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
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
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.
