The downward-exploding fragment

[Nick Bartetzko]

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. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/3/2024 at 11:45 PM, Nick Bartetzko said:

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. 

 

Good luck trying to convince Pat (or any anti-alterationist) of any of what you say, no matter how obvious it is to most of us. Nearly all of the 50 blowout wound  witnesses said the wound was on the back of the head, and Pat thinks they are all wrong. It is statistically impossible for that many to be wrong, but Pat's irrational dogma keeps him from being swayed by that.

 

[Pat Speer]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Good luck trying to convince Pat (or any anti-alterationist) of any of what you say, no matter how obvious it is to most of us. Nearly all of the 50 blowout wound  witnesses said the wound was on the back of the head, and Pat thinks they are all wrong. It is statistically impossible for that many to be wrong, but Pat's irrational dogma keeps that from being swayed by that.

 

Why do you keep insisting on such nonsense? 

That the triangular fragment is frontal bone is not something "anti-alterationists" cooked-up to make you cringe. It is the viewpoint of Mantik, and pretty much everyone to write on the medical evidence. The one exception that comes to mind is Randy Robertson, who convinced himself the triangular fragment is parietal bone at the top of the back of the head. And came under fire from Mantik for saying so. 

That the triangular fragment is frontal bone is also not the "official story" or "government position." As I have made clear the HSCA Panel bent over backwards to hide that it was frontal bone, because the acceptance it was frontal bone severely weakens, maybe even kills, the government's proposition there was but one head wound and one shooter named Lee Harvey Oswald. 

So why are you so desperate to hide what "they" want hidden? 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

On 3/4/2024 at 9:24 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Good luck trying to convince Pat (or any anti-alterationist) of any of what you say, no matter how obvious it is to most of us. Nearly all of the 50 blowout wound  witnesses said the wound was on the back of the head, and Pat thinks they are all wrong. It is statistically impossible for that many to be wrong, but Pat's irrational dogma keeps him from being swayed by that.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Why do you keep insisting on such nonsense? 

That the triangular fragment is frontal bone is not something "anti-alterationists" cooked-up to make you cringe.

 

I didn't say a word about the triangular fragment.

And what I said is 100% factual.