The significance of the forward moving fragment

[Pat Speer]

I recently started a thread on the downward/forward moving fragment apparent in the Z-film. I was hoping that people would just accept it for what it was and not try to bury it under a mountain of "it must be" fake nonsense. 

But they did.

Here is what they don't want you to know... 

In 1977 the HSCA hired Dr. Lawrence Angel of the Smithsonian institute to study JFK's skull fragments, and figure out from where they originated. Angel was perhaps the premier Forensic Anthropologist in the world, IOW he was an expert, probably THE expert, when it came to reconstructing skulls from skull fragments. 

One of his key conclusions was that the large triangle -shaped fragment was frontal bone. Now, the frontal bone is kinda of like an L-shape in that it comprises both the forehead and the front part of the top of the head. In Angel's estimation, it had been dislodged from the front part of the top of the head, from just forward of the coronal suture.

Well, this was most disturbing to the HSCA Pathology Panel. You see, there was a photo of JFK's skull after the scalp was peeled to the side and the brain removed. This photo had what appeared to be a beveled exit near the center of the photo. Now, the autopsy doctors viewed this photo in 1966 and said it showed the entrance on the skull low on the back of the head. 

But this proved to be a problem for the Justice Department. In Six Seconds in Dallas, Tink Thompson demonstrated that the bullet trajectory proposed at autopsy--from low to high--was at odds with the Zapruder film, which showed JFK leaning forward when struck, but not nearly far enough to support the low to high trajectory proposed by the autopsists. 

So they put together a secret panel which--voila!--concluded there was no low to high trajectory because the bullet didn't hit low, but high. And they claimed a red smudge in the photos was the entrance observed at autopsy, only inches away from where the doctors said they'd observed the bullet's entrance. 

But what to do with the photo of the back of the head with the scalp peeled aside--the one which the doctors said showed the entrance? Amazingly, this secret panel covered their butts by claiming this photo actually showed the front of JFK's head, and not the back of his head.

(FWIW, this is the subject of my video series The Mysterious Death of Number 35.)

So now we come to the HSCA Pathology Panel, made up of friends of the members of the Clark Panel. Well, they don't want to side with the autopsy doctors, because that would make their friends on the Clark Panel look bad, real bad. To say the problematic photo showed the back of the head would be to say there was an entrance low on the back of the head--which doesn't fit the single-assassin solution, and a beveled piece of bone near the crown of the head--which doesn't fit the single-assassin solution. So they took the lead of their friends on the Clark Panel and said yeah the photos shows the front of the head. And not only that, but that the beveled bone marked an exit on the coronal suture.

So this brings us back to Angel. As the panel's orientation for the so-called mystery photo required that the frontal bone be intact, they needed Angel to tell them that the fragment was parietal bone, not frontal bone. But he did not. 

So what did they do? 

They simply ignored him. They had hired a top expert (Angel) as a consultant and then ignored his conclusions when they realized they couldn't get them to align with the single-assassin conclusion. (This is discussed in Chapter 14 at patspeer.com, in which I make use of material first developed by John Hunt So, thanks John.)

But it gets weirder. As the triangular fragment was found on the floor of the limousine, the obvious conclusion should have been that the bullet exited at the top of the fragment and snapped it downwards. But they couldn't say that...now that they had abandoned both Dr. Angel's conclusions and common sense and had decided the fragment was parietal bone, to the rear of the bullet's exit. So Dr. Baden, to his everlasting shame, supervised the creation of F-66, which showed he triangular fragment's exploding upwards from the skull defect, even though he knew full well it was found on the floor of the limo.

The forward/downward movement of the triangular fragment is thereby a smoking gun. It destroys the single-assassin solution. And the creation of F-66 proves the cover-up. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 1 by Pat Speer

[Bill Fite]

Interesting... thanks.

[Gerry Down]

The autopsy photos show JFK's forehead intact. So how could Dr Angel be saying there was a piece of frontal bone on the floor of the limo?

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

The autopsy photos show JFK's forehead intact. So how could Dr Angel be saying there was a piece of frontal bone on the floor of the limo?

The frontal bone is not the forehead. It is the forehead AND the first few inches in back of the forehead at the top of the head. Dr. Angel's placement of the bone is shown on the slide below. To be clear, moreover, Dr. Angel didn't say the triangular fragment was recovered from the floor of the limo. He may not have even known about it. But. Clint Hill said he saw a large fragment on the floor and Sam Kinney said he found a large fragment on the floor--and this is the fragment whose x-ray Angel studied, the so-called 10 cm fragment or triangular fragment. FWIW, moreover, most every prominent researcher, including those thinking the back of the head was blown out, agree with Angel that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. So, the Z-film only confirms what most everyone already believes. 

Now, as explained above, this fragment's being frontal bone destroys the conclusions of the Clark Panel and HSCA, just tears them to shreds. So why can't people rally around this point? 

 

Edited March 1 by Pat Speer

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

The frontal bone is not the forehead. It is the forehead AND the first few inches in back of the forehead at the top of the head. Dr. Angel's placement of the bone is shown on the slide below. To be clear, moreover, Dr. Angel didn't say the triangular fragment was recovered from the floor of the limo. He may not have even known about it. But. Clint Hill said he saw a large fragment on the floor and Sam Kinney said he found a large fragment on the floor--and this is the fragment whose x-ray Angel studied, the so-called 10 cm fragment or triangular fragment. FWIW, moreover, most every prominent researcher, including those thinking the back of the head was blown out, agree with Angel that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. So, the Z-film only confirms what most everyone already believes. 

Now, as explained above, this fragment's being frontal bone destroys the conclusions of the Clark Panel and HSCA, just tears them to shreds. So why can't people rally around this point? 

 

Great diagram. Those 3 red dots represent exit points. From what I can see, this supports an eop entrance shot and with JFK leaning forward the bullet fragments exited at those 3 red dots.

Not sure how the triangular piece ended up on the floor. Perhaps it was partially attached to the flap that swung open in front of JFK's ear and was swung downwards with that flap before becoming detached due to the swinging motion and was propelled to the floor of the limo. According to your gif, which I am not convinced shows a bone fragment, but if it does, it shows one moving slowly, and so something must account for this slow movement. The possibility that it was partially attached to the bone flap before then becoming detached might account for the unusual movement where it appears to be suspended in mid air for a few frames before falling to the floor.

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Great diagram. Those 3 red dots represent exit points. From what I can see, this supports an eop entrance shot and with JFK leaning forward the bullet fragments exited at those 3 red dots.

Not sure how the triangular piece ended up on the floor. Perhaps it was partially attached to the flap that swung open in front of JFK's ear and was swung downwards with that flap before becoming detached due to the swinging motion and was propelled to the floor of the limo. According to your gif, which I am not convinced shows a bone fragment, but if it does, it shows one moving slowly, and so something must account for this slow movement. The possibility that it was partially attached to the bone flap before then becoming detached might account for the unusual movement where it appears to be suspended in mid air for a few frames before falling to the floor.

The GIF I created has been slowed down from the original film. I suppose I should have explained that in the other thread. I added 20 milliseconds between frames. So, if my math is correct, the fragment is traveling 36% faster than we see in the GIF. But you're right about the scalp slowing down the explosion somewhat.. When bone explodes from the skull it tears the scalp as it flies away from the skull. And this tear ends in a point. So the V-shaped tear is not proof of alteration, but strong evidence a fragment with scalp still attached had exploded from the skull on a forward tangent. 

P.S. I added the three red dots to the image above to show where the Pathology Panel had determined there was evidence for an exit. Their interpretation of the mystery photo was adjusted so that the red dot on the right matched up with the red dot in the middle. And to make room for this the central fragment had to be flipped over in place. And that left Dr.Baden to claim the Harper fragment matched up with this hole from below, and that the Harper fragment was actually on the side of the head. This allowed the Panel to pretend there was but one exit from the skull.

So why the desperation? Well, apart from the fact there was no evidence on the x-rays for multiple bullet fragment trajectories through the brain, the panel had concluded that the large fractures at the top of the head must have come from a missile larger than the bullet fragments later recovered. IOW, they needed to claim the bullet exited while mostly intact, even though they claimed a piece of the bullet was imbedded on the skull by the entrance. So it fell upon Baden to make sense of all this (within the confines of the single-assassin conclusion) and he did so by claiming the bullet leaked a large fragment out of its base upon impact and then traveled through the brain intact only to break up upon impact with the windshield frame.

It's a fairy tale.   

 

Edited March 1 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

The frontal bone is not the forehead. It is the forehead AND the first few inches in back of the forehead at the top of the head. Dr. Angel's placement of the bone is shown on the slide below. To be clear, moreover, Dr. Angel didn't say the triangular fragment was recovered from the floor of the limo. He may not have even known about it. But. Clint Hill said he saw a large fragment on the floor and Sam Kinney said he found a large fragment on the floor--and this is the fragment whose x-ray Angel studied, the so-called 10 cm fragment or triangular fragment. FWIW, moreover, most every prominent researcher, including those thinking the back of the head was blown out, agree with Angel that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. So, the Z-film only confirms what most everyone already believes. 

Now, as explained above, this fragment's being frontal bone destroys the conclusions of the Clark Panel and HSCA, just tears them to shreds. So why can't people rally around this point? 

 

How did you reconcile Angel’s analysis with your interpretation of the mystery photo ? Based on Angel’s sketch, he believed the mystery photo showed the front of the head. In your orientation, where do you fit in the triangular fragment? Is Angel’s analysis compatible? There does appear to be a substantial chunk of missing bone toward the front/right of the head, but I’m just curious. 

I think I recall you addressing all this in your chapter but I haven’t read it in a while.

Edited March 2 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

How did you reconcile Angel’s analysis with your interpretation of the mystery photo ? Based on Angel’s sketch, he believed the mystery photo showed the front of the head. In your orientation, where do you fit in the triangular fragment? Is Angel’s analysis compatible? There does appear to be a substantial chunk of missing bone toward the front/right of the head, but I’m just curious. 

I think I recall you addressing all this in your chapter but I haven’t read it in a while.

Angel assumed (he probably was told) that the mystery photo showed the front of the head. So he took from the photo that the beveled exit (he called it a lecuna, or some such thing) was above the right eye. Of course this didn't fit with the panel's belief the exit was on the coronal suture. So they ignored it.

But I think there's a world of difference between ignoring what a forensic anthropologist and expert on skull reconstruction concluded based upon what he was told about a photo, as opposed to ignoring what this expert concludes after studying the shape and details of a bone fragment. That was his forte after all. That was why they brought him in. 

While most anyone--the members of this forum, for example--can look at the mystery photo and have a different interpretation, forensic anthropology is a specialized field. And yet Dr. Baden--who had ZERO experience, let alone expertise, in forensic skull reconstruction--all by his lonesome created cut-outs of the bone fragments and fit them onto a skull (an exhibit that subsequently disappeared). And we know it was a joke because after doing so he claimed the Harper fragment was not from the back of the head, as originally believed, nor from the top of the head, as concluded by Angel and other experts, but from the side of the head, where the wing of bone can be seen on the photos. It was a total con, and yet no one really noticed it until John Hunt figured out what he was up to, and people like myself followed up. 

And yes, I think Angel had it right--the triangular fragment is frontal bone. And on this issue, amazingly, men like Livingstone and Mantik agree.

[Tom Gram]

On 3/2/2024 at 12:25 AM, Pat Speer said:

Angel assumed (he probably was told) that the mystery photo showed the front of the head. So he took from the photo that the beveled exit (he called it a lecuna, or some such thing) was above the right eye. Of course this didn't fit with the panel's belief the exit was on the coronal suture. So they ignored it.

But I think there's a world of difference between ignoring what a forensic anthropologist and expert on skull reconstruction concluded based upon what he was told about a photo, as opposed to ignoring what this expert concludes after studying the shape and details of a bone fragment. That was his forte after all. That was why they brought him in. 

While most anyone--the members of this forum, for example--can look at the mystery photo and have a different interpretation, forensic anthropology is a specialized field. And yet Dr. Baden--who had ZERO experience, let alone expertise, in forensic skull reconstruction--all by his lonesome created cut-outs of the bone fragments and fit them onto a skull (an exhibit that subsequently disappeared). And we know it was a joke because after doing so he claimed the Harper fragment was not from the back of the head, as originally believed, nor from the top of the head, as concluded by Angel and other experts, but from the side of the head, where the wing of bone can be seen on the photos. It was a total con, and yet no one really noticed it until John Hunt figured out what he was up to, and people like myself followed up. 

And yes, I think Angel had it right--the triangular fragment is frontal bone. And on this issue, amazingly, men like Livingstone and Mantik agree.

Did Angel attempt to deal with the exposed but attached bone seen in the other autopsy photos? 

The supposed “saucer” in the Z-film mentioned in the other thread by looks to me like it could be the “wing” of bone seen above JFK’s ear in the autopsy photos folded forward. 

That wing of bone is kind of confusing though. Where is it attached? Is it blown out temporal bone? Is it parietal bone that fell down on the side of the head? How would it fold that far forward if that’s actually what’s seen in the Z-film?

Angel’s sketches suggest he thought that bone was previously attached directly to the Harper fragment - but he sketched it a lot more rectangular than it looks in the photos. The forward edge could just be covered by hair, though. 

There’s also the blown out apparently double-edged temporal-frontal bone “flap”, also seen in both the top and side autopsy views. Am I crazy or does that forward “flap” seem to contradict Angel’s sketch a bit? Angel appears to have the alleged “notch” and beveled exit from mystery photo right on top of and below the upper margin of that “double-edged” bone flap.  

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Did Angel attempt to deal with the exposed but attached bone seen in the other autopsy photos? 

The supposed “saucer” in the Z-film mentioned in the other thread by looks to me like it could be the “wing” of bone seen above JFK’s ear in the autopsy photos folded forward. 

That wing of bone is kind of confusing though. Where is it attached? Is it blown out temporal bone? Is it parietal bone that fell down on the side of the head? How would it fold that far forward if that’s actually what’s seen in the Z-film?

Angel’s sketches suggest he thought that bone was previously attached directly to the Harper fragment - but he sketched it a lot more rectangular than it looks in the photos. The forward edge could just be covered by hair, though. 

There’s also the blown out apparently double-edged temporal-frontal bone “flap”, also seen in both the top and side autopsy views. Am I crazy or does that forward “flap” seem to contradict Angel’s sketch a bit? Angel appears to have the alleged “notch” and beveled exit from mystery photo right on top of and below the upper margin of that “double-edged” bone flap.  

I don't think Angel dealt with the wing of bone. While it's clear he was shown the mystery photo, it's not clear how much he relied upon other photos. As for the wing of bone... Consider this... A powerful impact shatters the top of the skull. Bone fragments explode away from it, tearing the scalp in the process. Through this tearing the momentum of the fragment dissipates. One fragment, now folded outwards, and upside down,  begins to peel away from the scalp, with the side furthest from the impact (but now closest to the impact location) peeling first. But this fragment never fully disconnects from the scalp. For a brief second it appears to be twice as large as its actual size, due to the scalp being stretched forward and the still-attached fragment's being flipped inside out and forwards. But the fragment recoils back to the side of the head. But it is now inside out. 

It's unfortunate that the autopsists spent so little time describing this wing, and how they removed it, etc, but Baxter and Perry described a bone sticking out and sure enough there it is in the photos. 

My two cents. 

Edited March 4 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

You're all talking about a figment of the cover-up artists' imagination... a painted on gaping wound in the Z film. Which no one at Parkland hospital saw!

You all might want to consider the possibility that the cover-up artists actually did some covering up. Otherwise you'll just continue being fooled by their coverup.

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You're all talking about a figment of the cover-up artists' imagination... a painted on gaping wound in the Z film. Which no one at Parkland hospital saw!

You all might want to consider the possibility that the cover-up artists actually did some covering up. Otherwise you'll just continue being fooled by their coverup.

 

The forward-exploding fragment proves the HSCA FPP to be incorrect on a crucial point--a point so crucial Baden flat-out lied about it.  The trajectory of this fragment--whether or not the Z-film is faked--is a crucial piece of evidence. I don't believe any of those claiming the film is fake etc. claim the large fragment was found other than in the limo, and I don't believe any of them claim it came from other than the frontal bone. 

So this is a piece of evidence all CTs can (and I dare say, should) embrace. 

As stated, the mystery photo shows exit beveling on the back half of the head. The Clark Panel tried to dodge this by claiming the photo really showed the front of the head. And the HSCA FPP concurred, claiming it showed the frontal bone, with an exit on the coronal suture. 

The fragment's exploding forwards the way it did PROVES it was frontal bone. And this proves the mystery photo does not show frontal bone, and strongly supports that it shows what the doctors said it showed--the back of the head.

Well, it follows that this photo shows beveling on the back part of the head. 

So, WHY the heck hasn't the research community embraced this as one of its talking points? 

 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

"...I don't believe any of those claiming the film is fake etc. claim the large fragment was found other than in the limo, and I don't believe any of them claim it came from other than the frontal bone...."

In fact, there is an alternative explanation for a large fragment being found in the presidential limo, and it comes not from any theorist or researcher, but from DPD motorcycle patrolman Stavis Ellis, who on 4/21/1971 told interviewer Gil Toff that while the limo was coming to a rolling stop on Elm Street that a Secret Service agent had taken the large skull fragment from a child (who had picked it up off the grass) and threw it back into the car.

It could have either been the Harper Fragment before being replaced into the Plaza, or it could have been the large fragment found in the car...

The following is from "Zeroing in on JFK's Fatal Head Shot" by Larry Rivera: https://www.academia.edu/27497520/Zeroing_in_on_JFKs_fatal_head_shot

 

 

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

In fact, there is an alternative explanation for a large fragment being found in the presidential limo, and it comes not from any theorist or researcher, but from DPD motorcycle patrolman Stavis Ellis, who on 4/21/1971 told interviewer Gil Toff that while the limo was coming to a rolling stop on Elm Street that a Secret Service agent had taken the large skull fragment from a child (who had picked it up off the grass) and threw it back into the car.

It could have either been the Harper Fragment before being replaced into the Plaza, or it could have been the large fragment found in the car...

The following is from "Zeroing in on JFK's Fatal Head Shot" by Larry Rivera: https://www.academia.edu/27497520/Zeroing_in_on_JFKs_fatal_head_shot

 

 

This is priceless.

I point out a piece of evidence suggesting a conspiracy upon which most all the top researchers agree, and you counter by citing some fairy tale which no one actually believes. 

You may as well have said the tooth fairy put the fragment in the limo. Or, even better, that it was teleported into the limo by Scotty under orders from Mr. Spock. 

[Keven Hofeling]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

This is priceless.

I point out a piece of evidence suggesting a conspiracy upon which most all the top researchers agree, and you counter by citing some fairy tale which no one actually believes. 

You may as well have said the tooth fairy put the fragment in the limo. Or, even better, that it was teleported into the limo by Scotty under orders from Mr. Spock. 

What it reflects, quite clearly, are the differences in methodology between researchers who dare follow the evidence wherever it leads even though the heavens may fall (such as the witness accounts of over 70 witnesses that the limo came to a rolling stop) and researchers who have an agenda (like promoting a limited hangout theory of the assassination which preserves the evidence most critical to maintaining the high level government conspiracy, such as the HSCA cover-up of the large occipital-parietal wound, and the altered photographic evidence). The unhappiness of the latter about the no bullshit approach of the former is justifiably worn as a badge of honor...

Edited March 5 by Keven Hofeling