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

[Charles Blackmon]

22 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

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."

Paul Newman gorging on boiled eggs. Classic cinema!

[Micah Mileto]

On 8/20/2024 at 2:04 PM, 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...

You think it's no big deal that the x-rays happen to show an odd-looking small defect in the forehead at about the same level as the suspicious imagrey in the same area on the autopsy photos, and there happens to be a bunch of tiny bullet fragments crowded around the precise area of that defect? What do you have against the possibility of a temple wound entry or cover-up? The films don't need to be altered to be compatible with one or more small temple wounds. You could also make a case that few or even no witnesses would need to be involved in a cover-up of the temple wound(s) - for example, all sides would probably agree that there was at least a blood clot on the left temple that could've looked somewhat like a bullet hole - multiple witnesses suggested that, including Perry, Jenkins, McClelland, and Father Huber. You also refuse to acknowlege Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel as a serious witness, despite the fact that nobody could offer any specific solid reason for accusing him of being crazy or a liar.

Edited August 22 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

18 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

You think it's no big deal that the x-rays happen to show an odd-looking small defect in the forehead at about the same level as the suspicious imagrey in the same area on the autopsy photos, and there happens to be a bunch of tiny bullet fragments crowded around the precise area of that defect? What do you have against the possibility of a temple wound entry or cover-up? The films don't need to be altered to be compatible with one or more small temple wounds. You could also make a case that few or even no witnesses would need to be involved in a cover-up of the temple wound(s) - for example, all sides would probably agree that there was at least a blood clot on the left temple that could've looked somewhat like a bullet hole - multiple witnesses suggested that, including Perry, Jenkins, McClelland, and Father Huber. You also refuse to acknowlege Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel as a serious witness, despite the fact that nobody could offer any specific solid reason for accusing him of being crazy or a liar.

Here's where I sit on this. I am open-minded about there being an entrance on the right temple. I in fact believe there was a large tangential entrance which stretched from above the ear to almost the temple. I am not as open about their being an entrance on the left temple, however, because the descriptions of the brain are inconsistent with such a wound and the trajectory makes little sense. 

But the forehead? The forehead entry is a hoax, IMO. NONE of the witnesses viewing the body saw such a wound, including those who saw the inside of the skull and those who cleaned up the president and would presumably have noticed such a thing. 

As far as Chesser, his underlying claim is that he has spotted a hole on the forehead on the lateral x-ray, that can not be made out on the a-p x-ray. I'm skeptical he will find validation from the forensic radiology world on this because this isn't how it works. Heck, Mantik has long claimed there is a hole on the back of the head on the A-P x-ray that can not be observed on the lat x-ray. So even he knows you are far more likely to make out a hole on the front or back of the head from the front than from the side. 

As stated, the circumstances of Chesser's "discovery" are also suspect. Mantik falsely claims Robinson saw a hole in a specific location and Horne joins in and just around the time people like myself start pointing out that they are fibbing Mantik is told he is no longer welcome at the archives. He then meets with Chesser and convinces him to go into the archives and double-check his work. Well, Chesser comes out with claims he found a bullet hole just where Mantik had  been falsely claiming Robinson saw a hole. 

It smells as much as the WC's lifting the back wound when they realized the trajectories didn't align, 

Well, no, not THAT much...

 

Edited August 22 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/20/2024 at 5:59 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

 

Upon reading some of Horne's work, it now looks as though the temporal wound shown in Chesser's video is in front of the ear, not behind it.

Therefore, that wound could indeed have been the temple wound described by Tom Robinson and James Jenkins, I think it probably was.

 

Edited August 22 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

@Pat Speer has said several times in this thread that the TEMPLE wound seen by Tom Robinson and James Jenkins has been dishonestly mischaracterized by researchers Horne, Mantik, and Chesser as being a FOREHEAD wound, above the right eye, in the hairline. He says they are pulling this "hoax" in order to gain forehead wound witnesses.

I have been doing some fact checking and have come to the conclusion that Pat's charges against Horne and Mantik are unfounded. My guess is that they are unfounded against Chesser as well. But I've run out out of time and won't be digging any further.

Here is what I found:

 

DOUG HORNE

On this page on Doug Horne's website, Horne wrote the following about James Jenkins:

"When questioned, [Jenkins] said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye."

So Pat is wrong about this.

I could find nothing at all about Horne claiming Tom Robinson saw a wound on the forehead.  Nothing.

So Pat is likely wrong about this too.

 

DAVID MANTIK

I have Mantik's latest book which has an appendix specifically covering the three headshot hypothesis. In this section are two lists of witnesses, one for the forehead wound and the other for the temple wound. I use the word "witness" loosely... a person can appear on the list merely for believing that the wound might be located there.

James Jenkins' name is on the Temple Wound List, where it should be.

So Pat is wrong about this too.

Tom Robinson's name is on the Temple Wound List, where it should be. However, his name also appears on the Forehead Wound List and a reason is given why. It is because, in his ARRB testimony, Robinson is asked the leading question, "You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?" To which Robinson replied, "Yes."

So Pat is wrong about this too.

 

Edited August 22 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@Pat Speer has said several times in this thread that the TEMPLE wound seen by Tom Robinson and James Jenkins has been dishonestly mischaracterized by researchers Horne, Mantik, and Chesser as being a FOREHEAD wound, above the right eye, in the hairline. He says they are pulling this "hoax" in order to gain forehead wound witnesses.

I have been doing some fact checking and have come to the conclusion that Pat's charges against Horne and Mantik are unfounded. My guess is that they are unfounded against Chesser as well. But I've run out out of time and won't be digging any further.

Here is what I found:

 

DOUG HORNE

On this page on Doug Horne's website, Horne wrote the following about James Jenkins:

"When questioned, [Jenkins] said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye."

So Pat is wrong about this.

I could find nothing at all about Horne claiming Tom Robinson saw a wound on the forehead.  Nothing.

So Pat is likely wrong about this too.

 

DAVID MANTIK

I have Mantik's latest book which has an appendix specifically covering the three headshot hypothesis. In this section are two lists of witnesses, one for the forehead wound and the other for the temple wound. I use the word "witness" loosely... a person can appear on the list merely for believing that the wound might be located there.

James Jenkins' name is on the Temple Wound List, where it should be.

So Pat is wrong about this too.

Tom Robinson's name is on the Temple Wound List, where it should be. However, his name also appears on the Forehead Wound List and a reason is given why. It is because, in his ARRB testimony, Robinson is asked the leading question, "You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?" To which Robinson replied, "Yes."

So Pat is wrong about this too.

 

Sloppy sloppy sloppy.

1. I have said numerous times where Horne said Jenkins saw a wound high on the forehead, He said it in "JFK: What the Doctors Saw." This is his most recent comment on the subject. I would be glad to accept that he simply screwed up and accidentally mis-informed millions of people, but the movie has been out a year and neither he nor Mantik nor Chesser have corrected his mistake. 

2. It is silly to assume Robinson said something when he didn't say it. As stated, he quickly corrected Purdy and said "by the temple." He was then asked about this first by Livingstone and then Horne and told them what he saw was on the cheek. Now some have taken to pretending he was describing a different wound entirely and that Livingstone and Horne were too incompetent to ask him about the wound on the forehead, but it's clear as day they asked him about the wound he saw and he said it was on the cheeks. 

[Ron Bulman]

The snow cone pattern did it for me.  Emanating from the wound in the hairline over the right eye.  the cluster of dust like metal particles around the entrance inside the skull.  Widening out progressively with larger particles going further.  Part of the explosion inside JFK's head that blew out the back?

Then the temporal, frontal (tangential) wound that caused the flap in the Z-film, the furrow in the what is that photo and another.  Also contributing to the back blow out.

First the low shot in the back of the head created cracks in the cranium.  Driving it forward for a split second.

The explosion in the head of the two simultaneous frontal shots resulted in blowing out the cracks in the back as well as skull, brain, blood and dura matter.  And driving the head back and to the left, back . . .    

[Chuck Schwartz]

So, Ron, you are on board with the 3 headshots?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/22/2024 at 5:43 PM, Pat Speer said:

1. I have said numerous times where Horne said Jenkins saw a wound high on the forehead,...

 

I know you've said it many times Pat. But that doesn't make it true.

Horne himself wrote the following about James Jenkins (Source):

"James Jenkins recalls evidence of a bullet hole in the right temporal area, immediately forward of, and just above, the right ear. ... When questioned, [Jenkins] said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye."

 

This is completely the opposite of what  you keep saying.

 

On 8/22/2024 at 5:43 PM, Pat Speer said:

Horne said Jenkins saw a wound high on the forehead. He said it in "JFK: What the Doctors Saw."

 

That's not true Pat. JFK: What the Doctors Saw is only about what the Parkland witnesses saw, not the Bethesda witnesses. The only reason Horne was on the show was to explain the illicit surgery to the head. (Source)

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I know you've said it many times Pat. But that doesn't make it true.

Horne himself wrote the following about James Jenkins (Source😞

"James Jenkins recalls evidence of a bullet hole in the right temporal area, immediately forward of, and just above, the right ear. ... When questioned, [Jenkins] said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye."

 

This is completely the opposite of what  you keep saying.

 

 

That's not true Pat. JFK: What the Doctors Saw is only about what the Parkland witnesses saw, not the Bethesda witnesses. The only reason Horne was on the show was to explain the illicit surgery to the head. (Source)

 

Are you actually claiming that someone did not say what they said in a movie viewed by millions of people because they did not say it in a book years earlier? 

My whole point is that these guys keep changing their theories and keep finding additional support for their theories by misrepresenting what people have said. 

Have you even viewed JFK: What the Doctors Saw? 

 

Edited August 24 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Are you actually claiming that someone did not say what they said in a movie viewed by millions of people because they did not say it in a book years earlier?

 

I am claiming that Horne didn't say what you said he did -- about Jame Jenkins seeing a wound in the forehead above the right eye --in the movie JFK: What the Doctors Saw.

If you insist he did, kindly prove it. What specifically did he say and where in the movie is it.?

 

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I am claiming that Horne didn't say what you said he did -- about Jame Jenkins seeing a wound in the forehead above the right eye --in the movie JFK: What the Doctors Saw.

If you insist he did, kindly prove it. What specifically did he say and where in the movie is it.?

 

 

Watch the movie. 

Edited August 24 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

Watch the movie. 

 

Prove your dubious claim.

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Prove your dubious claim.

 

You're being ridiculous. 

The vast majority of members have no doubt watched the movie--which was one of the two most widely-watched JFK-related movies of the last ten years. No one who has actually viewed the movie has claimed my reporting of what Horne claimed Jenkins claimed is in error. Not one. But you write post after post claiming I am in error because Horne said something different years before...

It's like I'm reporting on the Tarantino movie Inglorious Bastards and sharing that they successfully kill Hitler at the end. And you're saying that they couldn't kill Hitler because he killed himself, and only admitting days later that you haven't even seen the movie. 

 

 

Edited August 24 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

51 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're being ridiculous.

 

This isn't ridiculous at all Pat. You have a history of telling falsehoods in order to bolster your beliefs and to discredit prominent researchers who disagree with you. It looks to me like I've found yet another case of your doing that.

You've claim several times that Doug Horne goes around saying that James Jenkins said he saw a wound above the right eye, high on the forehead of JFK. Your claim didn't sound right to me.

So I did some fact checking. I couldn't find a single case of Horne saying something  that supports your claim. And in fact I found a case of Horne contradicting your case! I presented that to you.

What I want is for you to find and show me -- and all readers--  a single instance of Horne saying what you claim he says.