Dr. David Mantik and “Back to the Left”

[Joe Elliott]

Dr. David Mantik and “Back to the Left”

Did Dr. David Mantik think the “Back and to the Left” motion of JFK’s head and torso during z313 through z318 indicate a shot from the front?

Here is what he said in his article:

SPECIAL EFFECTS IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM
by David W Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.

Now, several years later, I have come to a surprising conclusion— no explanation
offered so far is either correct or relevant. I do not believe that a frontal shot, with any
reasonable sized rifle or bullet, could produce the observed head snap-too much energy
is required. Alvarez's explanation, also, is inadequate and irrelevant. By taking both of
these positions, I risk losing any friends that I might have on either side of this issue!

In this essay I present new information regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder
film. I also review old evidence, some well known (but perhaps misunderstood) and some
overlooked, but chiefly I attempt to integrate a wide variety and quantity of evidence that
bears on this question. It is only recently that this issue has come to the fore. There is an
unusual diversity and amount of evidence that points toward alteration— too much, in fact
to be ignored:
. . .

In other words, if the Zapruder film is authentic, the backwards motion is unlikely to be caused by a bullet from the front. Dr. Mantik’s explains this by saying what the Zapruder film shows is irrelevant, because it was clearly faked.

Yes. That’s right. Dr. Mantik thinks the government altered the Zapruder film, and made it show JFK’s head and torso moving in the opposite direction of the TSBD Sniper’s nest. Yes. This makes a lot of sense. I’m surprised I didn’t think of it myself.

And, of course, this means all the other problems with this theory. Modifying all the other films and photographs to make them consistent. And hoping there were not any films or photographs that you don’t know about. All this was done to show JFK’s head and torso moving backwards.

I guess CTers would say that when it comes to biology, he is absolutely brilliant. So, when he says the neuromuscular spasm could not occur in a human, his judgement is absolutely correct. But when it comes to physics, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Of course, a rifle bullet could push back JFK in the matter observed in the Zapruder film. What was Dr. Mantik thinking?



Well. I would like to point out that as far as a bullet push hypothesis is concerned, the numbers support Dr. Mantik.

JFK’s head and torso moved with a maximum speed by z318 of 1.9 mph. Only the upper part of his body moved backwards, so that’s about 100 pounds. And it rotated about the hips, so it’s more like moving 50 pounds. So, the momentum imparted to JFK’s body, either by a bullet or his muscles, was 19,000 grams meters per second or 19,000 g m/s.

Oswald’s rifle firing a WCC/MC cartridge, at maximum velocity just beyond the muzzle, 160 grains at 2160 ft/s has a momentum of only 6,800 g m/s. Not nearly enough, considering that high-speed bullets only deposit about half their momentum into a body, because the bullet or the bullet fragments continue on with about half its “pristine” speed.

A M1 Garland? 165 grains at 2800 f/s, resulting in a momentum of 9,100 g m /s. No good either.

OK, let’s up our game a little. How about a single round from a M2 Browning machine gun? 647 grains, 3000 f/s, 38,000 g m/s. Yes, that might do it. But there is no report of an entrance wound corresponding to a bullet that large. Could it enter the large wound caused by an earlier head shot that just occurred? Yes, but it would deposit a lot less than half it’s momentum if it didn’t have to penetrate the skull twice. And good luck putting an effective silencer on that baby. And everyone’s attention was not immediately drawn to the source of that shot?

It is just plain difficult to come up with a weapon that could push JFK’s head and torso back at 2 mph. Let alone do so over the course of a quarter second. And continue to push the head and torso back with ever increasing speed long after the bullet exited the body. Which is my biggest objection to the bullet push theory, over and beyond the implausible magnitude of the push that Dr. Mantik found to be so implausible.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You are seriously misinformed and/or out-of-date. I wrote the following back in 1998 in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film":

* The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable.

So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? A few researchers have speculated that Jackie was the cause of the head snap, that is, that she shoved JFK backward, but it is extremely doubtful that she was strong enough to throw her husband's torso backward with such terrific force. The head snap is a physical impossibility, at least according to everything we now know about physics and the human body. So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.

Again, that was in 1998.

[Joe Elliott]

You are seriously misinformed and/or out-of-date. I wrote the following back in 1998 in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film":

* The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable.

So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? A few researchers have speculated that Jackie was the cause of the head snap, that is, that she shoved JFK backward, but it is extremely doubtful that she was strong enough to throw her husband's torso backward with such terrific force. The head snap is a physical impossibility, at least according to everything we now know about physics and the human body. So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.

Again, that was in 1998.

I am seriously misinformed because I do not accept your “Proof” of the alteration of the Zapruder film. And because your “Proof” was written back in 1998, I guess you believe that this fact alone proves the truth of your two paragraphs.

Yes, I understand. Anyone who is not familiar, and knows by heart, every paragraph that you ever wrote, and does not see that it is all true and brilliant, is seriously misinformed.

What the hell does your writing these two paragraphs, back 1998, have to do with my critique of Dr. Mantik’s writings about the implausibility of JFK’s head movement, as seen in the Zapruder film, being caused by a frontal bullet?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Dr. David Mantik and “Back to the Left”

Did Dr. David Mantik think the “Back and to the Left” motion of JFK’s head and torso during z313 through z318 indicate a shot from the front?

Here is what he said in his article:

SPECIAL EFFECTS IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM
by David W Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.

In other words, if the Zapruder film is authentic, the backwards motion is unlikely to be caused by a bullet from the front. Dr. Mantik’s explains this by saying what the Zapruder film shows is irrelevant, because it was clearly faked.

Yes. That’s right. Dr. Mantik thinks the government altered the Zapruder film, and made it show JFK’s head and torso moving in the opposite direction of the TSBD Sniper’s nest. Yes. This makes a lot of sense. I’m surprised I didn’t think of it myself.

And, of course, this means all the other problems with this theory. Modifying all the other films and photographs to make them consistent. And hoping there were not any films or photographs that you don’t know about. All this was done to show JFK’s head and torso moving backwards.

I guess CTers would say that when it comes to biology, he is absolutely brilliant. So, when he says the neuromuscular spasm could not occur in a human, his judgement is absolutely correct. But when it comes to physics, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Of course, a rifle bullet could push back JFK in the matter observed in the Zapruder film. What was Dr. Mantik thinking?



Well. I would like to point out that as far as a bullet push hypothesis is concerned, the numbers support Dr. Mantik.

JFK’s head and torso moved with a maximum speed by z318 of 1.9 mph. Only the upper part of his body moved backwards, so that’s about 100 pounds. And it rotated about the hips, so it’s more like moving 50 pounds. So, the momentum imparted to JFK’s body, either by a bullet or his muscles, was 19,000 grams meters per second or 19,000 g m/s.

Oswald’s rifle firing a WCC/MC cartridge, at maximum velocity just beyond the muzzle, 160 grains at 2160 ft/s has a momentum of only 6,800 g m/s. Not nearly enough, considering that high-speed bullets only deposit about half their momentum into a body, because the bullet or the bullet fragments continue on with about half its “pristine” speed.

A M1 Garland? 165 grains at 2800 f/s, resulting in a momentum of 9,100 g m /s. No good either.

OK, let’s up our game a little. How about a single round from a M2 Browning machine gun? 647 grains, 3000 f/s, 38,000 g m/s. Yes, that might do it. But there is no report of an entrance wound corresponding to a bullet that large. Could it enter the large wound caused by an earlier head shot that just occurred? Yes, but it would deposit a lot less than half it’s momentum if it didn’t have to penetrate the skull twice. And good luck putting an effective silencer on that baby. And everyone’s attention was not immediately drawn to the source of that shot?

It is just plain difficult to come up with a weapon that could push JFK’s head and torso back at 2 mph. Let alone do so over the course of a quarter second. And continue to push the head and torso back with ever increasing speed long after the bullet exited the body. Which is my biggest objection to the bullet push theory, over and beyond the implausible magnitude of the push that Dr. Mantik found to be so implausible.

Joe: Some good posts and thoughts. Thanks.

Not to sidetrack this too much but what is the conspiracy explanation for the evidence that brain and blood/tissue/bloody water landed in front of JFK? The Connallys said they were hit by material at the time they heard a shot; John Connally said a bit of brain landed on him. Greer and Kellerman said they were hit by blood and matter. An examination of the limo found blood on the interior of the windshield, the front seats, and the hood. Yes, some was also found on the trunk as well.

If the exit wound was in JFK's back of the head, then how did this land in front of him? Yes, we have Hargis saying he was hit by bloody water. But the explanation is he drove/rode through it. And the matter landed all around him. He said this in an interview with a staffer for Jim Garrison, Al Oser, during the Garrison/Shaw investigation in New Orleans.

Oser: Did his head jerk when he was hit?
Hargis: Yes. Uh huh.
Oser: Which way did his head jerk? Or pop?
Hargis: To the left forward. Kind of that way.
Oser: Over on his...
Hargis: Left shoulder.
Oser: Left shoulder. Could you see what part of his head got hit?
Hargis: No I couldn't see what part of it got hit.
Oser: Would you say that he was hit in the rear of the head, the side of the head, or the front of his head?
Hargis: If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side.

[Joe Elliott]

Joe: Some good posts and thoughts. Thanks.

Thank you.

Not to sidetrack this too much but what is the conspiracy explanation for the evidence that brain and blood/tissue/bloody water landed in front of JFK? The Connallys said they were hit by material at the time they heard a shot; John Connally said a bit of brain landed on him. Greer and Kellerman said they were hit by blood and matter. An examination of the limo found blood on the interior of the windshield, the front seats, and the hood. Yes, some was also found on the trunk as well.

I don’t know what the CTers explanation is, except from what I know of CTers, there is no one explanation. Different CTers would have different explanations.

One might say the Secret Service and Connally lied about where brain and blood matter ended up.

Others might say that, yes, this indicates a shot from the front, but the blood and bone that went backwards indicate a shot from the front as well. They will often site the totally invisible, on the Zapruder film, piece of brain or skull that Jackie went back onto the trunk to retrieve. But ignore that there is no evidence of a large piece of bone or brain going backwards, and ignore the possibility that the forward speed of the limousine at 8 mph, combined with an estimated head wind of 10-15 mph could have, and would have blown an bloody mist and tiny bits of bone back onto the trunk and trailing motorcycles.

Others might ignore the blood and bone found forward of the Kennedy’s and forget about it.

If the exit wound was in JFK's back of the head, then how did this land in front of him? Yes, we have Hargis saying he was hit by bloody water. But the explanation is he drove/rode through it. And the matter landed all around him. He said this in an interview with a staffer for Jim Garrison, Al Oser, during the Garrison/Shaw investigation in New Orleans.

Oser: Did his head jerk when he was hit?
Hargis: Yes. Uh huh.
Oser: Which way did his head jerk? Or pop?
Hargis: To the left forward. Kind of that way.
Oser: Over on his...
Hargis: Left shoulder.
Oser: Left shoulder. Could you see what part of his head got hit?
Hargis: No I couldn't see what part of it got hit.
Oser: Would you say that he was hit in the rear of the head, the side of the head, or the front of his head?
Hargis: If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side.

Non ballistic experts often assume that with a rifle bullet, the obvious wound would be the entrance wound. That is where you would see the majority of the material to exit out of like a jet. Like the splash of a stone dropped into a pool causes the splash to head back toward the direction the rock came from. Officer Hargis had that impression but he was not a ballistic expert.

Ballistic experts run experiments real world experiments, to learn how the real-world woks. The need for real-world experiments is a concept our Mr. Griffith seems to have trouble grasping. In any case, they film rifle bullets striking targets fired from a known direction. They know that with rifle bullets, the forward splatter is generally greater than the back splatter. That is, one would expect the splatter away from shooter should be greater than the splatter toward the shooter. Most laymen, including Officer Hargis simply do not realize that.

In the President Kennedy head shot example, as explained by Larry Sturdivan, a real ballistic expert, in his book “The JFK Myths”, there is an additional complication. Head wounds often produce something that is not an entrance wound, nor an exit wound, but an explosive wound. Most blood and brain will be ejected from the explosive wound. These types of wounds produce vastly more “splatter” than either forward splatter or back splatter does. While the explosive wound will often occur at or near the exit wound, this might not always happen, and most material won’t necessarily be sent flying away from the shooter.

As it happens with JFK, the explosive wound did encompass the exit wound. While an ordinary exit wound might have been a half inch wide, this explosive wound blasted out several square inches of skull. And the material ejected happened to be sent flying away from Oswald, as would be expected to happen with forward splatter. But that was just a coincidence. One cannot rely on the location of the explosive wound or the direction the material is sent flying to reliably indicate the direction of the shot. Not with an explosive wound.


As an aside, Officer Hargis did accurately note the head initially moved forward. But this motion, 1/18th of a second, was too fast for him to observe. I suspect that he had heard about the Zapruder film and added that to his memory, without realizing it. People modify their memories all the time without realizing it, incorporating new information that may or may not be reliable.


On a side note, have you noticed that Mr. Griffith has a real problem answering questions? I think the ability to dodge questions is the ability a CTer must have to remain a CTer. Answering questions allows one to think and learn. Have you noticed this tendency among CTers?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thank you.

I don’t know what the CTers explanation is, except from what I know of CTers, there is no one explanation. Different CTers would have different explanations.

One might say the Secret Service and Connally lied about where brain and blood matter ended up.

Others might say that, yes, this indicates a shot from the front, but the blood and bone that went backwards indicate a shot from the front as well. They will often site the totally invisible, on the Zapruder film, piece of brain or skull that Jackie went back onto the trunk to retrieve. But ignore that there is no evidence of a large piece of bone or brain going backwards, and ignore the possibility that the forward speed of the limousine at 8 mph, combined with an estimated head wind of 10-15 mph could have, and would have blown an bloody mist and tiny bits of bone back onto the trunk and trailing motorcycles.

Others might ignore the blood and bone found forward of the Kennedy’s and forget about it.


Non ballistic experts often assume that with a rifle bullet, the obvious wound would be the entrance wound. That is where you would see the majority of the material to exit out of like a jet. Like the splash of a stone dropped into a pool causes the splash to head back toward the direction the rock came from. Officer Hargis had that impression but he was not a ballistic expert.

Ballistic experts run experiments real world experiments, to learn how the real-world woks. The need for real-world experiments is a concept our Mr. Griffith seems to have trouble grasping. In any case, they film rifle bullets striking targets fired from a known direction. They know that with rifle bullets, the forward splatter is generally greater than the back splatter. That is, one would expect the splatter away from shooter should be greater than the splatter toward the shooter. Most laymen, including Officer Hargis simply do not realize that.

In the President Kennedy head shot example, as explained by Larry Sturdivan, a real ballistic expert, in his book “The JFK Myths”, there is an additional complication. Head wounds often produce something that is not an entrance wound, nor an exit wound, but an explosive wound. Most blood and brain will be ejected from the explosive wound. These types of wounds produce vastly more “splatter” than either forward splatter or back splatter does. While the explosive wound will often occur at or near the exit wound, this might not always happen, and most material won’t necessarily be sent flying away from the shooter.

As it happens with JFK, the explosive wound did encompass the exit wound. While an ordinary exit wound might have been a half inch wide, this explosive wound blasted out several square inches of skull. And the material ejected happened to be sent flying away from Oswald, as would be expected to happen with forward splatter. But that was just a coincidence. One cannot rely on the location of the explosive wound or the direction the material is sent flying to reliably indicate the direction of the shot. Not with an explosive wound.


As an aside, Officer Hargis did accurately note the head initially moved forward. But this motion, 1/18th of a second, was too fast for him to observe. I suspect that he had heard about the Zapruder film and added that to his memory, without realizing it. People modify their memories all the time without realizing it, incorporating new information that may or may not be reliable.


On a side note, have you noticed that Mr. Griffith has a real problem answering questions? I think the ability to dodge questions is the ability a CTer must have to remain a CTer. Answering questions allows one to think and learn. Have you noticed this tendency among CTers?

As to Hargis: I would wonder where he heard about the Zapruder film? Not its existence but what it showed exactly? I don't think the photos in Life would help him out much? We certainly see in this event how people's memories are affected, sometimes enormously, by other information, other accounts. It's remarkable really. The late Norman Mailer observed that when he interviewed the people in the USSR who knew/met Oswald that their accounts were pretty consistent. He theorized that because the KGB ordered everyone not to talk about Oswald and because Minsk was isolated from the Western media that people's memories weren't influence by additional information. In effect, their memories were frozen.

As to CTers: Yes, they are quite good at asking questions - sometimes fair ones and in a "good faith" manner - but not so good at answering them. Many of the conspiracy theories make some sense on some level - after all JFK had a lot of enemies - but when you drill down there's nothing there. They are so convoluted and complex and involve so many people over so many years that what they suggest is simply not possible. Not technically, not logically, and not anything involve mere mortal human beings.

[Gary Craig]

Motorcade cop tells how it happened B.W. Hargis
Sunday News (New York) 24 November 1963

“Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened,” Sunday News (New York), 24 November 1963, p.25:

Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) - B. W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding
in President Kennedy’s motorcade, gave this account today of the assassination:
 
“We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about half a block from where it happened. I was
right alongside the rear fender on the left hand side of the President’s car, near Mrs. Kennedy.
 
When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been
hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look.

The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him.
 
As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head,
spinning it around.

I was splattered with blood.
 
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.
Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun.
 
Then this Secret Service agent (in the President’s car) got his wits about him and they took off. The
motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that
the President had been shot.”

[Joe Elliott]

As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head,
spinning it around.

I was splattered with blood.
 
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.
Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun.
 

Yes, but Haggis says nothing about being hit with great force. He says something solid hit him. It could have been a big block of concrete. Or a tiny speck of concrete. Or a large piece of bone. Or a tiny piece of bone.

But we know we was not hit with great force. He was not knocked off his motorcycle. He was not wounded. And he never says he was hit with great force.

But CTers always describe him as being hit with great force because this clearly false statement helps their case.