robert harris wrote:
> In article <47e7e8ca$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Chad Zimmerman" <doccrz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "robert harris" <reharris1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:reharris1-94D269.09351024032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <47e714e6$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> "Chad Zimmerman" <doccrz@[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.
>
> That's totally irrelevant. The marker would not have moved to my
> neckline, from any place reasonably close to the location of the wound
> in JFK's jacket.
>
> And neither did your subject's.
>
> Why don't you explain to us, why it was necessary to do the Xrays at
> all, Chad?
>
> The lining in JFK 's jacket certainly wasn't responsible for pulling the
> ****rt up, so wouldn't it have been infinitely simpler to just film the
> guy's back as he raised his arm?
>
> Why was it necessary to go through such a complex ritual, that required
> the marker to remain hidden from view?
>
Watch the mole carefully.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh really?
>
> And how did you discover that, Chad?
>
> I guess you were damned lucky then that when the cameras were filming,
> your man just happened to bring that marker up to the neckline - exactly
> where the WC tried to place it.
>
> Whew! I bet you were sweating bullets, eh Chad:-)
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I have a better idea Chad. Just have someone video you or your subject
> raising his arm as your guy did on TV and let us all see how high that
> object rises.
>
> It doesn't get much simpler than that, and you can post your video as a
> response to mine.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Bull****!
>
> The fold has to include at least as much fabric as the distance the hole
> moved upward. You can learn more about this in the following video:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
>
>
>
>
>> 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?
>
> Chad, your argument is simply goofy. My marker didn't move at all. So,
> it didn't matter where I placed it. And your TV marker was definitely
> more than 4 inches down from the collar.
>
>> 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?
>
> Then I guess you were just lucky in that TV show, eh??
>
> Tell me, what would you have done if the marker only moved up to T3?
>
> Umm.. exactly as you DID do?
>
>> 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.
>
> Show me an Xray that eliminates any possibility that a bullet did.
>
> The back entry wound is easily seen in one of the autopsy photos, as is
> the swollen ring that surrounds the hole. There is a good blowup of it
> in this video:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> I guess you missed the part about "that same test".
>
> "same" means identical, Chad - using exactly the same techniques you
did.
>
> And if you got varying results, why didn't you point that out?
>
> Better yet, just redo your experiment, letting us see your subject's
> back and your marker. Take as many tries as you like, Chad.
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>> 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
>
|
