The Harper Fragment and the DPD Search of DP

[Tim Gratz]

I agree that the Parland doctors probably got a lot right, although their attention was fixed on a valiany but futilr attempt to save his life.

But IMO the throat wound was a wound of exit.

[Bill Miller]

I agree that the Parland doctors probably got a lot right, although their attention was fixed on a valiany but futilr attempt to save his life.

But IMO the throat wound was a wound of exit.

Tim, I would like to know more about what you considered to reach that conclusion. For example, the wound in JFK's back was somewhat oval and larger than the reported frontal throat wound. That means that the bullet may have been tumbling as it entered the body. With that being said and in talking with people in the medical field and at least one person skilled in CSI, a bullet tumbling as it enters the body cannot right itself and come out making a round neat wound.

Do you care to address this for me?

Thanks,

Bill

[Phil Nelson]

I think the "Harper fragment" can be seen in this version of the Zapruder film, replayed several times about 1:00 to 1:15 on the Youtube stopwatch. It may be the missile going upwards and slightly to the right.

All of this can be explained under the GK theory: The fragile, brittle skull was exploded upward as the bullet hit, while the blood and brain debris (more liquidity) being carried backwards, out of the fist-sized hole in the back of his head, in the same direction his head had jerked from the GK bullet, almost simultaneously. Or, a case could be made for simultaneous shots from the front and back. But NOT, from a single shot from the back.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Phil Nelson

[Tim Gratz]

Tim, I would like to know more about what you considered to reach that conclusion. For example, the wound in JFK's back was somewhat oval and larger than the reported frontal throat wound. That means that the bullet may have been tumbling as it entered the body. With that being said and in talking with people in the medical field and at least one person skilled in CSI, a bullet tumbling as it enters the body cannot right itself and come out making a round neat wound.

Do you care to address this for me?

Bill, glad to.

My first response is (very respectfully) HOLY COW! Do you think I am an advocate of the SBT, for heaven's sake?

There are good reasons to doubt that the throat wound was a wound of entrance. From where was it shot? How did it get to JFK without passing through Connalyl? I believe that Dr. Wecht also believes from his studies of the trajectories that the throat wound had to be one of exit.

But if the throat wound was one of exit, that does not mean that the entrance was in JFK's back. I mean, pray tell how could a bullet traveling downward change its direction to go up, exit JFK's throat, then assume once more a downward trajectory as it hit Connally? We all know that dog don't E. Howard Hunt. Moreover, we also know that CE399 is not damaged enough to have done all the damage to the Governor, Ergo, CE399 was not a bullet that hit JFK in the back, exited his throat and wounded Connally.

So if we know that CE399 did not exit JFK's throat and wound Connally, but we also know, or can reasonably infer, that the throat wound was an exit wound, that means, does it not, that a DIFFERENT bullet exited Kennedy's throat (and went on to hit Connally).

But which bullet?

Well, it cannot be the bullet that hit JFK in the back of the head, since that bullet blew out his head, right? Or so the WC and the HSCA would tell us. But that assumes that there were only three shots, does it not? What if there was a fourth?

That was my reasoning when I discovered Pat Speer's analysis of the wounds.

Pat's thesis fit well with my reasoning. He believes a high velocity bullet hit JFK in the lower back of his head (near the EOP) traveled down his neck, exited his throat, and then wounded Connally.

What about the major wound that blasted away his head? Pat believes that was caused by a tangential shot, in other words it was both a wound of entrance and exit. Did it come from the front or the rear? I think Pat thinks it came from the rear but I am an angnostic on that. If the HSCA acoustic theory was correct about a fourth shot from the grassy knoll, it may very well have been wrong about the grasy knoll shot missing.

I woould comment, as many have, that a M-C metal jacketed bullet does not look like the type that could have caused all of that damage to JFK's head, but I know there are those (primarily LN advocates) who contend that it could have.

In any event, I think CE399 tends to confirm this theory. If as most would agree CE399 was not the bullet which wounded Connally, then where did it come from (unless you assume it was planted and had been shot into water or cotton by a conspirator. But VB points out, and I think logic supports him here, how could a conspirator plant CE399 without fearing it would be one too many bullets? The only possibility is that the conspirator was somehow able to spirit away a bullet. But this seems hard to imagine.

So if CE399 was indeed involved in the assassination, which bullet was it?

Well, of course, it was the bullet that hit JFK in the back, and only penetrated a few inches (as Dr. Humes determined through his finger probe). I suggest that the first shot may have misfired (explaining why it sounded different from the other shots) and was traveling at low velocity, perhaps with a bit of a yaw, when it hit JFK in the back. The fact that it was at low velocity and did not penetrate very far suggests this.

As I see it, if we can agree that CE399 was not the bullet that hit and wounded JC, then there are only two possibilities: 1) it had nothing to do with the assassination and was planted; or 2) it was indeed the bullet that hit JFK in the back.

In fact, unless you believe the SBT, you have to believe that the bullet that hit JFK in his back did NOT transverse his body, since there are no holes in his upper torso but for the throat wound which is above the back wound.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Bill Miller]

Well Tim ... your response left more questions than answers. To start with - I see no evidence that a bullet ever hit JFK in the back of the head. The Nix film caught the head shot closer tot he point of impact than the Zapruder film and there is a small narrower cone of spatter coming out the back of head and a wider one out the front. This is consistent with a frontal shot.

More troubling to me is that neither artifact on the autopsy photo showing the back of JFK's head seem to match the hole seen on the alleged X-Ray of the president. One back spatter impact showing a shot coming from the front and leaving the bones avulsed on the back of the skull and no rear wound in the autopsy photo matching the alleged hole seen on the X-Ray ... any suggestions as how to resolve the discrepancy?

Bill

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I have to be brief because my daughter is demanding use of the computer and I find it hard to say no to he! Ever heard of "Club Penguin"? Recently bought by Disney for some huge sum.

In any event, the pathologists observed a small entry hole near the EOP. So too did Dr. Grossman in Dallas.

Clearly, there was AT LEAST one shot from the rear that hit Kennedy in the head. The shot to the lower part of the back of the head may not have come from the TSBD, however.

[Tim Gratz]

From Sturdivan's "The Assassination Myths" (Page 207):

Why would three expert panels ignore the autopsy report, the recollection of first-hand witnesses, and the high profile of intact bone above the entry on the photograph to rely instead on a blemish on the highly mobile scalp which might or might not be a bullet hole[?] . . . John Canal believes it is because a straight line drawn backward through the correct entrance and exit locations would not line up with the upper floors of the TSBD. In fact, depending on how high “slightly above” the EOP is, that trajectory might point to street level. In fact if JFK’s head in the Warren Commission version of the head shot trajectory is rotated into its correct position as per the Zapruder film, the bullet trajectory would be nearly horizontal.

[Bill Miller]

In any event, the pathologists observed a small entry hole near the EOP. So too did Dr. Grossman in Dallas.

Tim,

Could you cite a link or quote Grossman so I can see what context he was speaking.

Bill

[Tim Gratz]

Grossman wrote an article for the Nov 2003 issue of a medical journal. In the article he drew a picture of the back of the president's head and the position of the entrance wound near the EOP. The drawing is reproduced in Sturdivan's "The Assassination Myths."

[Gerry Down]

On 10/4/2007 at 1:58 AM, Lee Forman said:

It's impossible that Harper could have discovered this fragment in this location the following day unless it was planted there.

There may be some truth to this. Here is what the HSCA said about this fragment:

On the day after the assassination, at about 5:30 p.m. William Allen Harper, a student at Texas Christian University, was taking photographs of the Dealey Plaza area when he discovered a piece on bone near the scene of the assassination. Harper informed the FBI that he took the bone to his uncle, Dr. Jack C. Harper, and that they both then went to Dr. A. B. Cairns, chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital, Dallas Tex. Dr. Cairns believed the bone to be a piece of human skull. William Harper said he then gave the specimen to Special Agent Anderson of the FBI on November 25.

5:30pm the NEXT day? The Harper fragment was 2 and 1 quarter inches by 2 and 1 half inches in size. I find it hard to believe it was not found prior to 5:30pm the next day. What quiet possibly happened is that someone found it on the day of the assassination, pocketed it as a souvenir, took it home to show to the family and were promptly told to take it back to where they found it, and so put it back the next day.

What this would mean is that the true location of the Harper fragment after the assassination is unknown. Could have been forward of the limousine, beside the limousine or behind it at the time of the head shot. We simply cant state for sure. 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I have a view which matches the apparent trajectory of the fragment seen in the Z-film, the testimony of Hargis AND that of Nellie Connolly, who stated she was showered with matter, AND the overwhelming evidence of a large rear hole in the head.

I suggest we are missing a few Z frames within which JFK slumped forward due to braking, was shot from the front, blowing out the back of his head. The back of his head was facing upwards! (see Brugioni) The main force of the blast would hit Hargis, while the fragment could still loop upwards and forward of the vehicle, having torn off the scalp (effectively changing the direction it would have headed without the scalp).

I haven't seen another theory that matches the conflicting testimony so closely.

[Pat Speer]

Oh my. Don't let yourselves be hoodwinked. The Harper fragment is not occipital bone. It is by far the largest fragment found outside the limo. It follows then that it is the fragment seen exploding upwards and forwards in the Z-film. A fragment on such a trajectory would land well forward of the limo where...by golly Billy Harper claimed he found it! 

It's really not much of a mystery. The plaza was closed down shortly after the shooting. No inch by inch inspection of the plaza was made. No study of the Z-film had been made that would alert investigators to the fact a large fragment exploded skywards and landed far forward of the limo.  It should not be surprising then that a piece of bone was found the next day, well forward of JFK's position. 

 

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The Harper fragment is not occipital bone

I don't disagree with you much Pat,but I do in this instance.If the Harper fragment was as described as being 2 1/4 by 2 1/2 in size,going off the size and location of the wound described by the Parkland staff,I'm going with occipital.

At the same time,I have a very,very hard time believing that a piece of bone that size would fly far enough to land on the opposite side of the street.Just what type of bullet is capable of such force? I seriously don't know.I have no knowledge of a mercury bullet capabilities.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I don't disagree with you much Pat,but I do in this instance.If the Harper fragment was as described as being 2 1/4 by 2 1/2 in size,going off the size and location of the wound described by the Parkland doctors,I'm going with occipital.

At the same time,I have a very,very hard time believing that a piece of bone would fly far enough to land on the opposite side of the street.Just what type of bullet is capable of such force? I seriously don't know.I have no knowledge of a mercury bullet capabilities.

We can't just assume it's occipital because that's where you think there's a hole. There are features on bones that allow forensic anthropologists and neuro-anatomists to place them on the skull. Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist, and Dr. Joseph Riley, a neurologist-anatomist, have studied the photos and have concluded the bone was parietal, from whence it can be seen exploding in the Z-film. I have studied the photos and anatomy books and they are undoubtedly correct.

The main person blowing smoke on this is Mantik--who has made up all sorts of reasons to believe it's occipital. When confronted with the fact the Harper fragment is missing the tell-tale ridges on the inner aspect which would place it as occipital, he has "mused" that  Kennedy's Addison's disease deformed his skull bones, and flattened out the ridges on the inner aspect of his skull. This is disgusting, IMO. He may as well have said aliens ate his homework. And yet all too many take him seriously. 

[Gerry Down]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

We can't just assume it's occipital because that's where you think there's a hole. There are features on bones that allow forensic anthropologists and neuro-anatomists to place them on the skull. Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist, and Dr. Joseph Riley, a neurologist-anatomist, have studied the photos and have concluded the bone was parietal, from whence it can be seen exploding in the Z-film. I have studied the photos and anatomy books and they are undoubtedly correct.

The main person blowing smoke on this is Mantik--who has made up all sorts of reasons to believe it's occipital. When confronted with the fact the Harper fragment is missing the tell-tale ridges on the inner aspect which would place it as occipital, he has "mused" that  Kennedy's Addison's disease deformed his skull bones, and flattened out the ridges on the inner aspect of his skull. This is disgusting, IMO. He may as well have said aliens ate his homework. And yet all too many take him seriously. 

Did the morticians who prepared JFKs body for the casket report a missing portion of skull at the top of the head where you are proposing the Harper fragment came from?

I thought the largest hole was off somewhere on the right rear and they had to place a rubber dam there to fill the gap. If there was a hole on the top of the head then wouldn't they need to put a rubber dam there too?