LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
W. Tracy Parnell and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments  (Read 3112 times)

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2023, 06:08:44 PM »
This is simply not true. In his book "The JFK Myths", Larry Sturdivan discusses the speed the bullet had when it:

First struck JFK's neck.
Exited JFK's neck.
First struck Connally's back.
First struck Connally's rib, the first direct strike on bone.
First struck Connally's wrist bone.
First struck Connally's thigh.


He estimates the speed of the bullet, when it struck Connally's rib, was 1,400 fps. And it was travelling sideways, at that point.

He states that when travelling point first, the bullet won't start to deform once it drops below 1,700 fps. But when travelling sideways, if won't start to deform once it drops below 1,400 fps. So, when the bullet first struck Connally's rib, it was just going fast enough to start to deform. Hence the side of the bullet being squeezed and lead being pushed out of it's base. The speed of the bullet quickly dropped below 1,400 fps and did not deform any further, even after striking the much stronger wrist bone.

A bit of revision from his HSCA testimony (1 HSCA 396):

Mr. MATHEWS. So at what velocity will a bullet begin to deform?
Mr. STURDIVAN. OK, the bullet would begin to deform, if it strikes say, soft tissue, at something-remember, the density of soft tissue is around one, the density of water, and it will begin to deform at something in excess of 2,000 feet per second. In other words, at the muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano. If it strikes bone, which is twice as dense, then it would begin to deform nose on at approximately 1,400 feet per second. If the bullet turns sideways, which is a weaker orientation, it will deform down to around 1,000 feet feet per second.

Quote
Larry Sturdivan does not discuss the pressures involved, only the speed of the bullet needed to deform. He discusses this pretty thorughly.
And that is the problem.  We can determine the strength of the bullet and bone in terms of yield pressure (force per unit area at which the molecular bonds within the material break). The force is the time rate of change of momentum of the material the bullet is striking. That can only be determined by experiment.  He does not refer to any experimental data. 

Try firing a MC bullet so that it hits a rib bone sideways at 1400 feet/sec.  I think you will find, as Sturdivan originally said, it will be deforming significantly. 

Quote
But what witness could possibly view two different people at the same time? One's concentration would, at best, be only one either Kennedy or Connally. They can't watch one with the left eye and the other with the right. And the only witness who had an opinion on which one they saw get wounded first, Mrs. Connally, was not looking at either man at z-222. Who are the other witnesses who you are referring to?
A witness does not have to view two people at the same time.  At least 20 people said that JFK reacted to the first bullet and at least 40 said that there was a long pause between 1 and 2 and a much shorter space between 2 and 3.  That absolutely excludes a second shot SBT, which seems to be the current view. When you combine that with the Connallys being adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that pretty much excludes the SBT.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2023, 06:08:44 PM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2023, 03:31:32 AM »

A bit of revision from his HSCA testimony (1 HSCA 396):

Mr. MATHEWS. So at what velocity will a bullet begin to deform?
Mr. STURDIVAN. OK, the bullet would begin to deform, if it strikes say, soft tissue, at something-remember, the density of soft tissue is around one, the density of water, and it will begin to deform at something in excess of 2,000 feet per second. In other words, at the muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano. If it strikes bone, which is twice as dense, then it would begin to deform nose on at approximately 1,400 feet per second. If the bullet turns sideways, which is a weaker orientation, it will deform down to around 1,000 feet feet per second.
And that is the problem.  We can determine the strength of the bullet and bone in terms of yield pressure (force per unit area at which the molecular bonds within the material break). The force is the time rate of change of momentum of the material the bullet is striking. That can only be determined by experiment.  He does not refer to any experimental data. 

But scientists commonly change their estimates over time. Cranks come up with a number and stick with it no matter what. Scientists has given wildly different estimates on the age of the Earth, before eventually settling on 4.567 billion years during the last generation. While many 'Scientific Creationist' have consistently given the true age as 6,000 years, and do so to this day. Changing one's estimates on measured data is not the sign of a poor scientist. Not changing one's estimate could be a sign that one is dealing with a crank.

Early experiments indicated to Mr. Sturdivan deformation velocities of 1,400 to 1,000 fps, later experiments with better film and instruments refined this to 1,700 to 1,400 fps. Nothing is more common in science than getting better data over time.

Try firing a MC bullet so that it hits a rib bone sideways at 1400 feet/sec.  I think you will find, as Sturdivan originally said, it will be deforming significantly. 

Modern slow motion film can accurately measure the speed of a bullet. Why don't CTers demonstrate what happens when a bullet strikes bone at 1,400 fps? Instead of providing definitive film or the work of ballistic experts who do this sort of work, they only use words to describe how CE399 could not have come out with so little deformation.

It's true. I have not done the work myself. But the NOVA video of Luke and Michael Haag testing the SBT at least looks like good valid experiments. Where we can see a bullet travelling in slow motion and tumbling.

The videos of pro CT, anti CE 399 experiments are, well, non existent. The CTers don't even go through the motions of conducting scientific experiments.

Where is the video of someone shooting through a ballistic gel block six inches wide, then into another ballistic gel block ten inches wide with rib bones embedded in it, then catching the bullet in a third ballistic gel block? Run this experiment ten times and show me that all ten bullets look vastly more deformed than CE 399. Or at least have a ballistic expert claim his has done this experiment. I have seen nothing like this.

By the way, I left out another block with an array of wrist bones. This makes the experiment more complicated. And doesn't matter, because by the time the bullet reaches the wrist bone, it is going too slow to be further deformed. But they can add a fourth block if they wish.

A witness does not have to view two people at the same time.  At least 20 people said that JFK reacted to the first bullet and at least 40 said that there was a long pause between 1 and 2 and a much shorter space between 2 and 3.  That absolutely excludes a second shot SBT, which seems to be the current view. When you combine that with the Connallys being adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that pretty much excludes the SBT.

Man. I can tell that you are no skeptic. No skeptic would put so much faith in eyewitnesses.

At least 20 people said that JFK reacted first? Could this have something to do with most people being focused on the Kennedy's? How many people in the crowd were telling crowd were telling themselves "Oh, this is so exciting! Here comes the Governor and his wife, along with that other couple"? And the Secret Service. Were they concentrating more on Kennedy or Connally? Who was concentrating more on Connally?

Nellie Connally was adamant that John Connally was hit after JFK. John Connally was adamant that his wife could not be mistaken. If she saw it that way, that's the way it happened. Of course, the Zapruder film shows both Kennedy and Connally appearing to react at the same time as they emerged from behind the sign. And absolutely shows Nellie Connally looking at neither man at this time. Oh, yes, this is the perfect witness.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2023, 05:45:30 PM »
But scientists commonly change their estimates over time. Cranks come up with a number and stick with it no matter what. Scientists has given wildly different estimates on the age of the Earth, before eventually settling on 4.567 billion years during the last generation. While many 'Scientific Creationist' have consistently given the true age as 6,000 years, and do so to this day. Changing one's estimates on measured data is not the sign of a poor scientist. Not changing one's estimate could be a sign that one is dealing with a crank.

Early experiments indicated to Mr. Sturdivan deformation velocities of 1,400 to 1,000 fps, later experiments with better film and instruments refined this to 1,700 to 1,400 fps. Nothing is more common in science than getting better data over time.
Did they? If so, where is the data?  Sturdivan does not even acknowledge the change, let alone provide an explanation for it.

Quote
Modern slow motion film can accurately measure the speed of a bullet. Why don't CTers demonstrate what happens when a bullet strikes bone at 1,400 fps? Instead of providing definitive film or the work of ballistic experts who do this sort of work, they only use words to describe how CE399 could not have come out with so little deformation.
It should not be done by anyone who has already formed a firm conclusion about what the result should be.

Besides, is not simply a matter of having a bullet strike a bone.  This bone was a living bone embedded in a human body.  Since the bullet did not shatter the fifth rib at the point where it struck, it must have struck obliquely.  Yet it left this 3/8" x 3/8" hole in the back of the shirt:


It pushed the entire fifth rib inward (causing a fracture where it joins the spine).  It then passed through the rib driving bone shards into the lower right lung before exiting below the right nipple. It then passed through the shirt and jacket, right jacket sleeve and french cuff leaving this jagged long hole:


Quote
The videos of pro CT, anti CE 399 experiments are, well, non existent. The CTers don't even go through the motions of conducting scientific experiments.
We don't need pro CT, anti CE399 experiments. We need objective testing.  Besides, based on the evidence one can easily accept the WC conclusion but conclude that all three bullets struck JFK and/or JBC.
Quote
At least 20 people said that JFK reacted first? Could this have something to do with most people being focused on the Kennedy's?
If they were so focused on the Kennedys, which seems reasonable, why would not a single witness observe that JFK did not react to the first shot and continued to smile and wave for several seconds after the phantom missed first shot?

Quote
Nellie Connally was adamant that John Connally was hit after JFK. John Connally was adamant that his wife could not be mistaken. If she saw it that way, that's the way it happened. Of course, the Zapruder film shows both Kennedy and Connally appearing to react at the same time as they emerged from behind the sign. And absolutely shows Nellie Connally looking at neither man at this time. Oh, yes, this is the perfect witness.
She also said that she did not look back at JFK after the second shot and said that she immediately reached out and pulled him toward her.  She is looking back at JFK prior to z270.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2023, 05:45:30 PM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2023, 05:11:56 PM »

Did they? If so, where is the data?  Sturdivan does not even acknowledge the change, let alone provide an explanation for it.
It should not be done by anyone who has already formed a firm conclusion about what the result should be.

Where is the data of some ballistic expert showing that Larry Sturdivan's most recent estimates are in error? In an ideal world, a ballistic expert would:

1. Be an real ballistic expert who claims to have looked into the properties of the WCC/MC bullet
2. Claim to have run experiments designed to test the SBT that is set up with designed estimate the maximum velocity the bullet can have without having bone start to deform it while travelling point-first and sideways
3. Provide the raw data, which I guess would be the film of these experiments.

For Step 3, I guess some website would have to be provided where the film could be seen and explanations given about what is being seen. In addition to the film, all the still frames of that film would have to be accessible. So one can count frames to get the time the bullet travelled a certain small distance, giving us the speed. This would take a good deal of work. I know of only one site that provided still images of all the Zapruder film, the Costella site, so it appears to be something that is a little expensive to do, else many people would provide a website like the Costella site.

For the Pro-LN side, we do have Sturdivan, who successfully passes steps 1 and 2. And only fails to provide step 3.

For the Pro-CT side, we have nothing, not step 1, nor step 2, nor step 3.

I don't think step 3 is necessary until we get a ballistic expert who disagrees with Mr. Sturdivan. If that happens, then someone is going to have to go through the expense and trouble of making the raw data available before we can come to a conclusion. But in the absence of such a Pro-CT ballistic expert, I think it is safe to conclude, for now, that Mr. Sturdivan's estimates are the best we have. And good reasons to believe him. Because no one wants their professional reputation damaged, even if they are retired.

Besides, is not simply a matter of having a bullet strike a bone.  This bone was a living bone embedded in a human body.  Since the bullet did not shatter the fifth rib at the point where it struck, it must have struck obliquely.  Yet it left this 3/8" x 3/8" hole in the back of the shirt:


It pushed the entire fifth rib inward (causing a fracture where it joins the spine).  It then passed through the rib driving bone shards into the lower right lung before exiting below the right nipple. It then passed through the shirt and jacket, right jacket sleeve and french cuff leaving this jagged long hole:


And where is the professional opinion of a ballistic expert that this could not have been done by CE-399? Non experts, we can find galore. But I'm not looking for that.

We don't need pro CT, anti CE399 experiments. We need objective testing.  Besides, based on the evidence one can easily accept the WC conclusion but conclude that all three bullets struck JFK and/or JBC.If they were so focused on the Kennedys, which seems reasonable, why would not a single witness observe that JFK did not react to the first shot and continued to smile and wave for several seconds after the phantom missed first shot?

I'm going off on a tangent here to make a point.

The Michael-Moreley experiment shows that the speed of light is the same in all directions. One of the most surprising results in the history of physics.

Let's say a Mr. Jones objects to this. Claims that this cannot be true. Mr. Michael and Mr. Moreley must be biased against the truth, that the speed of light does vary, depending on the direction of Earth's travel through space. Mr. Jones demands that this experiment be re-run, but with this time, a non-biased physicist.

So, a Mr. Able, a professional and well respected physicist re-runs the experiment. And finds that, indeed, the same of light is the same in all directions.

Mr. Jones claims that this is no good, because clearly Mr. Able is biased against the theory that the speed of light varies depending on the direction the light travels.

In a sense, Mr. Jones is correct. Mr. Michael, Mr. Moreley and Mr. Able are all biased against the theory that the speed of light varies depending on the direction. But this biased was formed as the result of them testing nature.

Question: Is it possible that the real problem is not the bias of Mr. Michael, Mr. Moreley and Mr. Able. That the real problem is the bias of Mr. Jones? Whenever he gets an unfavorable result back from someone, he automatically concludes that that person must have a bias. Why else would they report back with a false result?

Question: Is it possible that the real problem is not the bias of Mr. Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag. The real problem is with your bias?

Question: If another professional, well respected ballistic expert, let's say Mr. Smith, reported that he conducted some ballistic experiments and concluded that CE-399 could have caused the wounds to JFK and Connally by itself, is it not likely that you would be saying the Mr. Smith is clearly biased and we need this experiment run by someone who is not biased?

Question: If Mr. Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag are not enough, then how many ballistic experts would it take to convince you that the scientific evidence supports the possibility that CE-399 wounded both JFK and Connally?


What we need is a professional, well respected ballistic expert who reports that Sturdivan and the Haags are wrong before we can reconsidered this matter. One will do. But we need to find that one expert.

It is unlikely that an expert like Sturdivan and the Haags are wrong. They have a professional reputation to maintain. If you screw up on the most famous Cold Case of all, it's going to hurt. You may find it difficult to get hired for the sort of jobs you want to do. Even for someone who is retired, like Luke Haag, you like to keep your professional reputation. It's nice to get invited to speak in from of your professional colleagues. I doubt one of them would lie or be greatly mistaken.

So the CT side needs to find such a profession, respected ballistic expert who disagrees with Sturdivan and the Haags. If this happens, this is surprising because someone is going to lose their reputation. But if this happens, then it will be necessary for people to provide the raw data, the film and stills from the experiments. Data on the type of ballistic gel they used. Data on the 'targets', like the type, size, and time after death of the bones they used. Until such a time there is no debate. On side has professional opinion. They other does not.

She also said that she did not look back at JFK after the second shot and said that she immediately reached out and pulled him toward her.  She is looking back at JFK prior to z270.

Both JFK and Connally clearly appear to be wounded as they emerge from behind the sign, indeed both appear to start to react starting at z-226.

What are the minimum qualifications for a witness.

1. That they be clear minded and sober individuals.
2. That they have no obvious reason to lie. Of course, it's possible someone has an unknown motive to lie that is not obvious.
3. That they are looking in the direction of what they are witnessing.

If a witness, Mr. Eyes, claims that a Mr. Suspect was not shooting at Mr. Victim at the time he was shot. But there is a film that shows Mr. Victim getting wounded while Mr. Eyes is not looking in the direction of Mr. Suspect, then the testimony of Mr. Eyes cannot be taken seriously. No matter how good a witness he otherwise seems to be.

Mrs. Connally was looking at various times JFK and Mr. Connally. But not during the critical period of the mid z-220's. And even if she was, I still don't understand, if both were wounded by the same bullet, that she could see concentrate on both men at the same time and tell that both were wounded at the same moment. But all that is academic because she wasn't even looking at either man.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10095
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2023, 07:00:09 PM »
Just because you believe "both appear to start to react starting at z-226" doesn't mean that's when Mrs. Connally saw each of them them reacting.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2023, 05:31:36 AM »
Just because you believe "both appear to start to react starting at z-226" doesn't mean that's when Mrs. Connally saw each of them them reacting.
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding.  Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 05:33:53 AM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2023, 05:31:36 AM »


Online Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2023, 08:25:03 AM »
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding.  Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.

Mason thinks three shots were fired by Oswald from the Sniper's Nest window and that all three struck. Well, OK.

But Mason looks at this GIF below and sees Connally politely showing "concern" for Kennedy. He doesn't think Connally just took one through the torso and wrist. But there's Connally's right arm springing up weirdly, his right shoulder dropping, the gasping for air and the dangling wrist.



People may be confused as to why Mason is going on with this. He has a Pet Theory that has JFK take the neck transit shot in the Z190s. That bullet emerges out of Kennedy's throat, glides pass the left side of Connally without striking him and is gently stopped by the Governor's left thigh (so gently, per Mason, Connally doesn't perceived he's been hit). You need, like, three feet of wood to stop those Carcano bullets, but Connally stops it with three inches of flesh.

Mason's second shot doesn't arrive until Z272. That's the one that strikes Connally's back, courses through the right torso, emerging to strike the wrist. Per Mason, the bullet fragments off the wrist causing the dent in the windshield frame and inside of the windshield. The head shot to Kennedy occurs 2 1/4 seconds later. This matches the bang.......bang....bang shot-spacing pattern he thinks occurred.*

Oh, and Mason thinks that second shot that struck Connally made Kennedy's hair flutter as it breezed by.
__________________

* But see Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 03:51:41 PM by Jerry Organ »

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2023, 03:05:41 PM »
The question is not whether they are both reacting. The question is what are they reacting to? According to all the evidence there was only one shot to that point.(z225-z240). And, according to the evidence JFK is reacting to it passing through his neck. JBC is reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and turning around to see if JFK was hit in what he feared was an assassination unfolding.  Everyone who thinks JBC is reacting to his chest wound is ignoring or rejecting large bodies of consistent uncontradicted evidence.

Jerry Organ made the same points I was going to make.

You (Mason) say that during z-226 through z-232, Connally is not reacting to being wounded. He is reacting to hearing the shot that wounded JFK. Connally was really first wounded at a later point.

But how did Connally react to hearing this shot around z222?

1. By his "Soon to be shot" coat suddenly bulging forward for one frame, as seen in z-224.
2. By his "Soon to be shot" right shoulder" suddenly moving forward, as if it had been hit from behind, starting by z-226.
3. By jerking his "Soon to be shot" right wrist up high where we can see his hat, which was held in his right hand, starting at z-226, the same frame JFK starts to jerk both elbows upwards.

It is as if Connally was psychic and started moving the parts of his body that was soon to be hit. Even his coat was psychic.

There were multiple amazing coincidences, if this was just Connally reacting to hearing the shots, and not Connally reacting to being wounded in the right shoulder, chest area and right wrist.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 03:08:03 PM by Joe Elliott »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2023, 03:05:41 PM »


 

Mobile View