David Mantik's Definitive look at the Harper Fragment

[Bob Mady]

Thanks Jim - When I first heard it was found the next day, and where, it raised red flags for me at least.

Of course there were shots that followed the fatal head wound at Z-313

Yet how many FBI exhibits illustrate and corroborate the point as painfully as WCD298? and then go out of the way to hide it in CE879...? Even the strings have been removed.

Except no shots originated from the TSBD.
The FBI lied about this as well as almost everything else.

[David Josephs]

Thanks Jim - When I first heard it was found the next day, and where, it raised red flags for me at least.

Of course there were shots that followed the fatal head wound at Z-313

Yet how many FBI exhibits illustrate and corroborate the point as painfully as WCD298? and then go out of the way to hide it in CE879...? Even the strings have been removed.

Except no shots originated from the TSBD.
The FBI lied about this as well as almost everything else.

Hey there Bob...

I don't believe you can state that no shots originated from the TSBD as definitive... Euins sees shots and there is the West window man...
They dont show frontal shots either... not the point.

The location of the limo for their 3rd shot equates to Z375 - bottom right arrow is Altgens

(btw - this is only posted in support of Mantik's work on Harper)

[Bob Mady]

Thanks Jim - When I first heard it was found the next day, and where, it raised red flags for me at least.

Of course there were shots that followed the fatal head wound at Z-313

Yet how many FBI exhibits illustrate and corroborate the point as painfully as WCD298? and then go out of the way to hide it in CE879...? Even the strings have been removed.

Except no shots originated from the TSBD.
The FBI lied about this as well as almost everything else.

Hey there Bob...

I don't believe you can state that no shots originated from the TSBD as definitive... Euins sees shots and there is the West window man...
They dont show frontal shots either... not the point.

David, there were many, many people standing in front of the TSBD and across the streets from the TSBD, but only EUINS, WORRELL and BRENNAN see a gun, most of the witnesses in front of the TSBD claimed the shots came from the monument area. Dozens of witnesses should have looked up after a 100-150 decibel sound occurred, this reaction would have been automatic. They all looked to the monument area <- What does this tell you?
EUINS, WORREL and BRENNAN are unreliable. Did you ever read their testimonies, what they each claimed could never be true.

Go watch INTERVIEWS WITH DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY (NOVEMBER 1963) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw
7:40 into the interview with CURRY, this is Saturday morning or afternoon, CURRY states no one has come forward claiming to have seen a rifle in the window. No one provided a statement to the DPD concerning a rifle in the TSBD as of Saturday.


This opens the door to having EUINS, WORRELL and BRENNAN either influenced into believing they saw a rifle in the window or coerced into claiming it. None of these witnesses do I consider reliable.

Virtually every civilian witness on Elm Street claimed the shots came from the monument area, those that worked in some capacity for the government tended to claim the shots came from the rear some claimed the TSBD. This is nothing but a lie.

[David Josephs]

David, there were many, many people standing in front of the TSBD and across the streets from the TSBD, but only EUINS, WORRELL and BRENNAN see a gun, most of the witnesses in front of the TSBD claimed the shots came from the monument area. Dozens of witnesses should have looked up after a 100-150 decibel sound occurred, this reaction would have been automatic. They all looked to the monument area <- What does this tell you?
EUINS, WORREL and BRENNAN are unreliable. Did you ever read their testimonies, what they each claimed could never be true.

First off Robert - really nice work on those images... they will make for a great reference pieces

While it may tell you that these three were unreliable - it also suggests the use of the type of weapon I linked to in an earlier post... a very quiet WWII sniper rifle... and this is now 20 years later. You think there may have been some improvements in the technology?

{chuckle} If those discussing this have not read these and all the other pertinent testimonies they shouldn't be having the conversation...

btw - Worrell comes with his own set of contradictions and problems - you may want to revisit the testimony and see where he was and when...

The plane landed at 11:40 and the motorcade did not leave Love field until 11:55.... Mr. Worrell here has some 'splaining to do.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you outline for us briefly what your activities were from the time you awakened until about noon time on November 22?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I got up about, well, I got up at my usual time, about 6:30. I was going to go to school that day but I decided to go see the President and my mother left about 7:30, and my sister left about a quarter of 8. I left about 8, and hitchhiked down to Love Field and got there. It took me quite a while to get there, about 9, and just messed around there until the President come in, whatever time that was. And then I didn't get to see him good at all. So I caught a bus and went over, went downtown and I just, I don't know, happened to pick that place at the Depository, and I stood at the corner of Elm and Houston.

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.
Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?
Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half.
Mr. SPECTER - Are you sure you were at Love Field when the President arrived there?
Mr. WORRELL - Oh yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, how close were you standing to this building which I will ask you to identify; first of all, what building is that?
Mr. WORRELL - That is the Texas Depository.
Mr. SPECTER - All right. Now how close to that building were you standing?
Mr. WORRELL - I was, I don't know, 4 or 5 feet out from it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you standing with your face to the building, with your back to the building, or how?
Mr. WORRELL - My back was to the building.

If you can, point out Mr. W in that Bell frame - he should be there plain as day...

All I'm saying is that it is not possible to definitively say no shots came from the TSBD... Euins is the only witness who says he sees the rifle fire.
Worrell and Brennen do not.

[Drew Phipps]

Euins isn't "unreliable" as suspected of being a paid shill or law enforcement type, or some sort of attention hog (Brennan). He was just very young and not very well educated. He didn't see "a rifle," he saw a man with a bald spot holding what looked to him like a pipe. (BTW, this description doesn't fit Oswald very well.)

[David Josephs]

Euins isn't "unreliable" as suspected of being a paid shill or law enforcement type, or some sort of attention hog (Brennan). He was just very young and not very well educated. He didn't see "a rifle," he saw a man with a bald spot holding what looked to him like a pipe. (BTW, this description doesn't fit Oswald very well.)

He said more than that Drew... pipes don't have triggers, barrels, shoot or are called "rifles"


Mr. EUINS. Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the corner, I was facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again. So--you know this fountain bench here, right around here. Well, anyway, there is a little fountain right here. I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again.
So after he shot again, he just started looking down this, you know.
Mr. SPECTER. Who started looking down that way?
Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.

Mr. EUINS. I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.

[Jim Hargrove]

I thought the main point Dr. Mantik was making was that the large piece of skull introduced into evidence by the Harpers was of rear, or "occipital," origin, suggesting a shot from the front, or at least not from the rear, as a TSBD shot would have been. My (very limited) understanding is that the earliest eyewitness observations by medical and other personnel in general strongly supported evidence of a large "blow-out" type wound to the rear of the president's skull, and that subsequent investigations, from the HSCA to arguments by researchers such as Gerald Posner and John McAdams, have attempted to alter these perceptions and, in effect, move the exit wound forward, helping to support the Warren Commission's conclusion that all shots originated behind JFK's car.

It is this rather simple point that I thought Dr. Mantik was using his considerable skills to examine in this article, and less the questions of where the fragment was found and/or where the shot(s) originated. Dr. Mantik's multi-part article at CTKA resembles the type of research we often see at medical/scientific, peer-reviewed periodicals: it is highly structured, dense, long, and difficult for laymen to appreciate. In other areas of research, this is a common problem.

And the solution has been around for a long time. There is a whole class of writers who specialize in taking complex scientific articles written in peer-reviewed journals and shortening and simplifying them for the popular market. The best of these writers often do a remarkable job making the salient points of significant research more accessible to the general public. This sort of popularization of Dr. Mantik's research is sorely needed now.

[Bob Mady]

I thought the main point Dr. Mantik was making was that the large piece of skull introduced into evidence by the Harpers was of rear, or "occipital," origin, suggesting a shot from the front, or at least not from the rear, as a TSBD shot would have been. My (very limited) understanding is that the earliest eyewitness observations by medical and other personnel in general strongly supported evidence of a large "blow-out" type wound to the rear of the president's skull, and that subsequent investigations, from the HSCA to arguments by researchers such as Gerald Posner and John McAdams, have attempted to alter these perceptions and, in effect, move the exit wound forward, helping to support the Warren Commission's conclusion that all shots originated behind JFK's car.

It is this rather simple point that I thought Dr. Mantik was using his considerable skills to examine in this article, and less the questions of where the fragment was found and/or where the shot(s) originated. Dr. Mantik's multi-part article at CTKA resembles the type of research we often see at medical/scientific, peer-reviewed periodicals: it is highly structured, dense, long, and difficult for laymen to appreciate. In other areas of research, this is a common problem.

And the solution has been around for a long time. There is a whole class of writers who specialize in taking complex scientific articles written in peer-reviewed journals and shortening and simplifying them for the popular market. The best of these writers often do a remarkable job making the salient points of significant research more accessible to the general public. This sort of popularization of Dr. Mantik's research is sorely needed now.

There should be no doubt that the HARPER fragment is from the rear of President KENNEDYS head, principally from the occipital area, it had been determined independently from the WC to have come from this area and this is before any information concerning the Presidents wounds was available.

Here is were it gets interesting, how was this fragment produced from a missile moving thru bone?
A proposed frontal shot might have struck KENNEDY in the temple (no proof of this at all) would have exited the rear leaving a hole, probably producing small shards of bone.
This fragment was about 3 inches long. What produced this?

Think about a shot striking KENNEDY not from the front but from the side, it hit KENNEDY to the rear of his right ear, transited thru the skull and exited on the other side, it popped off the chunk of bone in the back of KENNEDYS head.

Now go watch the Zapruder film, the movement is not really back and to the left, it is more to the left and back. The shot came more from the side not the front.

Remember when watching the impact on KENNEDY that he is wearing a body brace which prevents him from toppling sideways.

[Bob Prudhomme]

For those with no medical training or knowledge whatsoever.

The Secret Service agent who sees JFK's wounds prior to reaching the Triple Overpass... within a minute of the shots.
Once again, thank you Dr Mantik.


Mr. HILL.
The right rear portion of his head was missing.
It was lying in the rear seat of the car.
His brain was exposed.
There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.
Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood.
There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not,

except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.



Mr. BALL - What did you notice in the railroad yards?
Mr. WEITZMAN - We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.
Mr. BALL - Were there other people there besides you?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull.
Mr. BALL - That you picked up off the street?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What part of the street did you pick this up?
Mr. WEITZMAN - As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the----
Mr. BALL - The left-hand side facing----
Mr. WEITZMAN - That would be the south side of the street.
Mr. BALL - It was on the south side of the street. Was it in the street?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It was in the street itself.
Mr. BALL - On the pavement?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Anywhere near the curb?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Approximately, oh, I would say 8 to 12 inches from the curb, something like that.
Mr. BALL - Off the record.


Just a question... wasn't the fragment found the next day after a thorough search of the plaza? Does this not suggest it was PLACED there at some point since it's final resting place is to the south and west of where the limo was facing thereby suggesting a shot from behind? And part of the reason for its placement at the front, to coincide with that fraud of an xray showing nothing forward of the Coronal suture....

Could this piece of bone found to the south and WEST of the limo be what becomes the Harper piece, found the next day?

Hi Dave

Thanks for posting this. I'm embarrassed to say this is the first time I've read this part of Weitzman's testimony.

Wasn't it Martin or Hargis, the two motorcycle cops at the left rear of the limo, who claimed the spray hit him so hard, it felt like a piece of concrete had hit him? I'm starting to wonder if he wasn't struck by the Harper Fragment.

[Drew Phipps]

Hargis.