How do LNers explain the white patch?

[Bill Chapman]

Oh my goodness. More comical blunders from you. Are you just going to keep copying and pasting from Speer's critique and ignoring Dr. Mantik's response to Speer's critique? So far, that's all you've done. Dr. Mantik has answered every one of the amateurish and invalid Speer arguments that you keep quoting. When are you going to deal with Dr. Mantik's responses?

For now, let's just deal with Speer's erroneous argument that Dr. Mantik did not do OD measurements on the unenhanced x-rays but only on the enhanced x-rays/prints of the enhanced x-rays. Dr. Mantik refutes this in his reply to Speer, and I've given the link to his reply twice in this thread, but you just keep repeating Speer's erroneous claim. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says regarding the claim:

Okay, are we clear now? How many more times am I going to have to embarrass you over your repetition of debunked arguments? Speer is out to lunch and way out of his depth on the autopsy x-rays and photos, and his criticisms of Dr. Mantik's OD research are erroneous and often downright silly.

So now let me answer your silly, ignorant questions, which were based on your acceptance of Speer's erroneous claim that Dr. Mantik did not do OD measurements on the original unenhanced autopsy x-rays:

The white patch does appear on the original unenhanced lateral autopsy skull x-rays, and Dr. Mantik's OD measurements for it are in several of his articles and in his new book.

Yes, Dr. Mantik's OD findings are indeed hard scientific evidence, and his findings have been confirmed by Dr. Chesser, and several forensic and/or radiology experts have reviewed and endorsed those findings. But, you just keep quoting the erroneous arguments of someone who has no training in radiology or physics and keep ignoring Dr. Mantik's refutation of those arguments, since you have no interest in actually considering the findings on their own merits but are determined to distort, lie, and mislead people about them.

And I notice you the ignored the fact that the white patch does not appear on the AP skull x-ray, which is a physical impossibility if the lateral skull x-rays are unaltered, and the fact that the autopsy photos of the brain and the autopsy skull x-rays severely contradict each other on the amount of missing brain.

Folks, since Organ keeps quoting Speer's critique of Dr. Mantik's research and keeps ignoring Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer, allow me to once again provide the link to Dr. Mantik's reply:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

'Okay, are we clear now?'
_ Not like you're running your mouth..

[Michael T. Griffith]

    "Only one explanation is possible--this left, lateral skull X ray is a copy.
     The reason, of course, is that the emulsion of a copy film would be fully
     intact, yet at the same time it would faithfully record any areas of
     increased transmission (i.e., missing emulsion) from the original.
     A simple or more straightforward proof of film copying is unimaginable.
     After my visit, I sent a specific letter of inquiry on this point to Steven Tilley.
     His letter of response is makes it clear that NARA considers all of the
     extant X-rays to be originals. None are copies."
          -- David Mantik

So why does he say he was given a copy? And why not use the original unenhanced x-ray to demonstrate how much more white the "white patch" is?

HUH? I just pointed out to you that Mantik DID use the unenhanced original x-rays when he did his OD measurements. Did you not notice that the statement you just quoted refers to the LEFT lateral skull x-ray? That's why he did the OD measurements on the unenhanced original RIGHT lateral skull x-ray.

Did you not read Dr. Chesser's articles on his OD measurements?

Both the original x-ray and the enhanced version show the petrous bone brighter than the "white patch".

No, they do not. Moreover, according to the OD measurements, the white patch is at least as dense as the petrous bone, if not denser. Dr. Chesser confirmed this. Dr. Chesser adds the following:

I also took optical density measurements of this film, and the left posterior temporal/occipital skull was more dense than the petrous ridge. The skull at the level of the petrous ridge is almost all bone, and it is impossible to explain this finding except to consider that the evidence was altered.

The JFK x-rays are not of comparable quality to modern x-rays. The Bethesda x-rays were taken using a 1940s portable machine. [SNIP]

I already answered this argument. Again, Dr. Mantik has explained why the age and quality of the x-ray machine that was used makes no difference, and I've quoted his explanation. You just keep repeating arguments that you know have been refuted.

The A-P x-ray shows the hinged flap (camera-left) but without the brain and bone that it overlaps in the lateral view.

You don't know what you're talking about, which is why you didn't recognize how erroneous Speer's arguments are. Dr. Mantik has already discussed the bone flap in great detail. The flap is not in the same area as the white patch, as Dr. Chesser has also noted. A first-year medical student could tell you that the flap and the white patch are not in the same area.

And when are you going to explain why the white patch does not appear on the AP x-ray when it should be brazenly obvious? You keep avoiding this problem.

[Walt Cakebread]

Of course, another key fact about the white patch is that it covers a good part of the area that over 40 witnesses said was missing.

The white patch may also have been put there to conceal the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The autopsy doctors described a trail of fragments that went from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. No such fragment trail appears on the extant x-rays.

The only fragment trail visible on the x-rays is the one several inches higher near the top of the skull. We are asked to believe that the autopsy doctors not only mislocated the rear head entry wound by a staggering 4 inches but mistook a fragment trail at the top of the head for a trail that began at the EOP and went to the right eye.

Of course, also asked to believe that the autopsy doctors did not notice the most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the skull x-rays: the 6.5 mm object. Or, we are asked to believe that they saw it but for some reason did not remove it and omitted it from the autopsy report. As most here know, the 6.5 mm object has now been determined by optical density measurements to be a forged image ghosted over a much smaller actual fragment. Dr. Mantik has even be able to duplicate how the forgery was done.

Would there be a "fragment trail" from a full metal copper jacket ?     

[Zeon Mason]

Is it mere coincidence that  the  lower EOP  (red line ) interests thru the center of the white patch area and connects in line with the point at which the radial fragment lines converge?

The other High EOP (yellow line) does not intersect with the white patch nor does this the angle of this yellow line seem to be in alignment with what (intuitively) one would expect to cause the spread ( or cone) of radial fragmentation lines.

Since the autopsy photo of the gloved hsnd  holding the back of JFK hair /skull fragment in place does not show the high EOP ( hence the necessity for the Ida Dox “drawing”) then there is reason to suspect the “white patch” area was an attempt to nullify the lower EOP location by Humes.

The reason ( if its truly an alteration ) must be that  lower EOP would make the SE 6th story window trajectory for the z313 shot highly improbable.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Would there be a "fragment trail" from a full metal copper jacket?     

Yes, but it would be nothing like the high fragment trail, which includes dozens of tiny fragments clustered toward the right-front part of the skull. FMJ bullets that strike skulls can leave fragments, but only a few. The FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics tests left very few fragments, and none of them left anything resembling the cloud of fragments that compose most of the high fragment trail.

We simply don't know how many fragments were in the low fragment trail, because it no longer appears on the skull x-rays, and because Humes did not mention how many fragments it appeared to contain. He said there were "multiple minute metallic fragments" in the low fragment trail, which he said ran along a line "joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge," i.e., just above right eye. "Multiple" can mean a few more than one or many more than one. "Minute," however, implies that the fragments were tiny, which is not typical of FMJ ammo.

Humes faced an obvious and serious problem: the x-rays showed two separate fragment trails, one low and another at least 2 inches higher. One of the trails had to go.

And it goes without saying that Humes could not have failed to see the high fragment trail, which starts/ends in the right frontal region with the cloud of fragments and dissipates considerably as it trails upward toward the back of the skull but does not reach the cowlick. This suggests the impact of a high-velocity frangible bullet in the right temple, and we have several witnesses in two different locations who saw a small wound in the right temple.

The plotters had to pick their poison. The EOP entry site presented an impossible trajectory back to the sixth-floor window, unless one assumes that JFK was leaning forward by about 60 degrees when the bullet struck, which no video or photo shows him doing at the time of the Z-film head shot. So the plotters decided to make the low fragment trail disappear and to plant evidence on the x-rays that would appear to indicate that the bullet struck about 4 inches above the EOP and that would superficially seem to be the source of the high fragment trail.

But, as is well known, there is no wound in the cowlick, and the high fragment trail does not extend to the cowlick. The cowlick entry point poses a much less severe trajectory problem than the EOP site, but that's not saying a whole lot. It's much less severe because the EOP site is self-evidently impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window. However, NASA's Thomas Canning, the HSCA's trajectory expert, had a hard time aligning the sixth-floor window with the trajectory of the cowlick entry site through to the supposed exit wound above the right ear.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This thread deserves a bump because it shows that LNers have no credible, rational explanation for the impossible white patch seen on the right lateral x-ray. The patch is about 1,000 times bright than it should be, about 1,000 times brighter than the same area on a normal human skull x-ray, including JFK's premortem skull x-rays. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the latter point by doing OD measurements on one of JFK's premortem skull x-rays in Boston.

It is highly ironic that one WC apologist went running to the writings of ardent WC critic Pat Speer to seek to explain the white patch. Unfortunately, Speer's research on the skull x-rays is not just awful but at times downright comical, as we have seen in this thread.

Dr. Chesser, who is a neurologist, has discussed his findings regarding the white patch following his OD analysis of JFK's premortem and autopsy skull x-rays:

This lateral skull x-ray was performed on President Kennedy in 1960, and it took me a while, but I located the original at the Presidential Library in Boston, where it was labeled as a sinus x-ray. This is shown here to show that the petrous portion of the temporal bone is the most dense, and brightest, region on a skull x-ray. The pattern of variable density throughout the skull is typical. . . .

These OD readings were taken with an X-Rite 341 portable optical densitometer. Calibration was performed. This shows that the most dense part of the skull is easily the petrous (latin “petrosus” – stone hard) portion of the temporal bone. This also shows that the optical densitometer can demonstrate differences in density which aren’t apparent to the human eye. . . .

In the HSCA report you’ll find this very blurred image of the original right lateral skull x-ray (actually the inventory lists two left lateral skull x-rays). Looking at this image in the report would make you think that this x-ray is in horrible condition, and that the anterior half of the skull was so dim that no useful information could be obtained. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The actual original x-rays are in excellent condition, showing only minor aging, and this blurred copy doesn’t represent the original film well. . . .

This is a comparison of the original films, the HSCA computer enhanced images, and then the copies of the HSCA images released to the public.

Now I want to go back to the right lateral view, and to focus on the white patch, which Dr. Mantik has written so much about. I agree completely with him, that this points toward tampering.

This is to highlight the “white patch." Notice on the left this same area on the 1960 skull x-ray, and how it is much less white, or dense, compared to the base of the skull, the petrous portion of the temporal bone.

Dr. Mantik took many more optical density readings that I did, but I wanted to show that my readings agree with his – that the white patch appears much more dense than is possible. On the left lateral x-ray, the OD reading was much more dense than the petrous bone – and again, this is not possible. An optical density of .24 is equivalent to a much higher density of the skull in this region, compared with an optical density of .32, and this is not physiologic, even in the face of traumatic alteration of the skull. . . .

This is a simulation of the left lateral skull x-ray. NARA never released an actual copy of the left lateral skull x-ray. As you see, the back part of the skull isn’t visible. I flipped the image of the right lateral x-ray, and then cut off the occipital region, to simulate the appearance of the left lateral image. I also took optical density measurements of this film, and the left posterior temporal/occipital skull was more dense than the petrous ridge. The skull at the level of the petrous ridge is almost all bone, and it is impossible to explain this finding except to consider that the evidence was altered. (https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)

This is hard science based on the long-established science of OD measurement and analysis of x-rays.