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

[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.

[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/

[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.

[Michael Carney]

Jerry,

“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.”

If you think about it if a frangible round fragmented on impact and didn’t penetrate the skull all you would have is a flesh wound. No, with the speed and the mass of the frangible round, it will penetrate bone. If I could remember my college physics I could better explain it but the old brain doesn’t work like it used to.
“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.”

As far as McLaren being misleading, think of the gelatin test. They specify that a bullet must penetrate the gel 12” (not body penetration, but gel penetration) this means that the bullet has enough energy to hit the vitals from any angle, and through any barrier on the body.  It will have enough power to blast through a bone and reach the vitals underneath.  I don’t think the Armed Forces would use a bullet that would not pass muster in a gelatin ballistics test.

“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.”

Yes, I think the 6mm applies to the skull and not the tissue. The tissue is too pliable and one would have to use a ruler to measure a hole in tissue but for a hole In the skull they would use something like an inside taper gauge.

“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.”

No, the ballistic gel is both hard and soft tissue equivalent. . See it all depends on how far the bullet penetrates the gel. If it penetrates the gel 12” then that is the equivalent of going through any amount of bone and soft tissue to get to vital organs.

[Michael Carney]

Jerry

“I didn't claim it won't crack the skull, or bore through it. I'm assuming it would penetrate the skull bone, but, being frangible, it would leave behind at the impact site a considerable amount of its mass.”

What do we know about the hole, it appears to be a clean hole so the bullet did pass through the skull without any “explosion” at entry. So then the bullet travels some distance and explodes, how far we don’t know. We also know that the right of JFK’s head is blown out, shown in Zapruders film. 

“But whatever passed through Kennedy brain didn't arrive there nose-on and intact.”

No, it exploded as frangible rounds do, we just don’t know where it explodes. Moving at 3,000 ft/sec it could have traveled some distance. Of course it would have been slowed down by the impact but none the less, it was still traveling very fast.

“Great test, I suppose, if the working assumption is that a FMJ bullet will be intact and nose-on after passing through a bone. McLaren would love it; the AR-15 bullet would disintegrate anyway and the FMJ bullet would plow a straight path.”

Again, we know it will designate or explode at some point but we don’t know where.

[Michael Carney]

You don’t need to be a PhD in physics to know that with every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Forward movement, what happens when you get hit in the back of the head with something, your immediate reaction is your head moves forward, nothing magical about that. Now let’s talk about the rearward movement

It seems that the only possible explanation for the head jerking backward is the “jet-effect” or the “neuromuscular spasm” caused by the 6.5mm bullet shot from a Carcano rifle 80 yards away, moving at 1800 ft/sec.

Now let’s imagine a 5.5mm bullet shot from an M16 roughly 15 ft away traveling at 3,000 ft/sec.

Now let’s talk about the backward jolt. Imagine a small explosive device, more powerful than a cherry bomb but not as powerful as a hand grenade, next to a person’s right forehead. Now imagine it is detonated, what happens, the head jerks away from the exploded device. No argument there I take it. Now imagine I can put that device inside the head say a couple inches away from the left forehead. Now that is detonated and what happens. It blows the forehead open and spews blood and brain matter out and the power of the explosion again pushes the head away from the explosion in a backward direction.

So my theory is that the frangible bullet reaches the area in JFK’s forehead and explodes, thus the backward movement.

[Michael Carney]

Jerry,

You have produced some very interesting information and proving that a frangible round could enter the back of the head and make it through the brain and then explode yielding results that we see in the Zapruder film. Whether the bullet was on its way to explode traveling through the brain or whether the bullet hit the interior of the skull at JFK’s forehead area causing the explosion, we don’t know.

Was it a hollow point bullet that Hickey fired, most likely. Just thinking about it if it wasn’t, it would be nothing more than an overpowered .22 and I don’t think the military would back something like that for combat. How would that replace the M14??

Another possibility but highly unlikely is that the bullet from the grassy knoll and the bullet from Hickey’s AR15 hit each other and exploded. Either way, both scenarios’ explain JFK’s backward head movement.