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

[Karl Kinaski]

To all of you; Why not go on holiday till November?

Quote

Trump just announced a new commission on assassination attempts. ““In honor of Bobby, I am announcing tonight that upon election, I will establish a new independent presidential commission on assassination attempts. “They will be tasked with releasing all of the remaining documents pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. And they will also conduct a rigorous review of the attack last month. But I tell you, I have never had more people ask me, ‘Please, sir, release the documents on the Kennedy assassination,’ and we're going to do that.”

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

You did NO fact-checking. I said he said something in a movie, so you looked for earlier statements from him where he said something else so you could proudly and publicly proclaim me to be a liar...without EVER watching the movie. 

Do you understand how weird that is? 

I am beginning to have deja vu all over again. 

Edited Saturday at 09:29 PM by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/23/2024 at 9:46 AM, Chuck Schwartz said:

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

Ah Chuck, can I tap dance here?  Not much is for sure in the JFK assassination.  The magic pristine bullet is b/s.  As Curry said, no one has put Oswald in the window.  Back and to the left means it was a conspiracy.   Plus, many more facts.

But yes, I believe the most qualified scientist's I'm aware of who have examined the most relevant evidence.

This also seems logical to me.  Since before I encountered this information, I believed it was a militarily assisted operation with the CIA.  I.E. the shots were coordinated by telecommunication.  Someone said A as in now. for the throat shot. B for the back shot, one or two that missed -Connally, Tauge, the front windshield frame?  C. For the experts.  All to hit in the hair line.  Dal-Tex jumped the gun by a split second, head moved forward for a split second.  Temple and over the right eye in the hairline were simultaneous.  Back and to the left.

I know, all speculation.  Reasonable?    

[Mark Ulrik]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The magic pristine bullet is b/s.

Yes, it was far from pristine, but some people love to exaggerate.

[Denny Zartman]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ah Chuck, can I tap dance here?  Not much is for sure in the JFK assassination.  The magic pristine bullet is b/s.  As Curry said, no one has put Oswald in the window.  Back and to the left means it was a conspiracy.   Plus, many more facts.

But yes, I believe the most qualified scientist's I'm aware of who have examined the most relevant evidence.

This also seems logical to me.  Since before I encountered this information, I believed it was a militarily assisted operation with the CIA.  I.E. the shots were coordinated by telecommunication.  Someone said A as in now. for the throat shot. B for the back shot, one or two that missed -Connally, Tauge, the front windshield frame?  C. For the experts.  All to hit in the hair line.  Dal-Tex jumped the gun by a split second, head moved forward for a split second.  Temple and over the right eye in the hairline were simultaneous.  Back and to the left.

I know, all speculation.  Reasonable?    

All reasonable in my opinion.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Yes, that is reasonable, Ron.  

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/24/2024 at 3:25 PM, Pat Speer said:

Do you understand how weird that is?

 

I'll tell you what's weird. What's weird is that you're the only person in the world who heard in that movie (JFK: What the Doctors Saw) Doug Horne saying that James Jenkins saw a bullet wound in the forehead above the right eye.

What's also weird is that you apparently believe Horne has said that only in the movie. Nowhere else. That if somebody wants to fact check you, they are going to have to watch the movie too!

Do you seriously believe that Horne would make this remarkable claim for the very first time in the making of a movie, and then never repeat it afterward? And that nobody in the world would talk about it... other than yourself?

In my next post to you, I will explain how I can know that you are wrong about Horne without my ever watching the movie.

[Pat Speer]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'll tell you what's weird. What's weird is that you're the only person in the world who heard in that movie (JFK: What the Doctors Saw) Doug Horne saying that James Jenkins saw a bullet wound in the forehead above the right eye.

What's also weird is that you apparently believe Horne has said that only in the movie. Nowhere else. That if somebody wants to fact check you, they are going to have to watch the movie too!

Do you seriously believe that Horne would make this remarkable claim for the very first time in the making of a movie, and then never repeat it afterward? And that nobody in the world would talk about it... other than yourself?

In my next post to you, I will explain how I can know that you are wrong about Horne without my ever watching the movie.

I don't think you should read my posts anymore, Sandy. 

Something goes haywire when you do. 

I pointed out a mistake (or deception_.) by Horne, and you try to make out I am mentally ill for noticing his mistake (or deception).

A  little background is in order. The late Gerry Hemming used to call me "The Noticer" because I noticed stuff most everyone else had missed.  

I am well-known in JFK circles for this ability, whatever it is. 

As a result I have been asked to speak at numerous conferences, been interviewed on numerous channels and websites, and been quoted in a dozen books or more. 

I am a guy who notices things. 

Such as this...

And this..

.

And this... 

 

So...yeah...before I started researching the single-bullet theory, not one of the thousands of researchers to study this case had noticed that 1) the back wound on the face sheet accurately reflected the measurements obtained at autopsy, 2) Dr. Humes had testified in a manner suggesting the bullet entering the EOP had exited the throat, and 3) the HSCA's trajectory expert had moved the back wound for his exhibits. 

I notice stuff...

 

Edited yesterday at 06:35 AM by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In my next post to you, I will explain how I can know that you are wrong about Horne without my ever watching the movie.

 

I got all the information I write about in this post from this 2013 article written by Doug Horne:

The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963

 

Horne's pre-autopsy illicit surgery theory holds that the surgery was performed by Dr. Humes and completed by 8:00 PM, when the official autopsy began. Part of this surgery was obliterating an apparent entrance wound in the forehead above the right eye.

At the 50th anniversary of the assassination, Jenkins told a small group  of researchers that he had seen a small (5 mm) wound in the right temple area of JFK's head. When asked if he'd seen any wounds in the forehead above the right eye, he said no.

Based on statements from many of the autopsy attendees, Horne determined that Jenkins was not present during the pre-autopsy surgery. And so Horne wasn't surprised that Jenkins didn't see the forehead wound above the right eye... it had been obliterated!

Horne was also pleased to hear from Jenkins that he had seen a temple wound. Because Horne believes that the temple wound was an entrance wound for the rear blowout wound.

 

What I conclude from the above information is that Jenkins is an ideal witness for Horne's theories. No need to change his testimony. And in fact it would break Horne's theories if he were to interpret Jenkins temple wouln as being a high forehead wound instead.

 

Edited yesterday at 06:52 AM by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't think you should read my posts anymore, Sandy.

 

You've made a serious charge against a fellow researcher. You either need to back it up, or retract it.

You apparently have access to the movie (JFK: What the Doctors Saw) Transcribe the few words where Horne claims Jenkins said that he saw the forehead wound, and record the timestamp. So we can all see for ourselves.

If you can't do that, you should retract your accusation.

 

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I got all the information I write about in this post from this 2013 article written by Doug Horne:

The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963

 

Horne's pre-autopsy illicit surgery theory holds that the surgery was performed by Dr. Humes and completed by 8:00 PM, when the official autopsy began. Part of this surgery was obliterating an apparent entrance wound in the forehead above the right eye.

At the 50th anniversary of the assassination, Jenkins told a small group  of researchers that he had seen a small (5 mm) wound in the right temple area of JFK's head. When asked if he'd seen any wounds in the forehead above the right eye, he said no.

Based on statements from many of the autopsy attendees, Horne determined that Jenkins was not present during the pre-autopsy surgery. And so Horne wasn't surprised that Jenkins didn't see the forehead wound above the right eye... it had been obliterated!

Horne was also pleased to hear from Jenkins that he had seen a temple wound. Because Horne believes that the temple wound was an entrance wound for the rear blowout wound.

 

What I conclude from the above information is that Jenkins is an ideal witness for Horne's theories. And in fact it would break Horne's theories if he were to interpret Jenkins temple would as being a high forehead wound instead.

 

Horne routinely lies about Jenkins. He makes out that Jenkins was not in the morgue till the beginning of the official autopsy when he knows full well that Jenkins has always said he was in the morgue from hours before to hours after the autopsy and that no pre-autopsy surgery was conducted at Bethesda. 

We've been through this before. 

Jenkins is a nice guy, and tries not to upset researchers. He knows, furthermore, that Horne is an ally of Chesser and Mantik, with whom he is friendly.

And yet he added this section on Horne into his book--a book written with the help of Chesser.

 

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in th morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

 

Edited yesterday at 06:21 PM by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

James Jenkins wrote:

If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility.

 

Well okay, maybe that is what happened.

 

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You've made a serious charge against a fellow researcher. You either need to back it up, or retract it.

You apparently have access to the movie (JFK: What the Doctors Saw) Transcribe the few words where Horne claims Jenkins said that he saw the forehead wound, and record the timestamp. So we can all see for ourselves.

If you can't do that, you should retract your accusation.

 

Doug Horne is not a member of this forum. We are as free to call him a liar as we are to call Arlen Specter a liar, or Gerald Posner a liar. 

As it stands, however, I suspect he simply screwed up when he said Jenkins saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Jenkins is the neutron bomb to his theory, and he knows it. He probably WANTED to believe Jenkins said he saw a hole on the forehead, and ended up saying Jenkins when he was thinking of Robinson. 

Of course, Robinson never said it, either. . 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:23 AM by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Doug Horne is not a member of this forum. We are as free to call him a liar as we are to call Arlen Specter a liar, or Gerald Posner a liar.

 

And I am free to call you on it when you are wrong.