The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail and WC Apologists

[Michael Griffith]

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't want to get into it, but the list you cite is largely meaningless. Some of them like Mantik and think his research is interesting, but have separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions. Ironically, I agree with David about the dictabelt and disagree with the conclusions of Don Thomas, which some of these people whole-heartedly support. (Should the point not be obvious, I'm pointing into out that this same list of people would not side with Mantik on numerous other points...)

P.S. You still haven't addressed any of these points...

1. Does the white patch cover Mantik's location for the Harper fragment?  If not, why did most everyone citing Mantik's research claim it did prior to my pointing out that it did not?

2. Does Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo depict a large hole on the LEFT side of the skull? And, if so, why is it okay for him to pretend his orientation is in keeping with eyewitnesses who saw no such hole? 

3. Does Mantik's orientation for the large triangular fragment necessitate a large hole on the front of the head, separate from a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, why didn't the Parkland witnesses notice such a thing? 

4. Seeing as the bulk of the witnesses saw one and only one large hole on the head, doesn't it make a lot more sense to assume the large triangular fragment derived from this hole, as opposed to pretending there was a large hole that nobody saw? 

I could go on for days...

Some of this is nit-picking. Some of this is distortion. Some of this is overly simplistic. Some of this is just plain wrong. Again, when you decide to address Mantik's extensive research on the Harper Fragment, let me know. I'm not going to bother answering drive-by sniping.

Now, how about you allow us to get back to the subject of the thread, namely, that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and that the autopsy report says nothing about the very obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? Can we do that?

 

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Some of this is nit-picking. Some of this is distortion. Some of this is overly simplistic. Some of this is just plain wrong. Again, when you decide to address Mantik's extensive research on the Harper Fragment, let me know. I'm not going to bother answering drive-by sniping.

Now, how about you allow us to get back to the subject of the thread, namely, that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and that the autopsy report says nothing about the very obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? Can we do that?

 

Oh my. I have a ton of material on the Harper fragment on my website. Much of what Mantik has written has been a response to what I've written, in an attempt to prop up his ridiculous conclusion the Harper fragment is occipital bone. 

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I could go on for days...

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I don't want to get into it, but the list you cite is largely meaningless. Some of them like Mantik and think his research is interesting, but have separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions. . . .

Dr. Wecht and Dr. Chesser endorsed Dr. Mantik's new book late last year, so clearly they have not "separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions." I know that Doug Horne certainly has not done so. As of mid-2021, Dr. Aguilar was still arguing that the autopsy photos do not accurately picture JFK's large head wound and was questioning their authenticity. 

P.S. You still haven't addressed any of these points...

1. Does the white patch cover Mantik's location for the Harper fragment?  If not, why did most everyone citing Mantik's research claim it did prior to my pointing out that it did not?

Mantik also adjusted his placement of the Harper Fragment after he saw the x-ray of the fragment that John Hunt discovered at the National Archives. I notice you did not address any of the points he made about what that x-ray shows. 

The white patch covers a small part of the right-rear wound described by 40-plus witnesses, but, granted, it does not cover the entire wound. This does not change the fact that OD measurements prove that the white patch is a manmade artifact.

2. Does Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo depict a large hole on the LEFT side of the skull? And, if so, why is it okay for him to pretend his orientation is in keeping with eyewitnesses who saw no such hole? 

You are once again misrepresenting Mantik's views. I just reviewed his illustrations in his section on F8 (the mystery photo), i.e., Figures 7A and 7B. They do not depict a "large hole on the left side of the skull." None of his other diagrams of the skull depict such a wound either. 

3. Does Mantik's orientation for the large triangular fragment necessitate a large hole on the front of the head, separate from a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, why didn't the Parkland witnesses notice such a thing? 

4. Seeing as the bulk of the witnesses saw one and only one large hole on the head, doesn't it make a lot more sense to assume the large triangular fragment derived from this hole, as opposed to pretending there was a large hole that nobody saw? 

These questions suggest that you have not actually bothered to read his book. You do not seem to understand his analysis of the large head wound. He deals with the triangular fragment in considerable detail and shows that its placement supports his analysis of the large head wound. If you have read his book, I am baffled how you could ask these questions. 

Oh my. I have a ton of material on the Harper fragment on my website. Much of what Mantik has written has been a response to what I've written, in an attempt to prop up his ridiculous conclusion the Harper fragment is occipital bone. 

You are once again putting yourself in a small minority among conspiracy theorists. Dr. Chesser, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Henkelmann, Doug Horne, Wallace Milan, and Greg Burnham contend that Mantik has established that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone. Dr. Aguilar still believes it is occipital bone. The three pathologists who actually handled the fragment said it was occipital bone--and when Dr. Cairns was interviewed by the HSCA, he reaffirmed the occipital placement, as did Dr. Noteboom when he was interviewed in 1992. Dr. Jeff Sundberg believes that Mantik is correct about the Harper Fragment and thinks highly of Mantik's research in general; Sundberg wrote a glowing review of Mantik's book John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis — and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment. 

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I don't want to get into it, but the list you cite is largely meaningless. Some of them like Mantik and think his research is interesting, but have separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions. . . .

Dr. Wecht and Dr. Chesser endorsed Dr. Mantik's new book late last year, so clearly they have not "separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions." I know that Doug Horne certainly has not done so. As of mid-2021, Dr. Aguilar was still arguing that the autopsy photos do not accurately picture JFK's large head wound and was questioning their authenticity. 

P.S. You still haven't addressed any of these points...

1. Does the white patch cover Mantik's location for the Harper fragment?  If not, why did most everyone citing Mantik's research claim it did prior to my pointing out that it did not?

Mantik also adjusted his placement of the Harper Fragment after he saw the x-ray of the fragment that John Hunt discovered at the National Archives. I notice you did not address any of the points he made about what that x-ray shows. 

The white patch covers a small part of the right-rear wound described by 40-plus witnesses, but, granted, it does not cover the entire wound. This does not change the fact that OD measurements prove that the white patch is a manmade artifact.

2. Does Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo depict a large hole on the LEFT side of the skull? And, if so, why is it okay for him to pretend his orientation is in keeping with eyewitnesses who saw no such hole? 

You are once again misrepresenting Mantik's views. I just reviewed his illustrations in his section on F8 (the mystery photo), i.e., Figures 7A and 7B. They do not depict a "large hole on the left side of the skull." None of his other diagrams of the skull depict such a wound either. 

3. Does Mantik's orientation for the large triangular fragment necessitate a large hole on the front of the head, separate from a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, why didn't the Parkland witnesses notice such a thing? 

4. Seeing as the bulk of the witnesses saw one and only one large hole on the head, doesn't it make a lot more sense to assume the large triangular fragment derived from this hole, as opposed to pretending there was a large hole that nobody saw? 

These questions suggest that you have not actually bothered to read his book. You do not seem to understand his analysis of the large head wound. He deals with the triangular fragment in considerable detail and shows that its placement supports his analysis of the large head wound. If you have read his book, I am baffled how you could ask these questions. 

Oh my. I have a ton of material on the Harper fragment on my website. Much of what Mantik has written has been a response to what I've written, in an attempt to prop up his ridiculous conclusion the Harper fragment is occipital bone. 

You are once again putting yourself in a small minority among conspiracy theorists. Dr. Chesser, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Henkelmann, Doug Horne, Wallace Milan, and Greg Burnham contend that Mantik has established that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone. Dr. Aguilar still believes it is occipital bone. The three pathologists who actually handled the fragment said it was occipital bone--and when Dr. Cairns was interviewed by the HSCA, he reaffirmed the occipital placement, as did Dr. Noteboom when he was interviewed in 1992. Dr. Jeff Sundberg believes that Mantik is correct about the Harper Fragment and thinks highly of Mantik's research in general; Sundberg wrote a glowing review of Mantik's book John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis — and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment. 

 

 

You really need to read my "Stuck in the Middle with You" chapter, which details Mantik's journey. 

What you don't seem to realize is that there is pretty much.a cult surrounding Mantik, that support him because they find his findings sexy and provocative. But most of his findings are nonsense. I've shown this over and over over the years. 

As fart as prominent people supporting Mantik's findings...Your argument from authority falls flat. (I know David well enough to know that he would agree with me on this.) To be clear, a number of people find his OD readings interesting. But Mantik proposes a right frontal entrance and an exit involving the left back of the head, neither of which was observed at Parkland or Bethesda. And this is in addition to a tangential wound at the top of the head, and an EOP entrance from behind. (I forget at the moment just where he thinks this bullet exited.) In any event, he has long proposed not two head shots, but three. 

I have talked with Wecht and Aguilar and neither of them subscribe to this. They are both on Team Thompson last I checked in that they both suspect a tangential wound at the top of the head, and a second bullet from behind that exited though the open skull. Wecht has told me, moreover, that he has a friendship with Mantik and supports his writings, but that one should not take from this that he agrees with all of Mantik's findings. 

P.S. Here is Doug Horne pointing out the location for his and Mantik's phantom wounds. Note that it is built upon--no surprise--Mantik's clearly incorrect orientation for the Mystery Photo. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I've have talked with Wecht and Aguilar and neither of them subscribe to this. They are both on Team Thompson last I checked in that they both suspect a tangential wound at the top of the head, and a second bullet from behind that exited though the open skull.

 

Well I know that this isn't true, the part where Pat says Aguilar suspects a tangential wound on the top of the head. Unless he believes that in addition to the blowout wound on the rear-right of the head.

I know this because one time when I was searching for something on the internet, I came across a comment from Aguilar to another researcher. The other researcher was worried about Pat spreading misinformation on the blowout wound, and Aguilar responded be saying not to worry because a guy named Sandy Larsen keeps correcting Pat whenever he says the wound is on top. (Note that that exchange may have occurred the other way around... with the other researcher telling Aguilar not to worry. I don't recall which way.) I saw this a few years ago.

P.S. For those who don't know, I use Dr. Aguilar's list of head wound witnesses to show Pat is wrong. It is here:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

You really need to read my "Stuck in the Middle with You" chapter, which details Mantik's journey. 

What you don't seem to realize is that there is pretty much.a cult surrounding Mantik, that support him because they find his findings sexy and provocative. But most of his findings are nonsense. I've shown this over and over over the years. 

As fart as prominent people supporting Mantik's findings...Your argument from authority falls flat. (I know David well enough to know that he would agree with me on this.) To be clear, a number of people find his OD readings interesting. But Mantik proposes a right frontal entrance and an exit involving the left back of the head, neither of which was observed at Parkland or Bethesda. And this is in addition to a tangential wound at the top of the head, and an EOP entrance from behind. (I forget at the moment just where he thinks this bullet exited.) In any event, he has long proposed not two head shots, but three. 

I have talked with Wecht and Aguilar and neither of them subscribe to this. They are both on Team Thompson last I checked in that they both suspect a tangential wound at the top of the head, and a second bullet from behind that exited though the open skull. Wecht has told me, moreover, that he has a friendship with Mantik and supports his writings, but that one should not take from this that he agrees with all of Mantik's findings. 

P.S. Here is Doug Horne pointing out the location for his and Mantik's phantom wounds. Note that it is built upon--no surprise--Mantik's clearly incorrect orientation for the Mystery Photo. 

I've read that chapter. It contains a number of errors and misrepresentations, just as your replies have. 

If Wecht feels that way, it is mighty strange that he wrote such a positive review of Mantik's new book just last year. 

As for Aguilar, humm, I think you are either misrepresenting Aguilar or have misunderstood him. Go look at the video he posted in 2021, wherein he argues for the right-rear head wound, questions the veracity of the autopsy photos, and argues for a right-frontal shot. When interviewed by Robbie Robertson less than a year ago, on video, Aguilar argued that the brains were switched, that the 1500-gram brain weight is absurd, that there was a right-rear exit wound, that there was a shot from the right front, etc., etc. 

Mantik's OD measurements are a bit more than just "interesting." They were proof-read by Dr. Arthur Haas, a former chief of medical physics at Kodak, and have been confirmed by Dr. Chesser, who did his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays. It is incredible that you do not accept this hard scientific evidence. 

There is a reason that you are the darling, favorite conspiracy theorist among WC apologists. They love to quote you. Look how often they cite you just in this forum. Over and over again, you accept their premises and dubious evidence and then offer a convoluted alternative interpretation that favors conspiracy. When I first joined this forum, I did not understand why so many of our fellow WC critics hold a negative view of your research. Now i do. 

 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well I know that this isn't true, the part where Pat says Aguilar suspects a tangential wound on the top of the head. Unless he believes that in addition to the blowout wound on the rear-right of the head.

I know this because one time when I was searching for something on the internet, I came across a comment from Aguilar to another researcher. The other researcher was worried about Pat spreading misinformation on the blowout wound, and Aguilar responded be saying not to worry because a guy named Sandy Larsen keeps correcting Pat whenever he says the wound is on top. (Note that that exchange may have occurred the other way around... with the other researcher telling Aguilar not to worry. I don't recall which way.) I saw this a few years ago.

P.S. For those who don't know, I use Dr. Aguilar's list of head wound witnesses to show Pat is wrong. It is here:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Uhhh... I seriously doubt this, Sandy. I have had dinner with Gary several times, have been invited to his private conferences multiple times, and have even spent the night at his house. 

1) I don't believe Gary has been active on the internet for quite some time. 

2) When he was on the internet, he spent most of his time arguing with McAdams, and tried to stay out of CT on CT warfare.

3) He is reluctant to come to conclusions, but has closely associated himself with Tink Thompson, who holds that the first head shot was a tangential shot from the front, that blew off the top and back of JFK's head, and that the second shot was from behind and exited through the blown-out skull. He has also written numerous articles with Wecht. Neither Thompson nor Wecht have ever claimed there were THREE headshots, a la Horne and Mantik, nor that the Z-film was fake, nor that the autopsy photos are fake. They have tried, moreover, to separate themselves from those positions, seeing as those positions have been closely associated with Fetzer and Groden (who are not taken seriously by "serious" researchers.) I do believe, however, that both Aguilar and Wecht are open to the back of the head photos being deceptive, with scalp pulled up to to cover up a hole, and to the x-rays having been tampered with. But I am near certain neither Aguilar nor Wecht subscribe to Mantik's ridiculous orientation for the Harper fragment, and suspect they hold Robertson (who is as annoyed by Mantik's nonsense as I) in higher esteem than Mantik. As for myself, I have no idea what their current views are. But they must have thought highly of my research at one point, seeing as Gary has intervened on my behalf to allow me to speak at a conference, has shown slides from my website in his own presentations, and has invited me to speak at his private conferences, and seeing as Cyril invited me to speak at his 50th anniversary conference in opposition to Mantik, and received an hour-long private presentation of my research the following year. 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

On 6/10/2023 at 9:09 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Aguilar responded be saying not to worry because a guy named Sandy Larsen keeps correcting Pat whenever he says the wound is on top.

Uhhh... I seriously doubt this, Sandy.

 

You seriously doubt many facts, Pat.

Though I believe I saw the Aguilar message in a Mantik e-mail list I was once on. I'd forgotten about that list and just happened to see it when sorting my mail today.

 

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have had dinner with Gary several times, have been invited to his private conferences multiple times, and have even spent the night at his house.

 

Well, that's nice. But that doesn't mean that Aguilar agrees with you. Just like it doesn't mean that Aguilar agrees with Mantik because he's on his e-mail list.

That Aguilar hasn't confronted you directly on where the gaping hole was located doesn't mean he agrees with you. It just means he's a gentleman.

It doesn't bother (or surprise) me that you don't believe my anecdote. But you should definitely believe what Gary himself says in the videos Michael pointed out. Though I doubt you will. You will find a way to spin what he says into agreeing with your beliefs.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You seriously doubt many facts, Pat.

Though I believe I saw the Aguilar message in a Mantik e-mail list I was once on. I'd forgotten about that list and just happened to see it when sorting my mail today.

 

 

Well, that's nice. But that doesn't mean that Aguilar agrees with you. Just like it doesn't mean that Aguilar agrees with Mantik because he's on his e-mail list.

That Aguilar hasn't confronted you directly on where the gaping hole was located doesn't mean he agrees with you. It just means he's a gentleman.

It doesn't bother (or surprise) me that you don't believe my anecdote. But you should definitely believe what Gary himself says in the videos Michael pointed out. Though I doubt you will. You will find a way to spin what he says into agreeing with your beliefs.

 

Hello? I acknowledge that Gary thinks the tangential shot blew off the back of the head. But I am nearly certain he doesn't believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Nor that the Z-film is fake. Nor that the body was altered, etc. IOW, he is not a member of "Team Mantik." 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Hello? I acknowledge that Gary thinks the tangential shot blew off the back of the head.

 

I didn't notice that you changed "top of head" to "back of head."

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 6/11/2023 at 12:14 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You seriously doubt many facts, Pat.

Though I believe I saw the Aguilar message in a Mantik e-mail list I was once on. I'd forgotten about that list and just happened to see it when sorting my mail today.

 

 

Well, that's nice. But that doesn't mean that Aguilar agrees with you. Just like it doesn't mean that Aguilar agrees with Mantik because he's on his e-mail list.

That Aguilar hasn't confronted you directly on where the gaping hole was located doesn't mean he agrees with you. It just means he's a gentleman.

It doesn't bother (or surprise) me that you don't believe my anecdote. But you should definitely believe what Gary himself says in the videos Michael pointed out. Though I doubt you will. You will find a way to spin what he says into agreeing with your beliefs.

I think Pat is once again misrepresenting Aguilar's views. When Aguilar was interviewed for the 2022 documentary JFK Revisited, he said the following about the Harper Fragment:

          Dr. Gary Aguilar: It was found in a position that the FBI said was to the left and rear of where Jack Kennedy was when he was assassinated. It was then taken in by this medical student into his professors and they looked at it and they said it looked like it was occipital bone, which is back here.

The whole point of the documentary's segment on the Harper Fragment is that the fragment was occipital bone, and the segment includes Aguilar's above-quoted statement. And, again, this documentary was released just last year, 2022. 

[Michael Griffith]

So, are no WC defenders going to try to explain why the high fragment trail is not mentioned in the autopsy report and why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the autopsy skull x-rays?

Think about it. In an anatomic region with several reference points, i.e., the human skull, how could two professors of anatomic pathology (Humes and Boswell) and a forensic pathologist (Finck) have mistaken the high fragment trail near the very top of the skull for a trail that was at least 5 cm/2 inches lower and that started from a point--the EOP--that was 10 cm/4 inches lower than the alleged entry point for the high fragment trail? And keep in mind that the high fragment trail is above the alleged high entry point. Try to imagine how even a first-year medical student could make such a jaw-dropping error.

Either the pathologists somehow "missed" the high fragment trail (unbelievable), or they somehow mislocated it by at least 2 inches and mislocated its starting point by 4 inches (equally unbelievable), or they purposely ignored the high fragment trail because they knew it indicated a second bullet to the head, since there was no connection between the two fragment trails.

Similarly, as Dr. Joseph Riley has noted, the two cavitation wounds in the skull indicate two bullets, since there is nothing that connects the two wounds. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

On 6/14/2023 at 5:59 AM, Michael Griffith said:

I think Pat is once again misrepresenting Aguilar's views. When Aguilar was interviewed for the 2022 documentary JFK Revisited, he said the following about the Harper Fragment:

          Dr. Gary Aguilar: It was found in a position that the FBI said was to the left and rear of where Jack Kennedy was when he was assassinated. It was then taken in by this medical student into his professors and they looked at it and they said it looked like it was occipital bone, which is back here.

The whole point of the documentary's segment on the Harper Fragment is that the fragment was occipital bone, and the segment includes Aguilar's above-quoted statement. And, again, this documentary was released just last year, 2022. 

Gary is reporting what others have said. This is not necessarily what he thinks. He knows full well that Harper said the frag was found in front of where JFK was assassinated, but is deferring to an FBI report (which he would usually dismiss as dog crap) because it helps him make a point that will help his case, true or not. 

Many of the top researchers view the assassination as a trial, where they are attorneys, and the public is the jury. As a result, they often repeat things, both in print and in public, that they think will win the case...that they don't actually believe. 

The other side is no better, by the way. I mean, we both know that Vince B et al would have destroyed the likes of Brennan,  Markham, Givens, Specter, Belin, etc, should they have not told them what they wanted to hear. 

[Michael Griffith]

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Gary is reporting what others have said. This is not necessarily what he thinks. He knows full well that Harper said the frag was found in front of where JFK was assassinated, but is deferring to an FBI report (which he would usually dismiss as dog crap) because it helps him make a point that will help his case, true or not. 

Relying on where Harper said he found the fragment is shaky ground to begin with, given that he did not even witness the shooting and only found the fragment the next day, and given the marked conflicts in the reenactments and in other evidence about how many head shots there were and where they occurred. It is even shakier ground to rely on Harper's recollection 34 years after the fact.

Also, many FBI reports were accurate but then witnesses later changed their stories, willingly or under pressure, to make them conform to the official version. However, the reverse also happened, where FBI reports were inaccurate but then the witnesses later gave the correct account. Thus, it is not necessarily unreasonable to rely on Harper's FBI statement.

Everyone must read the evidence and make up their own minds. I find Mantik's anatomical arguments and his observations about the Harper Fragment x-ray convincing. I think he refutes Angel and Riley's placement of the fragment. I think he shows that the fragment x-ray alone refutes placing it in the parietal bone. I also find it convincing that the only three pathologists who actually handled the fragment, one of whom was a chief pathologist, all concluded that it was occipital bone. 

Now that you've sidetracked my thread again (!), I will wait a while and then repost my attempted bump to get WC apologists to explain the problems posed by the two fragment trails. 

 

[Michael Griffith]

I ask again: Are any WC defenders going to try to explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the autopsy skull x-rays, and why the high fragment trail is not mentioned in the autopsy report?

Just try to imagine how two professors of anatomic pathology (Humes and Boswell) and a forensic pathologist (Finck) could have mistaken the high fragment trail, which is near the very top of the skull, for a fragment trail that was at least 5 cm/2 inches lower and that started 10 cm/4 inches lower than the alleged entry point for the high fragment trail. Remember, too, that the high fragment trail is above the alleged high entry point. Try to fathom how even a first-year medical student could make such an unbelievable error.

Either (1) the pathologists somehow "missed" the high fragment trail (impossible), or (2) they somehow mislocated it by at least 2 inches and mislocated its starting point by 4 inches (equally impossible), or (3) they purposely ignored the high fragment trail because they knew it indicated a second bullet to the head, since there was no connection between the two fragment trails. A fourth possibility, one that does not rule out the third option, is that the skull x-rays have been altered--not faked, but altered. 

Related to the issue of the fragment trails is the issue of the cavitation wounds. As Dr. Joseph Riley has noted, the two cavitation wounds in the skull indicate two bullets, since there is nothing that connects the two wounds. 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith