Dr. Michael Chesser Documents JFK's Right Forehead Entry Wound

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bunk.

If people study the film, they can readily observe that JFK's head was instantaneously knocked violently back and to the left by the fatal frontal head shot.

Ergo, there had to be an anterior cranial entry wound, as Dr. Chesser has demonstrated by an analysis of the frontal metallic bullet fragment trail.

Also, Pat, where did you get the weird notion that neurologists like Dr. Chesser don't study and analyze X-Rays, CT scans, and MRIs?

Did you acquire that medical knowledge from reading Hollywood screenplays?

Your logic is flawed from top to bottom. 

The head first moves forward and then back. This was proved decades ago. 

Also, most any doctor can look at an x-ray. But the analysis of x-rays for signs of trauma and bullet wounds in particular is a specialized field in which Chesser has no background. if you'd been following this story for decades, you would know that Horne reached out to a forensic radiologist for the ARRB, and the forensic radiologist rejected Mantik's theories, and that Mantik has been desperate for some professional recognition ever since. He has failed miserably. 

As far as myself, I spent years reading TEXTBOOKS on gunshot wounds and forensic radiology etc..something few of the "experts" on the medical evidence have done. I have spent many hours discussing the case with the top names in the medical evidence and have discovered and explained many aspects of the case to them that have escaped their attention. 

And you would know this if you'd read my website or viewed my presentations...

[W. Niederhut]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Your logic is flawed from top to bottom. 

The head first moves forward and then back. This was proved decades ago. 

Also, most any doctor can look at an x-ray. But the analysis of x-rays for signs of trauma and bullet wounds in particular is a specialized field in which Chesser has no background. if you'd been following this story for decades, you would know that Horne reached out to a forensic radiologist for the ARRB, and the forensic radiologist rejected Mantik's theories, and that Mantik has been desperate for some professional recognition ever since. He has failed miserably. 

As far as myself, I spent years reading TEXTBOOKS on gunshot wounds and forensic radiology etc..something few of the "experts" on the medical evidence have done. I have spent many hours discussing the case with the top names in the medical evidence and have discovered and explained many aspects of the case to them that have escaped their attention. 

And you would know this if you'd read my website or viewed my presentations...

Pat,

    Don't worry needlessly about my background in logic.  I could teach you a thing or two about Ps and Qs.

    Instead, work on fixing your own reductio ad absurdum, and deficient understanding of Newtonian physics.

    You have, apparently, acknowledged that JFK was shot from the front, before arguing that he was not shot from the front.  Both assertions cannot be true.

     As for the archival X-Rays, Dr. Chesser has demonstrated that there is no evidence of an occipital or posterior parietal entry wound, as reported by the Bethesda and HSCA radiologists, respectively.

      We got scammed.

[Sandy Larsen]

Pat,

We have to be precise about this.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

Jenkins placed [the small wound] above the ear, in an area that would have been concealed by hair.

 

Jenkins didn't place the small temple wound directly above the right ear. He said it was a little to the front of the ear and a little above it. And without being lead, he referred to it as a "temple wound."

From his book:

"Dr. Finck and Humes started examining the head wounds.  They found a small wound on the right side of the head in the temporal area just forward of and slightly above the right ear. … Dr. Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people who came in with him who seemed to be directing the autopsy.  I was later told this was Dr. Burkley (Admiral), the president's personal physician.  Dr. Humes came back to the table and immediately directed Dr. Finck away from the small wound in the temple to the large posterior head wound.  The temple wound was abandoned and never returned to that night."

Jenkins, Pg. 16, Cold Shoulder.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

 Now I actually think [Jenkins] may have seen this, on the edge of the large defect.

 

Jenkins said nothing about this wound being on the edge of a large defect. There is no reason for you to think that.

 

Now let's see how Tom Robinson describes what could be the same wound, and see how it compares.

From Robinson's HSCA testimony:

Purdy:    In other words, there was a little wound.

Robinson: Yes.

Purdy:    Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on.

Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.

Purdy:    On his right side?

Robinson: That's an anatomical right, yes.

Purdy:    You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?

Robinson: Yes.

Purdy:    Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

Robinson: Somewhere around the temples.

Purdy:    Approximately what size.

Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch.

Purdy:    Quarter of an inch is all the damage.  Had it been closed up by the doctors?

Robinson: No, he didn't have to close it.  If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.

....

Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?

Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.

Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound.

Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel.

 

So Tom Robinson, just like James Jenkins, describes the wound as being in the temple area. He goes into greater detail, saying that it was about 1/4" in diameter.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

In either case, [James Jenkins] description does not match Robinson's.

 

What are you talking about? Their descriptions match closely. Both say a wound in the right temple area.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

Robinson, after all, said he saw a tiny wound or wounds on the exposed skin...

 

Robinson didn't say that the temple wound was just in the skin! He specifically said it could have been caused by a bullet or a bullet fragment! So it penetrated the skull as well.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

... --first by the temple and then later on the cheek. 

 

The holes on the cheek were apparently additional holes that were not testified to for the HSCA. Perhaps those are the ones that penetrated the skin only. We can just ignore these.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

Now, here's the irony. As part of their three-head shot theory. Mantik Horne and Chesser claim there was a bullet entrance by the ear.

 

But that bullet wound in the x-ray is not in the right temple area... it is behind the right ear. So it cannot be the temple wound described by Robinson and Jenkins.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

This makes Horne's claim Jenkins' saw a wound high on the forehead in Chesser's location so bizarre.

 

Despite the fact that Robinson and Jenkins saw what they said was a wound in the temple area, the skull x-ray shows no such wound. How can that be explained? Chesser, et al  apparently explains it by saying Robinson and Jenkins must have been off a little in describing the wound location. There's nothing bizarre about drawing that conclusion.

 

P.S. I'm no radiologist. But when I look at the location of the temporal wound in Chesser's video, to me it looks like it is slightly behind the ear. And so it cannot be the temple wound described by Robinson and Jenkins.

Now, if I am wrong and that wound in the x-ray is actually in front of the ear, that's a game changer. Because in that case it  becomes very obvious that that is the same temple wound as described by Robinson and Jenkins. And in that case I'd be wondering why Chesser et al are claiming it to be a different wound.

 

[Mark Knight]

Will,

I think you're confusing Pat.

Why do I think so? 

Because you asked him if OSWALD was shot from the front in the Zapruder film.

Pat answered the question about the shooting of OSWALD, although Oswald doesn't appear (as far as anyone knows) in the Z-film.

But it SEEMS that you meant to ask him if JFK was shot from the front in the Z-film, based on your responses.

"What we have here...is...failure to communicate." -- Strother Martin's character in COOL HAND LUKE.

[Ron Bulman]

I was looking for it in the U2 song but this popped up first.

 

Villainous actor Strother Martin uttered a classic line in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" that stands at No. 11 on the American Film Institute's top 100 movie quotations of American cinema's first century: "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Edited Wednesday at 01:33 AM by Ron Bulman

[W. Niederhut]

20 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Will,

I think you're confusing Pat.

Why do I think so? 

Because you asked him if OSWALD was shot from the front in the Zapruder film.

Pat answered the question about the shooting of OSWALD, although Oswald doesn't appear (as far as anyone knows) in the Z-film.

But it SEEMS that you meant to ask him if JFK was shot from the front in the Z-film, based on your responses.

"What we have here...is...failure to communicate." -- Strother Martin's character in COOL HAND LUKE.

Mark,

     Geez...  You are correct.  I did mistakenly ask about "Oswald," instead of JFK, when I repeated my old question for Pat yesterday.   TYPO ALERT!  I, obviously, meant JFK.

     I had asked Pat, recently, if he denied that JFK was shot from the front, as we can plainly see in the Zapruder film.

     So, I thought I was repeating my original question yesterday, but I mistakenly substituted "Oswald" for JFK.    As far as I know, Pat never answered my original question.

     Let me repeat my original question for Pat, (so that we don't derail the essential thread subject of Dr. Chesser's proof of a frontal entry wound) because of a minor typo.

     Pat, do you deny that JFK was shot from the front?

Edited Wednesday at 01:36 AM by W. Niederhut

[Miles Massicotte]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The head first moves forward and then back. This was proved decades ago. 

Pat I am curious if you are familiar with Tink Thomson's recent argument that the forward head movement between Z313 and 314 is due to movement of the camera between those frames creating the illusion that the head is moving forward. I am not sure that I buy it myself, but it is a novel theory I hadn't read before. 

[Ron Bulman]

43 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I was looking for it in the U2 song but this popped up first.

It wasn't U2, but Guns N Roses, here at the start of the song, as opposed to the end of the original studio version.

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Will,

I think you're confusing Pat.

Why do I think so? 

Because you asked him if OSWALD was shot from the front in the Zapruder film.

Pat answered the question about the shooting of OSWALD, although Oswald doesn't appear (as far as anyone knows) in the Z-film.

But it SEEMS that you meant to ask him if JFK was shot from the front in the Z-film, based on your responses.

"What we have here...is...failure to communicate." -- Strother Martin's character in COOL HAND LUKE.

Actually there was no miscommunication.

W asked me about Oswald but I knew he meant Kennedy.

So I answered both questions.

 

As far as Oswald being shot from the front, yes, I believe Jack Ruby shot Oswald from the front, as we can all plainly see on the films. 

As far as JFK I believe his wounds were created from behind, most probably from two different locations. But I believe an explosive was fired on the knoll as a diversion. None of this is secret. It has been discussed on this website dozens of times and is discussed on my website in a chapter titled Conclusions and Confusions. 

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Pat I am curious if you are familiar with Tink Thomson's recent argument that the forward head movement between Z313 and 314 is due to movement of the camera between those frames creating the illusion that the head is moving forward. I am not sure that I buy it myself, but it is a novel theory I hadn't read before. 

Yes, I am well aware of Tink's support of David Wimp's analysis. I am a big fan of Tink's, but disagree with him on this point and the dictabelt. And FWIW I am not alone. I know a number of those who respect and work with him are not convinced there is no forward movement of the head and that it's all just an illusion. (I demonstrate as much on my website.)

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat,

We have to be precise about this.

 

 

Jenkins didn't place the small temple wound directly above the right ear. He said it was a little to the front of the ear and a little above it. And without being lead, he referred to it as a "temple wound."

From his book:

"Dr. Finck and Humes started examining the head wounds.  They found a small wound on the right side of the head in the temporal area just forward of and slightly above the right ear. … Dr. Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people who came in with him who seemed to be directing the autopsy.  I was later told this was Dr. Burkley (Admiral), the president's personal physician.  Dr. Humes came back to the table and immediately directed Dr. Finck away from the small wound in the temple to the large posterior head wound.  The temple wound was abandoned and never returned to that night."

Jenkins, Pg. 16, Cold Shoulder.

 

 

Jenkins said nothing about this wound being on the edge of a large defect. There is no reason for you to think that.

 

Now let's see how Tom Robinson describes what could be the same wound, and see how it compares.

From Robinson's HSCA testimony:

Purdy:    In other words, there was a little wound.

Robinson: Yes.

Purdy:    Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on.

Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.

Purdy:    On his right side?

Robinson: That's an anatomical right, yes.

Purdy:    You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?

Robinson: Yes.

Purdy:    Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

Robinson: Somewhere around the temples.

Purdy:    Approximately what size.

Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch.

Purdy:    Quarter of an inch is all the damage.  Had it been closed up by the doctors?

Robinson: No, he didn't have to close it.  If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.

....

Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?

Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.

Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound.

Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel.

 

So Tom Robinson, just like James Jenkins, describes the wound as being in the temple area. He goes into greater detail, saying that it was about 1/4" in diameter.

 

 

What are you talking about? Their descriptions match closely. Both say a wound in the right temple area.

 

 

Robinson didn't say that the temple wound was just in the skin! He specifically said it could have been caused by a bullet or a bullet fragment! So it penetrated the skull as well.

 

 

The holes on the cheek were apparently additional holes that were not testified to for the HSCA. Perhaps those are the ones that penetrated the skin only. We can just ignore these.

 

 

But that bullet wound in the x-ray is not in the right temple area... it is behind the right ear. So it cannot be the temple wound described by Robinson and Jenkins.

 

 

Despite the fact that Robinson and Jenkins saw what they said was a wound in the temple area, the skull x-ray shows no such wound. How can that be explained? Chesser, et al  apparently explains it by saying Robinson and Jenkins must have been off a little in describing the wound location. There's nothing bizarre about drawing that conclusion.

 

P.S. I'm no radiologist. But when I look at the location of the temporal wound in Chesser's video, to me it looks like it is slightly behind the ear. And so it cannot be the temple wound described by Robinson and Jenkins.

Now, if I am wrong and that wound in the x-ray is actually in front of the ear, that's a game changer. Because in that case it  becomes very obvious that that is the same temple wound as described by Robinson and Jenkins. And in that case I'd be wondering why Chesser et al are claiming it to be a different wound.

 

Jenkins pointed out the location of the grayish-colored bone and it was above his ear by his temple. 

Now here is where Horne claims Jenkins saw a hole. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:19 AM by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Actually there was no miscommunication.

W asked me about Oswald but I knew he meant Kennedy.

So I answered both questions.

 

As far as Oswald being shot from the front, yes, I believe Jack Ruby shot Oswald from the front, as we can all plainly see on the films. 

As far as JFK I believe his wounds were created from behind, most probably from two different locations. But I believe an explosive was fired on the knoll as a diversion. None of this is secret. It has been discussed on this website dozens of times and is discussed on my website in a chapter titled Conclusions and Confusions. 

 

Pat,

    Thanks for answering my question.

     You have come up with quite an odd paradigm for the Dealey Plaza JFK assassination, which, apparently, fails to account for the retrograde motion of JFK's head during the fatal head shot, and also fails to account for Dr. Chesser's bullet fragment trail characteristic of a right frontal entry wound.

      But it's a free country, in which we respect freedom of speech, religion, thought, and theoretical musing.

       

[Jean Ceulemans]

9 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Pat I am curious if you are familiar with Tink Thomson's recent argument that the forward head movement between Z313 and 314 is due to movement of the camera between those frames creating the illusion that the head is moving forward. I am not sure that I buy it myself, but it is a novel theory I hadn't read before. 

Interesting, how would that work? If the head moved, well it moved... (compared to Mrs Kennedy, JFK´s body, the limo,...). Some angles on multiple objects can cause optical distortion in our brains, just don´t see it in this specific case.

Where can I find this argument from Tink T. (why am I suddenly thinking about TT Blonde, I blaim Pat for getting her in my head 🙊).

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Interesting, how would that work? If the head moved, well it moved... (compared to Mrs Kennedy, JFK´s body, the limo,...). Some angles on multiple objects can cause optical distortion in our brains, just don´t see it in this specific case.

Where can I find this argument from Tink T. (why am I suddenly thinking about TT Blonde, I blaim Pat for getting her in my head 🙊).

Wimp's argument was that the apparent jump forward was nothing but motion blur. But if you compare the head to say Jackie's head etc it's clear it's not just blur but the head actually moves forward. I remember sitting with some serious CT's at a conference where Tink made his claim it was just blur and having them look at me and asking "Can you see what he's talking about? It sure looks like the head moves forward!" And me going "Nope." 

P.S. I am pretty sure he first made this claim in his 2013 Wecht conference presentation. But I think he also makes the claim in Last Second in Dallas. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:35 PM by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

    Thanks for answering my question.

     You have come up with quite an odd paradigm for the Dealey Plaza JFK assassination, which, apparently, fails to account for the retrograde motion of JFK's head during the fatal head shot, and also fails to account for Dr. Chesser's bullet fragment trail characteristic of a right frontal entry wound.

      But it's a free country, in which we respect freedom of speech, religion, thought, and theoretical musing.

       

If you read my chapters on this stuff, you'll see that my scenario accounts for an awful lot of stuff ignored by other scenarios.

As far as Chesser's feeling he's found a hole, I was at the hospital just yesterday reviewing a CT scan with my doctor and he went on a tirade about a report written by a pulmonologist that suggested an anomaly on my lung scan was caused by the medications I'd been taking. He said that the guy was talking out of his butt and that you can't tell from an image what the cause of this or that is, and that too many doctors try to show off by presenting their impressions as if they are concrete science and from on high. 

Well, this made me think of the JFK assassination medical evidence. If you read the numerous reports and articles written on the autopsy photos and x-rays by supposed experts you will see that they contradict each other on many points and that the ones they agree upon are often because of groupthink. 

When I first looked into this stuff over 20 years ago now I was struck by a passage in one of Wecht's books, in which he denounced the "cult of expertise." I wish I could remember the exact quote or where I found it. But his point was that experts will often look at evidence through the prism of what other experts have said and that laymen will often just defer to what the experts say without analyzing stuff for themselves. I think he was talking about forensic science in general but I believe you could take from this he was talking about the single-bullet theory in particular. It bothered him to the end that so many of his colleagues signed off on it when it was so obviously bs and it bothered him as well that the media made him out to be the crank for using common sense and instead blindly trusted his colleagues. It humbled him, IMO. As a result, he was always open to what a layman like myself had to share with him. 

One of my great pleasures in research-land came at the 2014 Bethesda conference, when I started telling him about the presentation I'd just given on the single-bullet theory and where he grew so interested he asked if I could re-do the entire presentation just for him in the booth where he was sitting. So I got out my lap-top and showed him the presentation and started to cut it off at what I'd showed to the audience but he said no, to keep going, and I ended up going through and showing him a roughly 90 minute slide show...which got him very excited and fired up. 

Here is one of the things he did not know but was excited to find out. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:07 PM by Pat Speer