JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Jerry Organ]

I didn’t see the “illus 26 above” in your posting,

Couldn't find it online and I don't have a scanner. Maybe you could post it.

but I have seen the .223 round go through the gelatin block and similar things happen. I don’t know what sets off the explosive action but I do know it travels for some distance and then explodes.
It’s not so much that it is a “carcano” round, it’s that it is a metal jacked bullet designed to go through more than one soldier on the battle field. One time my brother and I were out shooting and we had an old army masser WWII vintage, not sure where it was from but it had metal jacked bullets in it. I fired at some sort of animal feed bin and the bullet went through the first 2X6 wood piece and when it went through the second wood rail, it went through it sideways, they were about 5 feet apart. So in the first piece of wood there was just a round hole in it and in the second one you could see the side profile of the bullet. No evidence of it coming apart.
I will look in McLarens book and see if there is a moment where McLaren or Donohue realize that they don’t have an acceptable representative experiment, no hard shell.
I haven’t seen anything about the 6.5 going through a skull but McLaren did do the watermelon test with both types of bullets. The frangible round, .223 acted exactly as in Dr Alvarez’s experiment, small entry hole and an explosion in the exit area.  The 6.5 had a small entry hole and the exit hole was a little larger with some outward cracks around it. It was in “JFK – The Smoking Gun” documentary. Again a watermelon is not a human skull but it does give us a very good idea of what is happening.

Tests using softwood and watermelons are soft tissue tests.

What happened to Connally was neither a strict soft tissue event nor a hard tissue event. The theory goes that the Carcano bullet exited the President's throat, tumbled somewhat by time it struck Connally, then slid along the rather thin fifth rib (ribs can be broken in fistfights) easily breaking it.

The radius bone injury was not a nose-on full-velocity strike but a "slap"-type injury; the bullet struck the wrist but didn't gouge out a hole through the bone, as a direct strike by a pristine bullet would have. X-rays show fractures to the radius with all bone present. To repair, a metal pin or bone grafts weren't necessary.

[Michael Carney]

 Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.
Jerry, I will look for the “illus 26”.
Yes they can be considered “soft tissue” tests but because of the similarity of a watermelon to a human head you see similar results. The bullet travels about half way through the object and explodes. The bullet has it’s own momentum and was moving at 3,000 ft/sec so it keeps traveling until it explodes.
I haven’t studied the Connelly wounding but because he was hit by a “tumbling” bullet it had to have hit something previously to upset it. Because of this the single bullet theory makes sense. Several people have lined the bullets path by showing Connelly sitting in a lower jump seat and seated a little to the left of JFK.
Once you figure in a shot from the grassy knoll, whether the “single bullet theory” is correct or not, you have established two shooters. The big question is who paid them or told them to do it.

[Bill Chapman]

Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.

I know that. But the original decree was the humanitarian thing. However, you'd think the idea of possible twofers factored into the decision.
Mind you, Quigley scored a triple-header.

But don't use FMJ ammo for home D. You might not stop some big hulk lunging at you, and wind up winging the mother-in-law to boot.

[Jerry Organ]

Bill that’s what I was told but regardless, if the bullet were to go through two soldiers it would take 4 more soldiers off the field to get them back to the medics.
Jerry, I will look for the “illus 26”.
Yes they can be considered “soft tissue” tests but because of the similarity of a watermelon to a human head you see similar results. The bullet travels about half way through the object and explodes. The bullet has it’s own momentum and was moving at 3,000 ft/sec so it keeps traveling until it explodes.

Melons can simulate the encased mass of a soft tissue object like the brain (the temporary cavity effect will burst the shell). But the rind at the entry point does not have the hardness to cause the FMJ to fragment as does skull bone or an appropriate replication.

I haven’t studied the Connelly wounding but because he was hit by a “tumbling” bullet it had to have hit something previously to upset it. Because of this the single bullet theory makes sense. Several people have lined the bullets path by showing Connelly sitting in a lower jump seat and seated a little to the left of JFK.
Once you figure in a shot from the grassy knoll, whether the “single bullet theory” is correct or not, you have established two shooters. The big question is who paid them or told them to do it.

I would think a frangible bullet impacting something as hard as skull bone would disintegrate immediately and at the entry point. It would be very unlike the soft tissue gelatin test in "illus. 26".

Don't tell me Donahue and McLaren didn't do any hard tissue tests with AR-15 rounds as well as not testing 6.5mm FMJs on hard tissue? McLaren strikes me as a bit of a showman, anyway.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I mentioned earlier that both Humes and Boswell told the ARRB that they did not remember doing a review of the autopsy materials in 1967, i.e., the review where they allegedly markedly changed their position on the orientation of autopsy photo F8. Well, come to find out that Humes, when presented with a copy of the 1967 memorandum, told the ARRB that he did not know who wrote it!:

“I don't know who wrote this, and reading it, it doesn't seem like I wrote it, just because of the phraseology and some of the comments. I don't know who wrote it.” (ARRB interview transcript, 2/13/96, p. 197)

As you will recall, on November 10, 1966, Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer reviewed the autopsy materials and signed a memorandum on the review that said that F8 showed a posterior view of the head. This is compelling because Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy, and, more important, Stringer was the medical photographer who actually took the picture. The fact that F8 is a posterior-view photo is extremely important because this means that F8 shows a sizable amount of bone missing from the occiput.

I only recently became aware that the ARRB’s forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, identified compelling evidence that F8 shows a posterior view of the skull. Dr. Kirschner noted that he saw fat tissue in a corner of the photo. A few years earlier, Dr. Mantik viewed F8 in stereo and noted that the upper left corner of F8 shows fat tissue and even a nipple extending outward from the skin of the chest. As Dr. Mantik explains, this fatty tissue would only be visible if F8 showed a posterior view of the head:

A compelling visual clue unexpectedly confronted me at the Archives as I viewed the color transparencies in stereo. In the upper left corner of F8 . . . I was surprised to see fat tissue (in the far distance), and even a nipple extending outward from the skin of the chest. (This area is not visible in the public images.) Rather strangely, until the ARRB, no one else had reported seeing such fatty tissue. However, the ARRB’s forensic pathologist, Robert H. Kirschner, also described this fat. Kirschner had thus corroborated my critical observation. These fat pads probably resulted from retracting the abdominal skin after the Y-incision. (Kirschner made the same point.) Seeing such fatty tissue in that location is only possible if F8 is a view from the back of the head. Once that is granted, a large occipital defect can readily be appreciated in F8. (Mantik, John F. Kennedy’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis, Kindle Edition, 2015, location 418, p. 31)

On a side note, Humes told the ARRB that F8 showed the EOP entry wound, and Dr. Mantik has confirmed that F8 does show an EOP entry wound almost exactly where Humes placed it (Mantik, John F. Kennedy’s Head Wounds, locations 385-392, 574-579, pp. 25-29, 62-65).

Dr. Mantik makes a powerful case from F8 and from the skull x-rays that the autopsy report’s placement of the rear head entry wound (slightly above the EOP) is correct. He acknowledges that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report (EOP to right eye) is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, but he shows that the photographic evidence of an EOP entry wound is strong, and that the skull x-rays suggest an EOP entry site.

The fact that the extant x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and the fact that the autopsy doctors said nothing about the top-of-head fragment trail, is a vexing problem for those who argue that the autopsy skull x-rays are genuine/unaltered.

WC apologists are left with only two very distasteful explanations for this problem, since they refuse to allow for alteration: One, the autopsy doctors were so unbelievably incompetent that they mistook the top-of-head fragment trail seen on the extant x-rays for a fragment trail that started at the EOP and went to a point just above the right eye. Two, the autopsy doctors purposely ignored the top-of-head fragment trail and knowingly described a low fragment trail that did not exist.
 

[Michael Carney]

Jerry, I agree a melon rind would not cause a FMJ bullet to fragment nor a frangible round and I am not sure a FMJ round would break apart hitting a skull. The purpose of the watermelon test is to see the difference in the results between a FMJ and a frangible round. Aren’t the results of the frangible round on the watermelon and what happened to JFK similar?

A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.

I don’t know if Donahue and McLaren did any “hard tissues tests” nor do I know that they are done. Please read this interesting article on ballistic gel, it basically includes “hard tissue”. https://shootingthebull.net/blog/more-on-bullet-penetration-and-why-we-dont-use-bones-when-testing-ammo-in-gel/

[Jerry Organ]

Jerry, I agree a melon rind would not cause a FMJ bullet to fragment nor a frangible round and I am not sure a FMJ round would break apart hitting a skull. The purpose of the watermelon test is to see the difference in the results between a FMJ and a frangible round. Aren’t the results of the frangible round on the watermelon and what happened to JFK similar?

Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.

A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.

A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.

I don’t know if Donahue and McLaren did any “hard tissues tests” nor do I know that they are done. Please read this interesting article on ballistic gel, it basically includes “hard tissue”. https://shootingthebull.net/blog/more-on-bullet-penetration-and-why-we-dont-use-bones-when-testing-ammo-in-gel/

So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.

The website talks about ballistic gel being a soft tissue simulant (true) but they're talking about straight-line bullet penetration range, not fragmentation or what happens when a bullet deflects.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Would a frangible bullet not be more likely to fragment on impact to a skull replication as opposed to a watermelon rind, which is a soft tissue stimulant? The rind has some hardness and retention due to fiber but it is not hard tissue comparable to skull bone. A watermelon rind can be cut with a pointed knife with relative ease.

A FMJ passing through a watermelon is a soft tissue test from start to finish. Very misleading of McLaren to contend it represented a human skull.

Oh, yeah, your story is that CE 399 supposedly transited JFK's neck, then transited Connally's chest while smashing 4 inches of rib bone in the process, then transited Connally's wrist and smashed one of the hardest bones in the body in the process, and then buried itself in Connally's thigh--yet not only did this magic bullet not fragment but it emerged with its lands and grooves intact. However, your story also says that the one head-shot bullet that you will acknowledge shattered into dozens of fragments, depositing two fragments in the limo and leaving about 40 fragments in the head! Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Quote from: Mike Carney on Today at 04:19:20 PM
A frangible bullet moving at 3,000 fps with its mass would pass into the skull, travel some short distance and then explode. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t have a 6mm hole in the back of JFK’s head.

So you think the 6mm measurement applies to the skull bone and not the scalp as Humes explained. I can't help you with that.

You should know by now that this is false. We have already covered this issue. You are once again misrepresenting the totality of Humes's statements on the wound, and are ignoring what Finck said about the wound. As has been pointed out to you, even the WC did not stoop to the level of denying that the wound was measured to be 6.0 mm on the scalp and on the skull. That's what Humes said in the autopsy report. That's what he told the WC in one part of this testimony. And that's what Finck stated very clearly to General Blumberg.  I am sorry that you don't like the fact that in medical lingo "corresponding" means matching, fitting, etc.

You pull this stunt over and over again. You make a claim; the claim is refuted; and then you post the claim again and do not even acknowledge the counter-arguments that have been presented to you about the claim. I guess you just assume that most people will only read the most recent posts in a thread or something and that therefore you can usually get away with repeating refuted claims and with not even acknowledging the counter-arguments to those claims.