Nick Bartetzko
-
Posts
214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Nick Bartetzko
-
-
4 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:
...Not sure I can be of any help here: I struggled for days before being able to post a valid link / image...
I will resume the presentation tomorrow....
Have you analyzed the different types of photo formats and where you are sourcing them from so as to try to determine a pattern of which photos are consistently being accepted or rejected on this site?
-
7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Thanks, Roger, for your civil tone.
Clark said he studied the head wound in an effort to determine if it was a survivable wound, and quickly realized the answer was no.
Now, he did say he saw cerebellum. And never retracted that statement.
And I consider that a problem for my conclusion he was mistaken.
But he refused to talk to conspiracy theorists, and denounced them in the press, and worked with Lattimer, so I think his ultimate position was probably that he was in fact mistaken.
While studying his statements, moreover, I noticed that he claimed in the press conference, his report, and in his testimony, that the wound appeared to be a tangential wound. That led me to wonder 1) why those obsessed with his statements regarding cerebellum never discussed the significance of these statements, and 2) what was the implication of these statements. This sent me on a years-long journey into forensics journals and books on wound ballistics, and to the ultimate realization Clark was absolutely correct on this point. This is spelled out in chapter 16b Digging in the Dirt.
As far as messages, my inbox is probably full and I probably need to clean up a few. I have been holding onto old messages from people like Gerry Hemming, Gary Mack, and David Lifton.
This raises a question. Should I make these messages public now that they are no longer with us? Is that cool, and in the spirit of this website? I don't know.
Yes, I certainly believe they should be made public. We have lost so much information with the passing of Tom Wilson, David Lifton and others. So it would be nice to at least have these messages...
-
On 5/2/2024 at 3:03 PM, Christian Toussay said:
...Let me know if you can now see the image that was reposted by a fellow member...
This one, no. The postings before and after this one, yes....
-
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:
He does have along tour planned for 91 years old.
I was wondering how much tickets would be.... This is for New Braunfels, TX. Amazing to be performing at 91....
General Admission - Standing Room Only$ 101.64 (all fees included) -
7 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:
Ok, so let's see what we can find in the right lateral autopsy picture. Hee is the original below:
Below are two results after processing:
There appears to be a large, roughly circular area of bruised tissues, devoid of scalp and hair, about 1,5 inches above the right eye, just at the hairline.
Note how deep the metal rest is sinking into JFK's head, indicating absence of bone.
Below we compare these results with Kilduff spontaneous description of the wound during the Press conference in Dallas:
Below is a comparison with Z 337:
And below is my interpretation of the head wounds, after comparative analysis of Moorman, Z 337 and those two autopsy pictures. I chose a top view of the skull, for a change of perspective:
I had intended to go on with a presentation dedicated to the forgery of the record, but I will to see if this link problem is actually solved.
If not, I will put this presentation on hold and see what I can do
Christian,
Very interesting photos and interpretation. These are all visible, but some of your previous photos on this page were not. I wonder if this might partly be a browser issue. I use Safari in Apple iOS.
-
On 4/13/2024 at 1:58 PM, Christian Toussay said:
...Well, I don't know: it seems that the links in this thread are broken again...
I will repost them, but if anyone knows how to avoid this, let me know....
Ok, apparently, the images don't show up in the thread, which is a pity, but can be accessed via the link.
Anyone having trouble with the link, let me know....
The photos or links have never been visible to me. I only see a small question mark in the center. I am using an iPad.
-
On 4/15/2024 at 6:54 PM, Vince Palamara said:
Also- the Admitted Assassin book makes the claim that THIS photo is of Geneva White, Roscoe's wife- is it? Actually, I always thought it was Beverly Oliver [19 H 42]:
The face sure looks like Bev, but I'll take Denis word that it isn't.
-
41 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
I believe that the wound was described as below the Adam’s apple, which would place it at the collar and tie level, which matches the round area at the bottom of the neck wound in the autopsy photo (not that I trust it to be truly authentic). Did any of the nurses admit to nicking the shirt and tie? Otherwise it would just be Weisberg’s hypothesis, which is theory, not fact. The wound might have had the APPEARANCE of an entrance without actually being an entrance, which is what I believe happened.
I am certain that the Zfilm was altered, so I disregard any theory that relies upon it. If you do that and focus on witness accounts, with the caveat that many of the DP witnesses missed processing the early shot/s (because they were not expecting an assassination and first thought the sounds were firecrackers), then you get closer to the truth of what happened.
I guess we'll just continue to disagree. Yes, I am not sure about the exact location of the throat wound and indeed no one admitted to cutting the clothing there. Only Carrico that I can recall emphasized it was above the shirt and tie. The fact still remains that the medical personnel believed it was an entrance wound and they saw many bullet wounds on a regular basis.
You've lost me as to film alteration relating to JFK having his mouth open and appearing to be in distress right before he's obviously struck in the back. I am indeed focusing on eyewitness testimony and the best one imo is Dr Perry who told Weisberg that he wiped blood from the throat, saw a ring of bruising and then did the tracheostomy incision. That Perry would testify later that it could have been an exit wound is understandable to me. I can imagine the tremendous stress it caused and pressure he was under.
-
23 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
C3/C4 (where Custer testified to seeing metal fragments in the now missing neck X-ray) is above the level of the throat wound, which means that the track would have to have been either up towards the back of the head (which makes no sense) or down from the back of the head (which makes better sense). This is confirmed by mortician Thomas Robinson, who was “adamant” about having seen the throat wound probed from the back of the head. I contend that the throat wound was caused by a fragment that made an internal ricochet off the inside of the skull at the back of the head and then angled downward to the throat wound location. It had the appearance of an entrance due to its small size (still larger than the fragment but not as large as an intact bullet would have made on exiting). The “ring of bruising” can be explained by the shirt collar and tie “shoring up” the wound, per the article I linked above.
I think the two hour interview at Parkland by Weisberg is definitive enough for me. The medical staff at Parkland also thought it was an entry wound. Not a contrarian opinion that I can recall. As to the shoring up of the wound via the clothing, didn't Dr Carrico say the wound was above the shirt? Weisberg's hypothesis is the shirt/tie damage was done by a scalpel when trying to remove the clothing in the ER.
JFK was obviously reacting to something (a throat shot after Z186 imo) and that is seen for a frame or two around Z223/4 If I recall correctly. Have you seen what Im describing, and if so, what might have caused that? A bullet, concern about hearing very loud noise...?? As to those fragments you reference which I don't doubt were present, I would think they could be from either of the two head shots.
-
Dictators, anti-vaxxers, the gentleman currently in office.... I've had enough. Alfred E. Neuman for 2024.... and he never ages too. Just check all his pics throughout the years
-
On 4/5/2024 at 10:31 AM, Robert Reeves said:
First generation researcher Richard E. Sprague had one of the largest private collections of photographs and videos/audio of the assassination.
"This series contains approximately 460 photographs, slides, and films concerning the JFK assassination. There are also audio tapes containing interviews and radio broadcasts. Each visual image has its own number in the Photographic Archives (PA) system-- a system which Sprague developed and published in a 1970 article in Computers and Automation. Some items are oversized and stored separately; these items are marked with an "O." The key to abbreviations provides information on other listings such as "N" for negative and "S" for slide. The film and television footage in this series were placed on one videotape to preserve the originals."from https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/sprague-papers.html#photographs
I checked the National Archives site a few weeks back to see if they'd digitized Sprague's collection, they haven't. It's really important to see these first generation photos. Most of the photo files online are cropped or crappy quality. There could be so much more important details that are missing through image & film cropping.
The best quality res photos are going to be the key to matching faces.
I hadn't thought about the Richard Sprague materials for many years. While in Los Angeles some decades ago, I tracked down the Computers and Automation journal. Very interesting and worthwhile work by Mr Sprague.
-
On 4/5/2024 at 1:31 AM, Denise Hazelwood said:
In the video, Perry said that the wound had the “appearance” of an entrance, not that it definitely WAS an entrance. As for the “ring of bruising,” I would want to know 1) the source, to verify that he actually said that and in what context, and 2) whether such bruising could occur with an exit as well as an entrance. Supposing that it was an entrance, the question then becomes, where did the bullet go? Given that C3/C4 (where Custer was said the fragments were located, is higher in the neck than the throat wound, either a missile (in this case a small bullet fragment) was traveling downward from the back of the head, or leaving one to wonder where the bullet went. Given the “king size fragment” that fell out of the body during the autopsy, per Custer, I really don’t think that it would have exited from the back wound. The alternative trajectory is that it travelled UPWARDS towards the back of the head (apparently leaving fragments in its wake), which makes absolutely ZERO sense. So the most logical explanation that I can see is that the throat wound was caused by one of a number of small fragments that traveled downward from the back of the head, or that that the C3/C4 fragments broke off from the larger missile traveling downward. I propose that the throat wound and fragments were from an “internal ricochet” of a fragment (or fragments) off the back of the skull, from the original forehead entry shot.
The source for the "ring of bruising" phrase was Dr Perry directly to Harold Weisberg in an interview conducted at Parkland in 1966. It's in the Post Mortem book and likely on an audiotape at wherever the Weisberg materials are housed. Perry didn't just glance at the wound, he got a close look and wiped blood off the wound with his finger. Weisberg didn't push him for a conclusion, just asked some questions. Weisberg commented that Perry didn't appear to be aware of the significance of this comment. As I said, this is all from memory and its been some time since I actually re-read those pages.
As to those fragments in the throat, I have no idea. There was a reason for the throat gash... to start disposing of evidence contrary to any shots other than from the rear. Where did those fragments come from, what happened to all the other bullets, fragments, photos, xrays, evidence that are missing?? The greatest mystery to me has always been what projectile caused the throat wound are where did it originate from. I've been to Dealey Plaza twice and imo it did not come from behind the picket fence. -
On 4/2/2024 at 6:31 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:
Jerrol Custer’s testimony to the ARRB described metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck (in a now missing neck X-ray), making it more likely to the throat wound was the exit from a small bullet fragment rather than an entrance for an intact bullet.
@Denise Hazelwood Don't know about the answer to those tiny metallic fragments. But the clincher for me as to it being an entry wound has always been Dr Perry telling Weisberg in 1966 (in the book Post Mortem) that the throat wound had "a ring of bruising, as they always do". I've put that in quotes, but I'm going from memory as I don't have the book available at the moment.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 6:01 PM, Vince Palamara said:
Just saw this, Vince. Great stuff.
Nick -
31 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:
@Denny Zartman Didn’t Jack White have a collage of photos he did years ago of the Mannlicher photographed in Dallas vs the one in the National Archives today wherein he alleged discrepancies as to the length and a slight variation in the font of the C2766? Any recollection of that?
Nick
-
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
And to believe the police actually did find a Mauser in the Book Depository instead of Lee Oswald's Carcano is to believe the plotters who were attempting to frame Oswald for JFK's murder* must have had the collective I.Q. of a box of broken toothpicks, as they apparently thought they could frame Oswald by planting a Mauser in the TSBD even though they had to know that their designated patsy owned a Mannlicher-Carcano. (Brilliant move there, huh?)
* And a huge number of conspiracy theorists all around the globe do, of course, hold the wholly unsupportable belief that Oswald was, indeed, being set up as the proverbial patsy on 11/22/63 AD.
http://DVP's JFK Archives / Mauser Or Mannlicher-Carcano?
Wow….amazing…. I’m just stunned in your ability to dismiss or ignore the incredible amount of materials that have been accumulated that contradict your lone nut position.
-
5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:
Hi, Nick! Hmmm...I don't know about that but stay tuned: something similar is in my book (!)
Hi Vince, Hmmm…more good stuff in another book 🤔 Works for me!
-
On 3/25/2024 at 4:37 PM, Vince Palamara said:
[There is an extra "the" on the Amazon page and the word "Kennedy" is missing at the end of the About The Author section. Those will be corrected soon]
Vince,
Was there not was a Secret Service agent…I forgot which one…who claimed he had copies of the Secret Service records for the Chicago trip and promised to make them available? Is my memory correct on that, and if so, did he do that and were you able to get access to those documents for your book?
Nick
-
15 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Nick, wouldn't it be highly probable that the three warehouse workers just under the 6th floor window would have smelled gun smoke themselves? Their windows were wide open. You can see them actually sticking their heads out those windows seconds after the shots were alleged to have been fired from there. The shooter also literally stuck the barrel of his rifle out of the window according to one or two eyewitnesses directly below on the street.
So, the workers just below the supposed shooters perch were what ...10 to 12 feet away from the gun blast? Gun smoke ( 3 shots worth ) would easily be smelled by them imo. Senator Ralph Yarborough riding in LBJ's car "60 feet below" the 6th floor window said he smelled gun smoke.
Joe, That was part of my question as I don’t recall any of the three saying they smelled gunpowder. I’m aware of Senator Yarborough’s comment, but I can’t see how the smell of gunpowder from the 6th floor can be reconciled with someone detecting it at street level. The smell at street level was likely from the sewer drain and/or knoll.
-
15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
There are numerous and apparently earnest eyewitness accounts of somebody---not clearly seen enough for an ID---pointing a rifle out of the TSBD/6 and firing. Amos Euins is one such witness, and he was heard contemporaneously giving his account to the DPD on the street under the TSBD.
I think it is reasonable to say someone fired a rifle from the TSBD 6 as the motorcade passed by.
That does not mean the true assassin worked from the TSBD 6, or fired a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Thanks for your comment, BC. Yes, am aware of the numerous witnesses who saw a rifle projecting from the 6th floor window and pointing downward. Can’t recall any specifically who saw smoke being discharged from the barrel and who smelled gunpowder as well. I think it’s very likely (two) shots were fired from the window, just wasn’t 100% convinced. We do have one or more witnesses who also saw an individual with a rifle at the opposite end of the 6th floor.
-
Having been to Dealey Plaza twice and having stood in each location, both sites were definitely deliberate diversions. I am not 100% convinced that shots were fired from the “Oswald window”. Can anyone answer whether or not there would be any detectible scent of gunpowder on the 6th floor when reporters and police got up there? How long could the scent of gunpowder linger inside if a rifle had been fired?
-
8 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
I think that what Virginia Rachley Baker saw wasn't actually a bullet, although that was her impression, because what she saw hit the street looked "like sparks" that she imagined a bullet would have made if it had struck there. What I think she saw was the "skull fragment" (Mark Lane's words) or the "whatever it was" (Charles Brehm's words--actually a skull fragment, subsequently picked up by Seymour Weitzman) that landed on the street near Brehm's feet. A splash of red from the fragment landing may have added to the impression that it was "sparks." But I am pretty sure she actually saw a skull fragment land on the street rather than a bullet hitting the street.
You could be right. But for me, that would stretch credulity a bit for a bone fragment to cause that perception. But my recollection is also that she may be the only witness in her area to claim a bullet struck the street. A few witnesses were on the overpass and then we have the DPD motorcyclist. I don’t ever recall seeing a witness plat that showed their locations and where they claim bullets struck.
-
Thanks for your diligent work. It’s also interesting to see where Virginia Rachley was and as it relates to her testimony about a bullet striking the street.
-
On 2/27/2024 at 7:54 PM, Pat Speer said:
I came across this on the website of Paul Seaton approximately 15 years ago. It shows the flight of the two largest bone fragments. Although I am quite convinced JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I have learned much from reading books and articles written by those with opposing viewpoints, such as Seaton.
There is no way to reconcile this issue. There is such a huge discrepancy with what is shown on the Z film vs what virtually all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses saw. The stare of death photo coincides with the eyewitness accounts, although I’ve often wondered why that photo was taken with the various pieces of gauze in place. I don’t know how it would technically be possible to show the cavernous wound on the Z film if it were not true. The black patch on the rear of the head in the high resolution scan is so obvious I don’t see how anyone could dispute it. Has that same amount of scrutiny been applied to the cavernous head wound? It probably has, but I’ve not seen it discussed.
I think there was a frontal and rear head shot which coincides with evidence and the appearance of the inside of the limousine and coincides with the descriptions as well of the flanking motorcyclists at the rear of the vehicle.
Decoding Dallas: How They Fooled Us....
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Thank you.