<thaliacole@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c93cdd8a-1fe4-43bd-8eec-272b57cb8452@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 25, 10:25 am, "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "robert harris" <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:reharris1-94D269.09351024032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <47e714e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> Robert,
>
> >> I am simply relaying an inquiry that was made to me. I am not
> >> interested
> >> in debating your theories, although it'd be interesting to hear your
> >> theory regarding my having any control whatsoever in the editing
> >> process
> >> of the company contracted by the Discovery Channel.
>
> >> I can say, however, that I didn't put the coat on any subject, nor
did
> >> it
> >> rise six inches. Regarding your challenge, Bob, there is a reason why
> >> 'second opinions' are oft sought after. The strange thing is that
> >> people
> >> think it is weird when someone else, using different processes, comes
> >> up
> >> with something different.
>
> > Chad, NO-ONE will be able to reproduce the supposed result of your
> > experiment.
>
> Seems to me that I made just such an offer to Varnell long ago, Bob. Fly
> on out here and we'll see what may or may not happen. I did it on myself
> and the JFK stand-in, but we actually used a thing called a 'ruler' to
> make sure all was done correctly. You have your marker at about T7.
> Perhaps you're looking to redefine another location to set yourself
apart
> from 'the crowd'. But, be aware, I'll have analyzed your 'video' and
> 'replication' of it and will ask that you answer some questions
beforehand
> based upon facts and your suppositions of what the experiment will yield
> as far as results.
>
> But, let me break this to you, Bob. You can actually get a different
> result. That's right! Not every single person will get the same exact
> result! Different methods and different variables will, in fact, create
> different heights anywhere from C7 to T3. But, if you can actually have
a
> marker in the right spot AND have the fabric folded, or cupped, I'd love
> to see your marker ending up at T3.
>
> For a refresher on this topic, perhaps you should Google some of my
> exchanges with Varnell regarding actual anatomical measurements. In
order
> to predict a distance from the base of the collar to a vertebral
segment,
> you have to know where the collar rested, Bob. When you get that figured
> out based on JFK's own pictures, then cross correlate it to x-ray
> findings, such as I did, you may realize that only a couple of inches of
> fabric bunching are necessary, instead of the 6" you are claiming. In
> order to claim 6" of elevation, you'd actually be ABOVE the top of the
> collar, as the collar was less than 2" tall and the hole was 4" below
the
> bottom of the collar! Or, did you mess up and put your marker 2" below
> where it actually should be? Where's your collar rest as related to a
> spinal level?
>
> You seem to be insinuating that I thought that it 'always' happens one
way
> and that is it. I never said that. See what happens when you assume?
>
> Bob, can you explain how a shot at T2 or 3 didn't perforate his lung?
Can
> you explain how the bullet didn't traverse the thoracic cavity? Oh,
> yeah...they lied.
>
>
>
> > Why don't you simply answer my question? In case you forgot, I will
> > repeat it:
>
> > "Would you be interested in a small wager that a different doctor,
> > conducting that same test on the same subject, could NOT reproduce
your
> > results??"
>
> And, if you didn't understand what I said, Bob, other people doing an
> experiment with different methods will often get a different result.
Care
> to also wager whether the sun may come up tomorrow? I have no doubt that
> others can get a different result, Bob. That's why we're a society of
> second opinions- just keep going to where you get what you want, then
> exclaim, "Eureka! I found it!"
>
> Chad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The authorities lying about this matter seems backed up by the fact
photos of Kennedy's chest cavity are missing.
--------------------------------------------------
Actually, there was a roll of film that did not get developed and was
found
years later. The film was developed and it showed those very pictures, but
were of horrid quality given the years of being lost.
I know, in the real world mistakes happen, but they're not supposed to
with
the JFK investigation being led by imperfect human beings.
Chad
|
