Question on “Inside the Target Car” test results

[Brian Roselle]

I well understand modeling can be a challenge, and I do have a couple of gripes about the rear shot recreation done in “Inside the Target Car”, but I think they may have done the highest “tech” recreation I have seen to date.

My question is based on the attached jpg, after the test shot.

There is a glob of tissue exuded/hanging forward outside the skull after the rear shot happened.

Is there any film evidence of this particular effect, or was there any testimony that indicated something like this happened (perhaps before being pushed back inside the skull)?

Thanks

[Joe Elliott]

I well understand modeling can be a challenge, and I do have a couple of gripes about the rear shot recreation done in “Inside the Target Car”, but I think they may have done the highest “tech” recreation I have seen to date.

My question is based on the attached jpg, after the test shot.

There is a glob of tissue exuded/hanging forward outside the skull after the rear shot happened.

Is there any film evidence of this particular effect, or was there any testimony that indicated something like this happened (perhaps before being pushed back inside the skull)?

Thanks

I don't know the answer to your question.

However, I will comment that, as I understand it, this is the best model of a human head, showing the damage to a head done by a bullet. But it is still an unsatisfactory model.

Why? Because the bullet that emerged from this test came out with very little damage. If truth, the bullet should have been fragmented, from striking the skull at something like 90 per cent of the muzzle velocity.

I suspect the problem is that the material used to simulate bone, does not have twice the density of water. Unlike bone which does. According to Larry Sturdivan in his book 'The JFK Myths', the damage to a bullet caused by the material it strikes is related to the velocity of the bullet while it is passing through this material, and the density of the material.

I think this model is designed to show the effects on a human body by the bullet. But not designed to show the effects on the bullet by the human body.

[Brian Roselle]

Joe, in thinking about this I think you are right that the Australian firm’s skull in this test was designed to show the effects on the human body (here the skull) and not the bullet. I recall them saying they were interested in mainly filming the skull damage. And because of the interest in slow motion filming the skull damage that occurred, they said that the torso/neck was being bolted down to the max in order to limit its motion (presumably no body motion blurs on film, in order to see just how the skull was reacting during strike).

You may also be right that the rear of the surrogate skull was not dense enough, or thick enough, or both, in order to rupture the carcano’s copper jacket on initial impact, or during its slowed down subsequent impact during a forehead exit from the inside. It could be that they consider themselves more expert on tissue and brain fill material rather than specific skull bone properties during a high compressive bullet strike.

 In any case, I was just interested some of the final residual brain tissue disposition shown in the test.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I well understand modeling can be a challenge, and I do have a couple of gripes about the rear shot recreation done in “Inside the Target Car”, but I think they may have done the highest “tech” recreation I have seen to date.

My question is based on the attached jpg, after the test shot.

There is a glob of tissue exuded/hanging forward outside the skull after the rear shot happened.

Is there any film evidence of this particular effect, or was there any testimony that indicated something like this happened (perhaps before being pushed back inside the skull)?

Thanks

A proper re-creation should have used a 50 grain 223 AR15 hollowpoint (instead of a 6.5 mm 150 grain FMJ).
And the trajekt throo the head should have been an inch deep or not much more than that (as the elevation of the AR15 in Queen Mary was only say an inch higher than the windshield, measured from the pavement of Elm St).
I doubt that details of the splatter etc is going to tell u anything that we dont already know.
If i were u i would investigate the dent in the chrome trim, ie whether it is compatible with a 223 (it is).

[Brian Roselle]

A proper re-creation should have used a 50 grain 223 AR15 hollowpoint (instead of a 6.5 mm 150 grain FMJ).
And the trajekt throo the head should have been an inch deep or not much more than that (as the elevation of the AR15 in Queen Mary was only say an inch higher than the windshield, measured from the pavement of Elm St).
I doubt that details of the splatter etc is going to tell u anything that we dont already know.
If i were u i would investigate the dent in the chrome trim, ie whether it is compatible with a 223 (it is).

I think the chrome trim dent could be compatible with a 567.
(a CE567 @ ~800fps)

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I think the chrome trim dent could be compatible with a 567.
(a CE567 @ ~800fps)

Kellerman said that at the first shot JFK said -- "My God, I am hit". This is of course the shot that ricocheted off the signal arm guy rod (mast) at say pseudo Z105 (Holland said Z103). The ricochet gave us three lots of fragments. (1) The shower of small lead hit JFK in the back of the head, actually the right-hand-side of the back, koz he was looking right (Xrays). (2) The lead slug put a hole in the floor near the jump seats, & rattled around tween the driveshaft road & limo (photo)(FBI letter).. (3) The brass full metal jacket broke in two as usual (made in 2 halves), & ended up hitting carpet tween the jump seats (CE567 CE569).
Roselle & Scearce say first shot was at i think Z124 plus or minus (i think) 3 frames (ie Z121-Z127), based on reactions.
Hence reactions suggest that Z105 is 16-19 Z frames too early (& Z103 is 18-21 Z frames too early).

So, u are today saying that CE567 was probly from the headshot at Z313, & that CE567 after outshoot made the dent.
I could mention say 10 ballistic facts that each kill that theory, & say 10 non-ballistic facts.

What is needed is someone with a good brain (ie u) to test a 223 hitting a (proper) model of the chrome trim etc.
The critical thing is whether the 223 would make a hole instead of a dent.
The dent was made by the penultimate shot (at about Z309) of Hickey's accidental auto burst of at least 4 shots (Z313 being the last shot).
This shot was nearly parallel to the Elm St pavement, from say 27 ft (muzzle of AR15 to dent).
First contact with chrome was on the midline of the chrome (ie on the crease at midline).
The initial lead splatter was partly down & forward (as per the angle of the bottom half of the face of the chrome below the midline), damaging the rear vision mirror.
Then, when the chrome dent started to develop, the splatter was 360deg & backwards.
I could help with needed details. Nobody else around here has a clue.

[Paul J Cummings]

I'm wondering if Hickey ever paid for the First Ladies dry cleaning bill from November 22?