How do LNers explain the white patch?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

See Pat Speer's website ( "Chapter 19a:  Stuck in the Middle With You" Link ) if you think Mantik isn't a quack. E-mail Speer if you wish. He's been at Mantik a long longer than I have.

Apparently no doctor or radiologist has bothered to take this Mantik on, so he's been dominating the discussion through books, websites and accommodating lackeys like Griffith.

If you want to buy into Mantik's claims, then fill your boots.

Ben Carson and/or Wecht have nothing to do with the credibility or lack of credibility of Mantik. It's a non sequitur.

If you want to withdraw the argument, then fine; if you want to double down you'll lose again. It's completely illogical.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Steve Galbraith: Ben Carson and/or Wecht have nothing to do with the credibility or lack of credibility of Mantik. It's a non sequitur.

If you want to withdraw the argument, then fine; if you want to double down you'll lose again. It's completely illogical.

Jerry Organ: If you don't think Mantik is a quack, then you're endorsing his JFK x-ray claims because you believe he's competent.

Ah!!!! Well, well! So here we have it! The whole reason that Organ is making the sleazy, absurd claim that Dr. Mantik is a quack is that Organ cannot accept the hard scientific evidence that Dr. Mantik has discovered that shows that the JFK autopsy x-rays have been altered. He can't or won't consider the hard scientific evidence on its own merits, even though Dr. Michael Chesser has confirmed it with his own multiple OD measurements on a JFK pre-mortem skull x-ray and on the autopsy skull x-rays.

Rather than allow the evidence to determine his conclusions, Organ judges all evidence solely on the basis of whether or not it supports his conclusions, and if it does not, he reaches, grasps, and strains to come up with any excuse, no matter how silly or irrelevant, to reject that evidence. (We see this in Organ's strange attack on renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson for expressing certain political views that Organ views as extreme, even though tens of millions of Americans find those views perfectly valid. Needless to say, Dr. Carson's political views have nothing to do with Dr. Mantik's OD measurements and high-magnification analysis of the autopsy skull x-rays.)

Just to summarize some of the evidence on the impossibly bright white patch on the JFK lateral autopsy skull x-ray, I quote from Dr. Mantik's new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes:

A large white area (especially obvious in prints) appears on JFK’s two lateral X-rays, as shown in Figure 8. The paradox is that no other patient (in my 46 years since entering medical school) has ever shown anything like this. Furthermore, a pre-mortem X-ray of JFK does not display anything like this either. Dr. Michael Chesser’s optical density measurements, made directly from the pre-mortem X-ray at the JFK library in Boston, likewise conclusively confirm just how bizarre this feature is.

My optical density values for this White Patch are almost the same as for the petrous bone, which encircles the ear canal (Figure 8A), and which is the densest bone in the body. The conclusion is that a large area over JFK’s posterior skull is almost solid bone—from side to side, i.e., a “bonehead” skull. This is, of course, ridiculous. More likely, someone merely performed another double exposure in the darkroom.

It should also be emphasized that, although this White Patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. As I stated during my first public comments on this issue (at a New York press conference in 1993), it would be like missing a tyrannosaurus rex in downtown Manhattan. (p. 9)

The absence of the white patch on the AP skull x-ray is another issue that lone-gunman theorists simply have no answer for. How could the white patch, which represents a large area of dense bone if we assume the autopsy x-rays are authentic--how could this large area of dense bone not show up on the AP x-ray? How? It should be plainly, brazenly obvious on the AP x-ray, but it is nowhere to be seen thereon.

And why is no such white patch seen on JFK's 1960 skull x-ray? Why do the twice-verified OD measurements on the pre-mortem and autopsy skull x-rays show a drastic difference in the area of the white patch?

Answer: The impossible white patch does not show up on the 1960 JFK skull x-ray and on the AP autopsy skull x-ray because it was added to the lateral autopsy skull x-ray after the autopsy. Dr. Mantik has even been able to duplicate how it was added.

And we haven't even talked about the drastic contradiction between the autopsy photos of the brain and the autopsy skull x-rays. The brain photos show very little missing brain, not to mention an entirely undamaged cerebellum, but the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing brain. Humes himself stated that 2/3 of the right cerebrum had been blown away. A major loss of brain tissue was confirmed by many other witnesses at both Parkland and at the autopsy. Dr. Mantik's OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays confirm that about 70% of the right brain is missing.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.)

[Michael T. Griffith]

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:

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:

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

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

[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 ?