5:56 mark in this 20/20 interview.

 

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, I don't think there's anything nefarious about Crenshaw. He smelled a rat. And went public. But he wasn't particularly credible. His recollections changed from day to day. 

Now that said, it's obvious he was unfairly maligned as not even being in the room. The record is clear he was in the room, but was not involved in any up-close procedures. He relied upon his recollection of a few seconds...almost 30 years afterwards. Such recollections are notoriously unreliable, particularly in that in this case a number of books had come out claiming the back of the head was blown out, etc. It seems clear, for that matter, he was influenced by the so-called McClelland drawing, first published by Thompson back in 67. This drawing, based on McClelland's testimony, proved so corrosive to credible memories that McClelland himself took to claiming he'd supervised the drawing, or made it himself. When this was malarkey. Thompson (on this forum) and Horne (in his books) made it quite clear McClelland had nothing to do with the drawing. And not only that, when the Boston Globe showed this drawing to some Parkland witnesses, they said the drawing was less representative of the what they remembered than the autopsy photos. But not Crenshaw. He saw the drawing and remembered it as being an accurate depiction of something he saw for just a few seconds.

 

Crenshaw's memory changed from day to day? Height of the head wound did vary when they demonstrated it behind their head and I addressed that. The videos of people reaching for the back of their head shows very clearly that they do vary. But saying he changed his opinions day today is just a very bias characterization. Considering the variation we see when Witnesses are reaching for the location  I can't conclude that he was influenced by Dr mcclelland's drawing.  But if he was it should be noted that he was not influenced by the official record. My point being that his wound location or locations and the official wound are miles apart.

Who told the Boston Globe that the autopsy more closely represented what they saw than doctor mcclellands drawing? I could see Jenkins, Baxter, Gossman, or Carrico because they support the official story. Do you recall any of the names?

I consider it when Witnesses differ on their own accounts of the wound location. I also have to consider that people make small mistakes over time.  The accounts of the staff that day fall almost entirely into just two versions. Occipital parietal with a vertical  and lateral variance of about 2 in, and then there's the official parietal wound. It's like night and day. Even when we account for changing memories or misplacing the hand a bit it is not even close. There's no way to explain the overwhelming consistency of these reports when you compare them to the official report.

Crenshaw explained that he went back in after the resuscitation ended to look at the wound. He said this was partially driven by the helplessness he felt and wanted to know just what happened. That would support the idea that he didn't get much of a look during the resuscitation. But when he went back in the room was mostly cleared out so we can't speculate on how many seconds he looked at it.

[W. Niederhut]

6 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Crenshaw's memory changed from day to day? Height of the head wound did vary when they demonstrated it behind their head and I addressed that. The videos of people reaching for the back of their head shows very clearly that they do vary. But saying he changed his opinions day today is just a very bias characterization. Considering the variation we see when Witnesses are reaching for the location  I can't conclude that he was influenced by Dr mcclelland's drawing.  But if he was it should be noted that he was not influenced by the official record. My point being that his wound location or locations and the official wound are miles apart.

Who told the Boston Globe that the autopsy more closely represented what they saw than doctor mcclellands drawing? I could see Jenkins, Baxter, Gossman, or Carrico because they support the official story. Do you recall any of the names?

I consider it when Witnesses differ on their own accounts of the wound location. I also have to consider that people make small mistakes over time.  The accounts of the staff that day fall almost entirely into just two versions. Occipital parietal with a vertical  and lateral variance of about 2 in, and then there's the official parietal wound. It's like night and day. Even when we account for changing memories or misplacing the hand a bit it is not even close. There's no way to explain the overwhelming consistency of these reports when you compare them to the official report.

Crenshaw explained that he went back in after the resuscitation ended to look at the wound. He said this was partially driven by the helplessness he felt and wanted to know just what happened. That would support the idea that he didn't get much of a look during the resuscitation. But when he went back in the room was mostly cleared out so we can't speculate on how many seconds he looked at it.

      And Crenshaw said that, based on his finally look at JFK's corpse, he had no doubt that JFK was shot in the head from the front.   He also said that he and his Parkland colleagues were afraid to talk about what they saw.

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bill,

Go to the 5:56 mark in this 20/20 interview.

 

 

It's already been posted and nowhere in that entire video does Crenshaw say that he saw a bullet hole there.

You were wrong to say such a thing.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Crenshaw says in Trauma Room One/Conspiracy of Silence words to the effect of:  I realized if they could do this to a president they wouldn't hesitate to do so to a surgeon.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Crenshaw says in Trauma Room One/Conspiracy of Silence words to the effect of:  I realized if they could do this to a president they wouldn't hesitate to do so to a surgeon.

The ARRB interviewed a number of Parkland doctors and they expressed outrage at Crenshaw for indicating they were all a bunch of scaredy-cats. I saw McClelland speak at a COPA conference and he stressed this same thing: that he never felt any fear when expressing his opinions re the wounds, and never held back any of his opinions out of fear. 

FWIW, I think the frequent CT claim that a large number of witnesses believed as themselves, but were just too scared to say anything, is cowardly bs.  I have spoken to R. McLelland, K. Salyer, J. Jenkins, A. Rike, W. Newman, B. Frazier, M. Moorman, J. Tague, H.B. McLain, and probably a few others I can't remember right now, and none of them claimed they'd ever changed their impressions out of fear, or testified inaccurately cause they were scared, etc. They all appeared to tell the truth as they remembered it. 

I have found, as well, that a large percentage of CTs claiming to support the witnesses actually HATE the witnesses, and consider them a nuisance because they just won't say what they are supposed to say. And I'm not the only one saying as much. When you meet an actual witness, or read interviews with some of these witnesses, you will often find that the number one thing many of them despise about the assassination is that people on both sides of the CT fence don't listen to them, and twist what they say to fit their desired scenarios. As James Jenkins once told me "What are you gonna do--people will believe what they want to believe." 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Chris Bristow]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The ARRB interviewed a number of Parkland doctors and they expressed outrage at Crenshaw for indicating they were all a bunch of scaredy-cats. I saw McClelland speak at a COPA conference and he stressed this same thing: that he never felt any fear when expressing his opinions re the wounds, and never held back any of his opinions out of fear. 

FWIW, I think the frequent CT claim that a large number of witnesses believed as themselves, but were just too scared to say anything, is cowardly bs.  I have spoken to R. McLelland, K. Salyer, J. Jenkins, A. Rike, W. Newman, B. Frazier, M. Moorman, J. Tague, H.B. McLain, and probably a few others I can't remember right now, and none of them claimed they'd ever changed their impressions out of fear, or testified inaccurately cause they were scared, etc. They all appeared to tell the truth as they remembered it. 

I have found, as well, that a large percentage of CTs claiming to support the witnesses actually HATE the witnesses, and consider them a nuisance because they just won't say what they are supposed to say. And I'm not the only one saying as much. When you meet an actual witness, or read interviews with some of these witnesses, you will often find that the number one thing many of them despise about the assassination is that people on both sides of the CT fence don't listen to them, and twist what they say to fit their desired scenarios. As James Jenkins once told me "What are you gonna do--people will believe what they want to believe." 

I don't want to make another long rant here but geez dude, if the witness is being intimidated the last thing they're going to say is that they're being intimidated. Cuz they're being intimidated!

 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I don't want to make another long rant here but geez dude, if the witness is being intimidated the last thing they're going to say is that they're being intimidated. Cuz they're being intimidated!

 

Yeah, it could be. Except no... People who have never said what they were "supposed" to say, like McClelland, denied they were ever pressured into saying it. 

The "They were scared" argument is almost always used by CTs to attack someone who doesn't say what THEY want them to say. It is not applied evenly. I mean, people on both sides of the fence have shown up at the doors of witnesses or called them up on the phone and pressured them into going along with their theory who have no real interest in what the witnesses had to say. If the person says what they want them to to say--they assert it as truth-telling. if the person says something different...well, then, they were either fools or too scared to tell the truth.

It's sloppy and embarrassing. And there's a history of this on both sides.  A number of witnesses complained about the way Mark Lane twisted their words back in the 60's and a number of witness complained about the way Gerald Posner twisted their words in the 90's. And yet most people only get upset when such manipulation is done by the "other side."

I removed the filter, and created a data base of witness statements 4-5 larger than any previous collection. I then looked at these statements as a whole, as opposed to cherry-picking what I wanted to believe and disregarding the rest. 

And a number of facts became clear. 

1. The vast majority of witnesses viewing Kennedy at the time of the first shot saw Kennedy react to this shot. The first shot miss proposed by CBS, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al, is thereby a myth. 

2. The vast majority of up-close witnesses viewing Kennedy at the time of the fatal shot and reporting what they saw within days of the shooting saw Kennedy struck in the head by this shot, and heard another sound or shot shortly afterwards. The head shot was thereby the second shot heard by the vast majority of witnesses. 

3. The last shot, according to the closest witnesses (who were not diving for cover or ducking down in the limo at the time) failed to hit anything. As many witnesses also seemed to think this sound came from in front of the limo, and a number of witnesses saw smoke on the knoll just after the last shot, it follows that this last shot may have been a diversionary device.  (Since I wondered if this made any sense, I read numerous books and articles on sniping and military tactics, and found this was indeed a tactic used by sniper teams to disguise the location of the shooter.)

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yeah, it could be. Except no... People who have never said what they were "supposed" to say, like McLelland, denied they were ever pressured into not saying it. 

The "They were scared" argument is almost always used by CTs to attack someone who doesn't say what THEY want them to say. It is not applied evenly. I mean, people on both sides of the fence have shown up at the doors of witnesses or called them up on the phone and pressured them into going along with their theory who have no real interest in what the witnesses had to say. If the person says what they want them to to say--they assert it as truth-telling. if the person says something different...well, then, they were either fools or too scared to tell the truth.

It's sloppy and embarrassing. And there's a history of this on both sides.  A number of witnesses companied about the way Mark Lane twisted their words back in the 60's and a number of witness complained about the way Gerald Posner twisted their words in the 90's. And yet most people only get upset when such manipulation is done by the "other side."

I removed the filter, and created a data base of witness statements 4-5 larger than any previous collection. I then looked at these statements as a whole, as opposed to cherry-picking what I wanted to believe and disregarding the rest. 

And a number of facts became clear. 

1. The vast majority of witnesses viewing Kennedy at the time of the first shot saw Kennedy react to this shot. The first shot miss proposed by CBS, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al, is thereby a myth. 

2. The vast majority of up-close witnesses viewing Kennedy at the time of the second shot saw Kennedy struck in the head by this shot, and heard another sound or shot shortly afterwards. The head shot was thereby the second shot heard by the vast majority of witnesses. 

3. The last shot, according to the closest witnesses (who were not diving for cover or ducking down in the limo at the time) failed to hit anything. As many witnesses also seemed to think this sound came from in front of the limo, and a number of witnesses saw smoke on the knoll just after the last shot, it follows that this last shot may have been a diversionary device.  (Since I wondered if this made any sense, I read numerous books and articles on sniping and military tactics, and found this was indeed a tactic used by sniper teams to disguise the location of the shooter.)

Could the "third shot" have actually struck JBC?

That would somewhat coincide with the the forward movement of his body. 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

Witnesses say funny things. But...I tend to believe someone who is discussing what happened to themselves after being shot....