Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


W. Niederhut

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ron,

     I'm glad you pointed this out, because your observations illustrate an important issue.

     Dr. Chesser is not a slick salesman, or a Hollywood script writer.  He's an experienced physician.

     One skill that good physicians acquire during their training is the ability to; 1) carefully examine the medical evidence, and 2) call it as they see it.

     Lives depend on their perceptions and judgment.

     I learned this lesson the hard way as a third-year medical student on the Cardiology service at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston.  (Long story.)

    A doc is entirely responsible for his diagnosis, and needs to call it as he sees it-- rather than basing his diagnosis on what others tell him.

    That is, precisely, what Dr. Chesser has done with the available JFK medical data.  It isn't slick, but it's honest.

    One doc I knew used to joke that, "An 'expert' is someone who is often wrong, but never in doubt."

    

Addendum:  I should add that there is a common tendency for people to believe what they are told by others-- groups, authority figures, salesmen, media, etc.-- rather than trusting the evidence of their own eyes and ears.  This has been demonstrated by social psychology experiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This isn't a revelation. Perry and McClelland and I think everyone to see the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy thought it was an entrance wound. It was small and APPEARED to be an entrance wound. No one ever varied from this. The confusion comes from people claiming that Perry said IT WAS an entrance wound...and that's just silly.

Pat, Catching up on this thread and particularly your entry above, had me digging through my long list of quotes notes.  At some point in history I've copied, from where I know not, the sentence below. (Possibly from some vid featuring Parkland doctors) I assume it relates to immediately after the Parkland press statements.  Is it kosher?

Dr McClelland witnessed someone come up to Perry who he thought was a S.S. agent who told Perry, "You must never ever say that was an entrance wound again if you know what is good for you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

Pat, Catching up on this thread and particularly your entry above, had me digging through my long list of quotes notes.  At some point in history I've copied, from where I know not, the sentence below. (Possibly from some vid featuring Parkland doctors) I assume it relates to immediately after the Parkland press statements.  Is it kosher?

Dr McClelland witnessed someone come up to Perry who he thought was a S.S. agent who told Perry, "You must never ever say that was an entrance wound again if you know what is good for you."

McClelland said something like this towards the end of his life. But I think he was conflating Elmer Moore's coming to the hospital and showing the doctors the autopsy report--a move designed to get them to stop saying they thought the throat wound was an entrance--and someone's threatening Perry. If I recall he said Perry was threatened just after the press conference, which makes little sense, seeing as no one had a real grasp of where Kennedy was when the shots were fired and where the shots came from etc. In any event, if Perry was threatened, it didn't work, as he testified the wound looked like an entrance wound and continued to say as much for the rest of his life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

Pat, Catching up on this thread and particularly your entry above, had me digging through my long list of quotes notes.  At some point in history I've copied, from where I know not, the sentence below. (Possibly from some vid featuring Parkland doctors) I assume it relates to immediately after the Parkland press statements.  Is it kosher?

Dr McClelland witnessed someone come up to Perry who he thought was a S.S. agent who told Perry, "You must never ever say that was an entrance wound again if you know what is good for you."

Thanks for sharing this, Pete.

Dr. Chesser also pointed out, in his down-to-earth style, that a few prominent physicians blatantly lied about the X-Ray evidence, suspecting at the time, that the public would never see the X-Rays.

There, obviously, was (and is?) a concerted "government" effort to mislead the public about the frontal entry wound.

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Thanks for sharing this, Pete.

Dr. Chesser also pointed out, in his down-to-earth style, that a few prominent physicians blatantly lied about the X-Ray evidence, suspecting at the time, that the public would never see the X-Rays.

There was and is, obviously, a concerted "government" effort to mislead the public about the frontal entry wound.

 

That NO ONE saw...

There is so much evidence for a conspiracy that one does not need to presume wounds no one saw.

The small head wound by the EOP did not connect to the large head wound. The autopsy doctors failed to do this, and subsequent panels have claimed it could not be done. 

The back wound did not connect to the throat wound. The autopsy doctors failed to do this, and the evidence supposedly supporting this (the bruised neck muscles) was misrepresented for decades to help sell something for which there was no proof. 

The official evidence does not support the official conclusions. And never has. 

And one can't help but wonder what would have happened if say, David Lifton, had written a book about this, instead of a fairy tale involving body snatching.

I mean, just imagine...

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

   If you study Dr. Chesser's analysis of the archival X-Rays, he found no evidence of the alleged occipital (Bethesda) or posterior parietal (HSCA) entry wounds described in the fraudulent, official radiology reports.

   He did identify the fragmentary metallic trail of the right frontal entry wound.

   Do you deny that Oswald was shot from the front, as we can all plainly see on the Z film?

    I'll ask again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

   If you study Dr. Chesser's analysis of the archival X-Rays, he found no evidence of the alleged occipital (Bethesda) or posterior parietal (HSCA) entry wounds described in the fraudulent, official radiology reports.

   He did identify the fragmentary metallic trail of the right frontal entry wound.

   Do you deny that Oswald was shot from the front, as we can all plainly see on the Z film?

    I'll ask again.

You seem to believe Chesser is a forensic radiology expert, when he is basically a nice guy who became smitten with Mantik's writings, and thought he could help him by going into the archives and confirming his findings. Although a doctor, he has no real expertise on this stuff, and his findings are designed to support the claims of Mantik and Horne. 

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. 

You're probably a busy guy and don't have the time to get in the weeds, but a few hours spent absorbing chapter 18b at patspeer.com will prove a lot more enlightening than the presentations of Mantik, Horne, and Chesser, or anything I could summarize here.

I know you and others are dismayed by my refusal to swallow what some have been selling, but it's not because I am here to defend the CIA or some such thing. In fact, I have a section in which I detail some reasons to suspect CIA involvement.

From chapter 20:

 

As detailed in the previous chapters, my study of the eyewitness evidence and Zapruder film led me to suspect the snipers firing on Kennedy were trained in military tactics, and had used a weapon similar to those described in the CIA's Manual on Assassination.

So does that mean I think the CIA was involved? Not necessarily. Let’s just say that the killers were probably aware of CIA assassination techniques, and may very well have been CIA-trained. If the CIA suspected as much, moreover, it might very well explain why the CIA has been less than forthcoming on so many aspects of the assassination. Yes, after all this time, literally years spent on this investigation, I still think it's possible that the numerous government lies I've uncovered are unrelated to the assassination itself, and are more indicative of a vast cover-up of information embarrassing to the U.S. Government and City of Dallas than a vast conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and an ongoing conspiracy to cover-up this event. 

But sometimes I have to wonder... In early 2009, while preparing to mail out something I'd sold over the internet, using an assumed name, I noticed that the buyer's name was quite familiar. It was John McAdams, the Marquette University Professor whose single-assassin theorist website was at that time top-ranked by google. Now, by early 2009, I'd sold thousands of items over the internet, none to anyone with whom I'd ever had any contact. And here was the one person with whom I'd had regular contact--through the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup--who was also widely rumored to be a CIA operative...and he was buying something from me. Did he know the name under which I'd been selling my possessions? Was he sending me a message? Was it even him? 

I decided to google his name along with the city provided on the address, to see if it was indeed THE John McAdams, and not just A John McAdams. And I came across an internet radio station programmed by THE John McAdams with the same home town. Hmmm...I thought. So it is him... Now ain't that a coinkydink... But then I noticed that the three rotating banner ads across the top of McAdams' radio station web page were all sponsored by the CIA. All of 'em. There were other ads off to the side. But the ads above McAdams' face were all CIA ads. Now what are the odds of that? I have contact with one person rumored to be a CIA operative. I find a photo of him online. Above this photo--by pure coincidence?--there are ads placed by the CIA. 

I just couldn't buy this was a coincidence. I decided that there must be some sort of connection. It then hit me that most internet ads are placed by computer programs, and that McAdams' having people google his name together with "CIA" may have led some program to associate his name with the CIA, and place ads for the CIA above his name and photo. I mentioned this possibility to a few JFK assassination website owners and they told me they agreed that this was indeed the most logical explanation. Some months later, however, McAdams himself insisted this wasn't so. McAdams had stupidly called one of the website owners I'd consulted a "fascist." This, in turn, led me to point out that this man had defended McAdams when I had asked him if the CIA ads had been more than a coincidence. McAdams then grew quite defensive, and claimed that the appearance of these ads above his face was obviously a coincidence, and that only a kook or loony would think otherwise. When I mentioned that it seemed perfectly reasonable to me to assume that someone at the CIA considered his JFK website a friendly website, and wanted to reward him by supporting his music web page, John fought this as well, insisting that, since CIA ads could be found on the home page of the website hosting his radio station, it was all obviously just a coincidence. In the end, he was unwilling to accept any possibility that the ads on his web page were more than a coincidence, even if this possibility reflected no wrong-doing on his part. 

So here we were again...at a cognitive divide. Perhaps then, conspiracy theorists are those who see something unlikely--like the one person you know who might have connections to the CIA having CIA ads on the website of their internet radio station--as suspicious, while those denying the possibility of conspiracy see this same event as just another, yawn, coincidence. One side sees what could be a coincidence as a possible clue, while the other side sees what could be a clue as an obvious coincidence. 

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You seem to believe Chesser is a forensic radiology expert, when he is basically a nice guy who became smitten with Mantik's writings, and thought he could help him by going into the archives and confirming his findings. Although a doctor, he has no real expertise on this stuff, and his findings are designed to support the claims of Mantik and Horne. 

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. 

You're probably a busy guy and don't have the time to get in the weeds, but a few hours spent absorbing chapter 18b at patspeer.com will prove a lot more enlightening than the presentations of Mantik, Horne, and Chesser, or anything I could summarize here.

I know you and others are dismayed by my refusal to swallow what some have been selling, but it's not because I am here to defend the CIA or some such thing. In fact, I have a section in which I detail some reasons to suspect CIA involvement.

From chapter 20:

 

As detailed in the previous chapters, my study of the eyewitness evidence and Zapruder film led me to suspect the snipers firing on Kennedy were trained in military tactics, and had used a weapon similar to those described in the CIA's Manual on Assassination.

So does that mean I think the CIA was involved? Not necessarily. Let’s just say that the killers were probably aware of CIA assassination techniques, and may very well have been CIA-trained. If the CIA suspected as much, moreover, it might very well explain why the CIA has been less than forthcoming on so many aspects of the assassination. Yes, after all this time, literally years spent on this investigation, I still think it's possible that the numerous government lies I've uncovered are unrelated to the assassination itself, and are more indicative of a vast cover-up of information embarrassing to the U.S. Government and City of Dallas than a vast conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and an ongoing conspiracy to cover-up this event. 

But sometimes I have to wonder... In early 2009, while preparing to mail out something I'd sold over the internet, using an assumed name, I noticed that the buyer's name was quite familiar. It was John McAdams, the Marquette University Professor whose single-assassin theorist website was at that time top-ranked by google. Now, by early 2009, I'd sold thousands of items over the internet, none to anyone with whom I'd ever had any contact. And here was the one person with whom I'd had regular contact--through the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup--who was also widely rumored to be a CIA operative...and he was buying something from me. Did he know the name under which I'd been selling my possessions? Was he sending me a message? Was it even him? 

I decided to google his name along with the city provided on the address, to see if it was indeed THE John McAdams, and not just A John McAdams. And I came across an internet radio station programmed by THE John McAdams with the same home town. Hmmm...I thought. So it is him... Now ain't that a coinkydink... But then I noticed that the three rotating banner ads across the top of McAdams' radio station web page were all sponsored by the CIA. All of 'em. There were other ads off to the side. But the ads above McAdams' face were all CIA ads. Now what are the odds of that? I have contact with one person rumored to be a CIA operative. I find a photo of him online. Above this photo--by pure coincidence?--there are ads placed by the CIA. 

I just couldn't buy this was a coincidence. I decided that there must be some sort of connection. It then hit me that most internet ads are placed by computer programs, and that McAdams' having people google his name together with "CIA" may have led some program to associate his name with the CIA, and place ads for the CIA above his name and photo. I mentioned this possibility to a few JFK assassination website owners and they told me they agreed that this was indeed the most logical explanation. Some months later, however, McAdams himself insisted this wasn't so. McAdams had stupidly called one of the website owners I'd consulted a "fascist." This, in turn, led me to point out that this man had defended McAdams when I had asked him if the CIA ads had been more than a coincidence. McAdams then grew quite defensive, and claimed that the appearance of these ads above his face was obviously a coincidence, and that only a kook or loony would think otherwise. When I mentioned that it seemed perfectly reasonable to me to assume that someone at the CIA considered his JFK website a friendly website, and wanted to reward him by supporting his music web page, John fought this as well, insisting that, since CIA ads could be found on the home page of the website hosting his radio station, it was all obviously just a coincidence. In the end, he was unwilling to accept any possibility that the ads on his web page were more than a coincidence, even if this possibility reflected no wrong-doing on his part. 

So here we were again...at a cognitive divide. Perhaps then, conspiracy theorists are those who see something unlikely--like the one person you know who might have connections to the CIA having CIA ads on the website of their internet radio station--as suspicious, while those denying the possibility of conspiracy see this same event as just another, yawn, coincidence. One side sees what could be a coincidence as a possible clue, while the other side sees what could be a clue as an obvious coincidence. 

 

And I hope some will at least consider this as a simple reason to stop assuming things that simple need no assumption at all.  If you see things differently, well that´s fine and good for you.

But not taking the time to AT LEAST study the opponent´s material, that´s well... let´s call it... not very smart...

If you still don´t agree that´s fine (again!), but now you can start discussing using references as it should be done.  AND others are more likely to actually follow it, in stead of scrolling til eternity, or simply skip the topic...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

   If you study Dr. Chesser's analysis of the archival X-Rays, he found no evidence of the alleged occipital (Bethesda) or posterior parietal (HSCA) entry wounds described in the fraudulent, official radiology reports.

   He did identify the fragmentary metallic trail of the right frontal entry wound.

   Do you deny that Oswald was shot from the front, as we can all plainly see on the Z film?

    I'll ask again.

Pat,

    I'm relieved to hear that you acknowledge that JFK was shot from the front.

    Next question.

    Where's his cranial entry wound?

    Instead of repeating your trope which I expected-- i.e., that board certified neurologist, Dr. Chesser, "isn't a radiologist"-- how about identifying JFK's frontal cranial entry wound for the forum?

    Where is it here?

 P.S. No mangled Bethesda scalp photos this time, puh-lease!!

image.png.ca476ee53fe4dc5b9bd39b3417f035

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I studied the video some time ago, but don't recall his Bethesda witnesses. But would be surprised if they included anyone beyond those I've listed above. 

To recap...

Robinson said there was no bullet hole on the forehead but recalled a tiny wound or wounds by the temple or cheek.

Jenkins said there was no bullet hole on the forehead but recalled a possible entrance location above the ear.

O'Donnell said he was shown a photo of such a hole by Knudsen, but Knudsen did not take photos of the autopsy and only developed photos, and never said anything to the HSCA or to his family about a photo showing a bullet hole on the forehead. Making matters worse, O'Donnell was suffering from dementia at the time and no one has even shown he knew Knudsen, let alone knew Knudsen to the extent Knudsen would show him top secret photos.

David said he was shown a similar photo by Pitzer, but Pitzer did not take photos or movies of the autopsy.

Now, I think it's possible both O'Donnell and David were shown photos, and that they honestly believed, decades later, that these photos showed a bullet hole on the forehead. But the fact remains that no one known to have viewed the body or reviewed the photos has claimed he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. 

When assessing this stuff we should also look at the timeline.

1. Lifton develops a theory holding that the back of the head was blown out by a shot from the front and that the evidence has been faked.

2. Mantik studies the x-rays and says, to much acclaim from CT-land, that the x-rays show a white patch that was added to conceal a hole on the back of the head. He then becomes part of Team Fetzer, which follows in Lifton's footsteps and claims that the evidence has been faked.

3. After meeting Mantik at a conference, Horne applies for a job with the ARRB, and buddies up to Jeremy Gunn--who was tasked with clarifying the medical evidence. Horne then solicits questions from Lifton and Mantik and prevails upon Gunn to interview witnesses Lifton and Mantik would like to see interviewed, and ask them the questions they've prepared. 

4. Not all the answers are helpful. Horne asks Robinson about the hole on the temple and is told there were holes on the cheek.

5. Mantik begins claiming Robinson said there was a hole on the forehead. Horne and others repeat this so often many believe it. 

6. Around this time I entered the picture, and pointed out online and at conferences that the white patch did not cover the far back of the head, where Mantik had placed the large exit wound. And had claimed the Harper fragment had originated, in opposition to all the skull experts to study the fragment, and every anatomy book ever created. 

7.  Mantik admitted I was correct, and insisted he'd never told the likes of Fetzer that the white patch covered a hole on the bone. Mantik now said it covered a hole in the brain. 

8. Years later, moreover, he suddenly started claiming that the OD measurements he'd taken of the skull x-rays had shown that there was yessiree a hole on the back of the head, only we couldn't see it.

9. After being allowed nine visits to the archives, and publicly proclaiming the evidence has all been faked, Mantik is denied further access. 

10. He then recruits Dr. Michael Chesser to go in his place. Chesser confirms some of Mantik's findings, but comes out with something new--a claim the x-rays show a bullet hole on the forehead--where Mantik and Horne had been falsely claiming Robinson saw a wound. In a bizarre twist, moreover, Chesser claims this hole is only visible on the lateral view...in a location where Mantik had previously claimed his OD readings had proved there was no frontal bone. 

11. Horne then claims James Jenkins also saw a wound in this location, when Jenkins, as Robinson, had actually specified that there was no hole in this location. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Pat for posting this. Well stated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

    I'm relieved to hear that you acknowledge that JFK was shot from the front.

    Next question.

    Where's his cranial entry wound?

    Instead of repeating your trope which I expected-- i.e., that board certified neurologist, Dr. Chesser, "isn't a radiologist"-- how about identifying JFK's frontal cranial entry wound for the forum?

    Where is it here?

 P.S. No mangled Bethesda scalp photos this time, puh-lease!!

image.png.ca476ee53fe4dc5b9bd39b3417f035

Yikes. I suspect JFK was NOT shot from the front. You mistakenly wrote Oswald was shot from the front so I agreed with that before proceeding to say I suspected Kennedy was shot by multiple shooters from behind. 

Now, I am open-minded about there being a shot from the front, and have worked with some prominent doctors in developing arguments that support as much. Most tellingly, I discovered and reported that blood spatter explodes at a right angle to the skull surface, which debunks the frequent argument the explosion of blood and brain in the Z-film proves the shot came from behind. 

But no, that is not my current theory. 

Now, finally, you need to get out of your bubble for a second and read the research literature. Not one prominent expert, last I checked, including Chesser, thinks one can see a bullet entrance on the photo. The black shapes are denuded bone and hair--which show up as black on the back and white. 

If you want to show us where YOU think you see a hole and then search the literature to see if anyone agrees you may win a few converts, but making out that a hole is readily visible in the Chesser location is bizarre, IMO. 

 

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting for Pat Speer to show us JFK's anterior cranial entry wound here, now that Pat has acknowledged that JFK was shot from the front.

Can't have it both ways, Pat.  JFK's head was knocked violently backward by a frontal head shot.

Where's the anterior cranial entry wound?

image.png.ca476ee53fe4dc5b9bd39b3417f035

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Still waiting for Pat Speer to show us JFK's anterior cranial entry wound here, now that Pat has acknowledged that JFK was shot from the front.

Can't have it both ways, Pat.  JFK's head was knocked violently backward by a frontal head shot.

Where's the anterior cranial entry wound?

image.png.ca476ee53fe4dc5b9bd39b3417f035

I've explained and demonstrated JFK's reaction for decades. His head goes forward and down and then springs back, just as one would expect from someone receiving a blow on the top of the head. 

This, as most all of your concerns, is addressed in chapter 16b. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I've explained and demonstrated JFK's reaction for decades. His head goes forward and down and then springs back, just as one would expect from someone receiving a blow on the top of the head. 

This, as most all of your concerns, is addressed in chapter 16b. 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

McClelland said something like this towards the end of his life. But I think he was conflating Elmer Moore's coming to the hospital and showing the doctors the autopsy report--a move designed to get them to stop saying they thought the throat wound was an entrance--and someone's threatening Perry. If I recall he said Perry was threatened just after the press conference, which makes little sense, seeing as no one had a real grasp of where Kennedy was when the shots were fired and where the shots came from etc. In any event, if Perry was threatened, it didn't work, as he testified the wound looked like an entrance wound and continued to say as much for the rest of his life. 

Cheers Pat.  Sounds logical to me.  To quote 'Apollo 13', "You're a steely eyed missile man."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...