Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: How do LNers explain the white patch?  (Read 5272 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2022, 04:59:50 PM »
Advertisement
If someone were to adopt Jerry Organ's mindset on the JFK case and apply it to the infamous 18-minute gap in the 6/20/1972 Nixon White House tape, they would argue that the erasure of those 18.5 minutes must have been an innocent mistake by Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods. Otherwise, we would have to believe that someone or some people in Nixon's inner circle gained access to the tape and altered it (or gave it to someone else to alter), and that Woods lied to cover up for her boss, which of course means, at a minimum, that there was a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The missing 18.5 minutes occur on the tape of the 6/20/72 conversation between Nixon and his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, which took place just three days after the Watergate break-in. During those 18.5 minutes of erased tape, one hears a series of buzzes and clicks.

During her testimony, Ms. Woods testified that while she was transcribing the 6/20/72 tape with her dictaphone, she accidentally pushed "record" on the dictaphone and kept her foot on the dictaphone pedal when she went to answer a phone call, and that she therefore accidentally recorded over part of the conversation. However, Woods claimed that she erased no more than 5 minutes of the tape.

There’s a famous photo of Woods re-creating this alleged snafu. We see Woods attempting to keep her foot on the dictaphone pedal and reach for the phone on the other side of her desk at the same time. Some have jokingly referred to it as the “Rose Mary Stretch.” In the picture, you can see her straining to hold on to her chair so that she can reach the phone, and she’s having to recline almost at a 45-degree angle to reach the phone.

Only a few fanatical Nixon loyalists buy Ms. Woods' ridiculous tale. A panel set up in the 1970s by federal Watergate judge John Sirica concluded that the erasure was done in at least five separate and contiguous segments. This was clearly no accident.

It is obvious to all rational, objective people that someone or some people in Nixon's inner circle gained access to the 6/20/72 tape and erased 18.5 minutes of Nixon's conversation with Haldeman, and that Woods was lying about erasing part of the tape.

But, if we were to adopt the lone-gunman mindset, we would say,

"Oh, no. The innocent explanation is much less sinister and much more straightforward than the conspiracy explanation. Accidents happen. Ms. Woods simply talked on the phone longer than she realized and accidentally erased the 18.5 minutes. She was just too embarrassed to admit that she was on the phone for so long and held her foot on the pedal for so long. If you believe the tape was altered in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, you need to identify who the conspirators were on Nixon's staff who gained access to the tape and erased the 18.5 minutes. You need to explain why they didn't erase other incriminating segments on the other tapes. You need to explain how they gained access to the tape. You need to explain why the innocent, down-to-earth Rose Mary Woods would have perjured herself just to cover up for her boss."

Sound familiar?

Rose Mary Woods' explanation for the 18-minute gap, though silly and unbelievable, is not as bad as Larry Sturdivan's explanations for the 6.5 mm object on the AP autopsy x-ray. Sturdivan theorizes that either a drop of acid somehow fell on the AP x-ray film and created the 6.5 mm object or that a stray metal disk somehow got stuck on the x-ray film cassette or on the autopsy table!

Since when do drops of acid include a well-defined notch that disrupts an otherwise perfectly round shape? The 6.5 mm object has a notch missing on its bottom right side, but the rest of it is perfectly round. This is one of several problems with the acid-drop theory. The fatal problem with the theory is that if the 6.5 mm object were caused by an acid drop, the x-ray film's emulsion would be visibly altered at this site, but the emulsion is completely intact (Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 150).

That leaves the stray-metal-disk theory. If a metal disk had been inside the film cassette, it would have produced a dark area at the spot of the 6.5 mm object, not a transparent one. If a metal disk had been lying next to JFK's head on the autopsy table when the AP x-ray was taken, it would appear on the lateral x-rays as well, but it does not. (One would hope that it goes without saying that if the radiologist and/or the x-ray technician had noticed a disk lying on the autopsy table after they took the AP x-ray, they would not have taken the lateral x-rays until they retook the AP x-ray.)



« Last Edit: December 05, 2022, 05:14:14 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2022, 04:59:50 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2022, 05:46:03 PM »
Right. The "hard scientific evidence" is hardly that. No doubt Mantik is obtaining honest OD readings, not the issue. Speer questions his use of enhanced x-ray prints and how such readings would compare to original x-rays taken on a machine similar to that at Bethesda, and how such an older machine would show features on a similarly-damaged skull. Not asking for the moon, just normal scientific protocol.

The hospital had a better-quality x-ray machine on another floor, but the portable one was faster to use and showed metal fragments, which they doctors were most interested in. We can see quality differences, for example, in the 8mm film and camera used by Zapruder as compared to that used by Nix.

    "I would like to explain one thing. These films, these x-rays were taken solely for the purpose of finding what at that time was thought to be a bullet that had entered the body and had not exited. If we were looking for fine bone detail, the type of diagnostic exquisite detail we want in life, we could have taken the x-rays in the x-ray department, made the films there, but we felt that the portable x ray equipment was adequate for the purpose; i.e., locating a metallic fragment."
          -- Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist to the HSCA

Fitting things to a predetermined conclusion is what you do at your website. What Speer is asking of Mantik doesn't seem "silly or irrelevant".

Which of these had the most appeal to you: Joseph created the pyramids to store grain, that poverty is "a state of mind" and that the My-Pillow Guy has medical cures? Horne, Mantik and you believe FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

You offer this quote from Mantik's "JFK Assassination Paradoxes": "A large white area (especially obvious in prints). ..." At least Mantik admits he's using compromised x-ray prints that increasingly exhibit higher degrees of artificial contrast. I pointed this out earlier.

You can see (the "White Patch" inset, above) how much more artificial contrast Mantik gets from using prints of the x-ray.

Why is there no glowing "white patch" on JFK's original unenhanced autopsy x-ray?

Where are Mantik's OD measurements for that?

You're the gift that keeps on giving. Here's Mantik's "duplication".

There is a hinged bone flap that was modeled for the 2013 NOVA program "Cold Case JFK":

If the flap didn't re-seat fully but partly overlapped the intact bone, it would explain the bright V-shape in the center of the autopsy x-ray.

So again, Griffith's still not taking Mantik's "historic developments" and "monumental" disclosures to mainstream media (surely Fox would oblige him) or his Congressman. If anyone vets their claims, they're dumb, have a bias or are part of the cover-up.

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:

Quote
11. Did I employ contrast enhanced X-rays for the OD measurements?
( p. 8 )

No—definitely not. This is an eccentric charge by Speer, and it reflects badly on his approach to this subject. At NARA, I used only the extant X-ray films, not prints and not enhanced X-rays. In fact, while at NARA I never even viewed prints of X-rays or any enhanced X-rays.

It is true, though, that the published prints of the JFK skull X-rays have been enhanced, but that is because the prints of the unenhanced X-rays do not accurately portray the extant X-rays. In print format, the enhanced X-rays are closer in image content to the extant X-rays.

Since Speer had been exchanging e-mails with Fetzer (he quotes Fetzer), he could easily have asked Fetzer (about whether I had used the extant X-rays), but he forgot to ask. Of course, Steve Tilley (and Gary Aguilar, too) can also verify exactly what I used.

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:

Quote
Why is there no glowing "white patch" on JFK's original unenhanced autopsy x-ray? Where are Mantik's OD measurements for that?

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

« Last Edit: December 07, 2022, 06:54:54 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2022, 06:56:44 PM »
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

I guess Jerry Organ has run out of erroneous claims to copy and paste from Speer's amateurish and error-filled critique.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2022, 06:56:44 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2022, 05:33:42 AM »
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.

    "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

Quote
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.

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?


The original x-ray showed a fairly-
even range of whiteness.

The HSCA enhancement unintentionally
added some artificial contrast.

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

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

    "After taking the preliminary X-rays, Custer and Reed carried the
     cassettes up to the Radiology Department on the fourth floor.
     To allow for the possibility that an X-ray did not develop satisfactorily,
     Reed loaded two film sheets in each cassette rather than the normal
     single sheet. To compensate for the extra film, he had to boost the
     X-ray energy level to make the screens glow brighter during exposure."

    "Unlike a photographic image, which typically registers only the object's
     surface features, an X-ray registers all the object's features, inside and
     out. Think of each point in an X-ray image as a summation of shadows.
     Consider of the objects struck by a particular ray, such as bone, tissue,
     air pockets, and blood on its way to the film. The brightness of that point
     on the film is the summation of all the densities the ray encountered. A ray
     that passes through bone and tissue records a brighter image than a ray
     that passes through just bone. A ray that grazes the edge of the skull
     travels over a large distance of bone, which makes that part of the image
     very bright. A ray that traverses thin bone, such as the area around the
     temples on a lateral X-ray, records a darker gray image."

     

    "Locations of the body closer to the film display greater distinctness and
     clarity in the image compared to those farther away. An X-ray doesn’t
     normally show depth, but a radiologist can use the effect to locate
     fractures on the near or on the distant side of the head. On the AP X-ray,
     the radiating fractures in back of the head, in the occipital bone, are clear
     with well-defined edges."

[Note: The term "occipital bone" is used above, but the lateral x-ray shows the epicenter of "the radiating fractures" in the parietal bone (just below the jutting edge on the rear of the skull). The author notes the "EOP region falls below the bottom edge of the enhanced AP X-ray" so the "radiating fractures" are not radiating from the "low" EOP wound site "on the A-P X-ray".]

    "When the X-ray tube is close to the patient, the image will be distorted
     because of magnification. Points on the body farther away from the film
     show larger than points closer to it. The X-ray tube needs to be at least 
     72 inches away to minimize magnification effects. The portable unit Custer
     and Reed used had its X-ray tube 44 inches from the film. This means,
     for example, that the orbits (the eye sockets) on the AP X-ray are around
     20% larger compared to a given distance on the back of the skull."

    "Based on the HSCA radiologists' measurements, I determined that the
     depression fracture on the back of the skull is 10.6 cm above the point of
     the EOP. I then drew a vertical green line on the lateral X-ray marking 4.5 cm
     below a point that is 2 cm below the skull's vertex. The lower end of this line
     should mark the approximate level of the base of the laceration through
     the brain."

    "Next, I drew a red line marking the low entry path through the head as
     maintained by Humes, Boswell, and Finck."

     

    "The yellow line passes through the center of the green line. The fragments
     coming from the vicinity of the entrance point would fan out into a cone shape.
     (Plus, the fragments' passage creates a temporary cavity, expanding the
     damage.) Damage would occur above and below the centerline, the yellow
     line. This matches the laceration noted in the report."

          -- Excerpts from "Making Sense of the Head X-rays", Joe Durnavich

Quote
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

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


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2022, 11:47:02 AM »
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..

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2022, 11:47:02 AM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2022, 05:47:03 PM »


Griffith's not drawing them in with his canned book-promo spiel on the other Boards and Forums.
     
Quote
"Dr. David Mantik's newly released book JFK Assassination Paradoxes, in which he proves with hard scientific evidence--optical density measurements and radiological analysis--that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays
is to reject basic physics and radiology."

    "Cool. Mantik is wrong. He's also a CTist. If you read his "evaluation"
     of the x-rays, and the autopsy it is clear he knows nothing about the
     events of the hours from the shooting, until they boxed up JFK later
     at Bethesda. He doesn't discuss his methodology of applying his
     techniques to the x-rays. Nor does he say how he was able to do
     this at the National Archives with any reliability.
          He also claims the Zapruder Film was altered, which already
     know is a lie."

    "This is ground-breaking if true. Why not published in a scientific
     medical journal and subjected to peer review? Is Mantik the only
     radiologist to hold this view or is his view the generally accepted one
     among radiologists? It appears from here yours is the misplaced
     argument from [invalid] authority logical fallacy."

Quote
"Lone-gunman theorists seem to be caught in a time warp and act like we're living in the early 1990s, seemingly oblivious to the historic evidence that has come to light via the ARRB releases and new scientific research."

    "No, we live in 2022, a world where USSOCOM has adopted the
     6.5 as its go-to caliber for long-range shooting.
          And the ARRB was almost 30 years ago. Had you bothered to
     read through the other JFK threads you'd know their work has been
     extensively discussed.
          Your lack, or inability to do basic research on a simple message
     board calls into question your capabilities to access basic information."

    "Sorry, no. There's nothing wrong with the original evidence."

Quote
"For example, we now know from ARRB-released files that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat."

    "That's a lie, for several reasons.
          1. They never probed the back would because YOU CAN'T
     PROBE SUCH WOUNDS. You'd know this had you actually read
     the ARRB interviews with Dr. Humes. You'd also know that
     Humes x-rayed the entire body, head to toe. So if there is a bullet
     in JFK's chest, why didn't the illustrious Dr. Mantik see it? Or why
     no evidence that the bullet was masked during the x-ray faking?"
          $5 says the clown never even looked.
     2. As we have discussed at length, Humes didn't think to call the
     Parkland ER doctors regarding the throat wound until after the
     autopsy. He and Dr. Finck both said they would have paid closer
     attention. As it was, they believed it to be a tracheostomy, and
     focused on the head wound."

Quote
"The fact that the back wound had no exit point, of course, debunks the single-bullet theory, and without the single-bullet theory there can be no lone-gunman theory. Since the SBT is false, there must have been at least two gunmen firing at JFK."

    "Since your claims are unsourced, I'm not going to bother to rebut
     them to any greater extent than I already have. Instead, I'll point out
     your argument now involves TWO MAGIC BULLETS.
          You've argued the single bullet theory (one bullet striking two men,
     disparagingly called the Magic Bullet Theory by conspiracists) is
     untenable, but you have replaced it with a Two Magic Bullets Theory.
          It's clear you are positing two different bullets hitting the President
     in the upper back / neck, both of which vanished into thin air."

    "Now we get into the truly outer limits of the fringe, where it's posited
     (of necessity) the missing bullets were removed clandestinely by
     surgeons who conducted a pre-autopsy autopsy, and who altered
     JFK's body to make it look like one bullet transited the body to fool
     the autopsy doctors of record. That was the purpose you suppose,
     but you then argue it didn't fool the autopsy doctors (they couldn't
     find the transit, you argue).
          Your theory makes little sense when examined in detail, as it relies
     on two magic bullets."

    "By going fully through JFK, it did exactly what it was designed to do.
     Griffith is arguing for the bullet striking no bone, suffering no deformation,
     yet stopping within JFK after traveling only a few inches. He claims we're
     rejecting "basic physics" but his arguments for the non-transit of the
     bullet that struck JFK in the back is what rejects basic physics."

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2022, 05:34:29 PM »
    "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:

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2022, 06:18:01 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2022, 05:34:29 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: How do LNers explain the white patch?
« Reply #31 on: December 09, 2022, 06:56:41 PM »
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 ?