I didn't attack the science of optical density measurement.
You implied it, and you've dismissed OD measurement in previous replies.
I had a go at Mantik's misuse of the methodology. Seems you just automatically see conspiracy and incompetence in anything from the LN side.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
From Speer's website ( Link ):
"The portable x-ray equipment used at Bethesda was
reportedly an "old" General Electric 250. It was almost
certainly of World War II vintage. The 1943 guidebook
Medical Radiographic Technique by General Electric’s
Technical Services Division explains "Defining contrast
as the degree of difference in density between adjacent
areas on the film, it is not difficult to recognize that gross-
overexposure or under-exposure will affect this difference."
It then offers: “Technics should not be used to produce
maximum contrast, but rather technics which will give
satisfactory contrast for maximum visibility of structure.”
The book thereby presents three x-ray images of a human
skull: one created with a short exposure that is too light;
one created with a longer exposure that has an appropriate
amount of contrast; and one created with an even longer
exposure that is too dark.
These images are shown on the slide below."
Speer doesn't know what he's talking about. None of what you just quoted lays a finger on Dr. Mantik's OD research. I take it you didn't bother to read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer, right? Yes, of course. In fact, you don't appear to have even read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Dr. Mantik's reply is available on his website.
For starters, Speer ignores Dr. Mantik's use of controls from other portions of the autopsy skull x-rays and his follow-on comparison of the contrasts with other skull x-rays.
Do you know how Speer explains the unnatural white patch on the lateral skull x-ray? He floats the absurd argument that it's the flap over the right ear! The white patch is nowhere near the flap, and the flap is not remotely thick enough to explain the density of the white patch. The white patch is about hundreds of times brighter than any other object on the skull x-rays and about 1,000 times brighter than that that same location on any other known x-ray. If the white patch were genuine, instead of an added image, it would mean that there was skull bone from one side of JFK's skull to the other.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
As well, Pat posted this recently, and, as far as I can see, it wasn't seriously challenged:
"In any event, even if Mantik's readings are all legit. they still
don't mean much. You see, the OD apparent on an X-ray is
determined by a variety of factors: power, time of exposure,
and density of the item being X-rayed. Mantik's controls, on
which he bases his argument Kennedy's X-rays are impossible,
were all provided him from one source. Well, that's a huge problem.
He should have studied a wide variety of X-rays, including those
created on a portable machine like that used on 11-22-63, and
particularly those performed on badly fractured skulls with over-
lapping bone, and missing brain. He did not. His results are
therefore apples and oranges.
This is absurd. Some of the controls are on the autopsy skull x-rays themselves, while others are based on older skull x-rays.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
And, yeah, yeah. I know he's got some letters after his name. But
those in attendance at the 2013 Wecht Conference, including Jim,
know that in our joint discussion of the Harper fragment Mantik
had to eat some major crow, and admit he'd had the Harper
fragment x-ray (his supposed area of expertise) incorrectly oriented
for the last 4 years, and had incorrectly criticized me for having it
the wrong way. I allowed him to go first, in hopes I wouldn't have
to slam him on this point. And he did us both a favor, and admitted
his mistake.
This is making a mountain out of mole hill. The fact is that the Harper Fragment is clearly occipital bone. Many of the experts who have studied it disagree about what part of the occiput it came from.
You know that all the doctors in Dallas who examined the Harper Fragment in person, hands-on, said it was occipital bone, right? Right?
So, to be clear, while I have come to respect David's integrity, I
continue to feel sure his thoughts on the Harper fragment are both
wrong and of no help to the research community, as they are likely
to be shot down by a stream of credible experts as soon as they
reach the level where people are starting to believe him. I mean,
there's a reason why none of his colleagues will sign onto them,
and there's a reason why the only forensic radiologist to study his
findings, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, as I recall, told Doug Horne there was
no there there. (Now that's another thing...Fitzpatrick told this to
Horne in the mid-90's, and yet Horne held onto this info for more than
decade. Hmmm...)"
Oh, boy. Leaving aside the fact that this is a distorted portrayal of the facts, are you aware of what Dr. Mantik has said about Dr. Fitzpatrick's comment? Any clue?
Uh? Doesn't matter to me if Speer has lots I disagree with. If his research in a particular area (Mantik, Hickey Theory) is competent and reasoned, I will accept it. One of the first-generation critics, Paul Hoch, later thought the SBT should be given serious consideration. Unfortunately, Speer's site is marred by juvenile at-times inappropriate puns and "clever" wordplay.
And yet you cite Speer to attack Dr. Mantik on the OD evidence and on the Harper fragment.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
The supposed lack of neck transit was first mentioned in the Silbert-O'Neill Report in 1963 (so how was it "sealed" until the 1990s?).
Where did I say that the Sibert and O'Neill report was sealed until the 1990s? Where? Once again, you set up a dishonest straw-man argument. I said that the HSCA medical interviews that uncovered evidence of the shallow back wound were sealed. I never even implied that the Sibert and O'Neill report was sealed until the 1990s.
The issue was pondered over for awhile by Humes as he prepared his Autopsy Report. By time Humes gave weight to the throat wound being the point of exit for the neck transit, Silbert and O'Neill were out of the loop.
Phew! LOL! Yeah, right. So after Humes had burned his first two drafts of the autopsy report, and when he no longer had the body in front of him, and ignoring the clear, observable, probe-established fact that the back wound had no exit point, Humes cooked up the story that the throat wound was the exit wound for the back wound. And you present this nonsense as believable, in spite of all the evidence I presented to you in my previous reply. Incredible, but not surprising.
I doubt the back wound was probed as "extensively" as you promote. The pathologists feared creating a false passage if they pushed too hard. I also have a problem with a finger being inserted.
Uh, sorry, but the ARRB materials document just how thoroughly the back wound was probed, including the removal of the chest organs and the use of multiple flexible probes following Humes' manual probing. It's all there in the ARRB-released HSCA interviews and in the ARRB follow-up interviews.
It was reasoned that the missile passage through the neck had become restricted because of the change in the body from the wounding position when the President was alive. At autopsy, rigor mortis was also a factor.
Sigh. This nonsense AGAIN? I get it: You're just never, ever going to admit that you're wrong about this, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. No matter how many firsthand accounts we find from autopsy witnesses--doctors, med techs, morticians, etc.--that mutually corroborate each other on this crucial point, you're just never going to be convinced because you don't want to be convinced, because then you would have to abandon the single-bullet theory. It's really a waste of time talking with you about this stuff, because you float the same silly nonsense in reply over and over again. I only reply to you for the sake of others.
Now, as I've noted to you before, rigor mortis does not prevent wound probing, and the reason autopsy doctors use flexible probes is to avoid creating false passages, which is why Finck used flexible probes when he probed the back wound. And, the whole reason the autopsy doctors removed the chest organs and positioned the body at multiple angles and different positions during the probing was to ensure they could probe to the end of the wound and see where the probe went. AGAIN, the doctors and technicians standing near the autopsy table could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity; they could see that the wound tract did not enter the chest, and we have multiple independent accounts of this fact.
This is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. This is why the second draft of the autopsy report said the wound was shallow and went no farther. This is why Humes lied about when he knew of the throat wound. This is why he illegally burned the first two drafts of the autopsy report. This is why the throat wound was small (about 5 mm) and punched in--it was an entrance wound, just as the experienced Parkland ER doctor and nurses said it was. This is why all the x-rays and photos that were taken of the probe inserted into the back wound were destroyed.
The titillating "sweeteners" you find so arousing from the ARRB hearing (back probe photo, finger pushing the interior wall) has to applied against the ARRB's own caution about the reliability of witnesses to events decades pass.
So multiple mutually corroborating accounts given independently by medical professionals at different times and under different circumstances are just "titillating sweeteners," hey? Yeah, right.
Leaving aside your misuse and mischaracterization of the "ARRB's own caution," reasonable, honest investigators agree that when multiple credible witnesses independently confirm key details, especially when they do so in two separate interviews and without knowing what the others have said, such accounts should be viewed as highly reliable and important.
When are you going to take these "stunning" developments to be vetted at the New York Times?
Wow, really? This is beyond silly and disingenuous. As you surely must know, the New York Times has been an ardent, blind-faith backer of the Warren Commission's lone-gunman theory for decades, and started peddling the theory even before the Warren Report was published. Even liberal journalists who've worked for the Washington Post and who've become convinced of the case for conspiracy have said that the New York Times is deaf to any and all evidence of conspiracy.
