pjspeare@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:21 pm, "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> <thaliac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:c93cdd8a-1fe4-43bd-8eec-272b57cb8452@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 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
>
> As I remember it, the photos on that roll were not the missing photos
> taken by Stringer, but the photos taken by Riebe at the beginning of
Yes, but stop confusing Chad with facts.
> the autopsy. (Two of Stringer's photos are missing. Stringer and the
> autopsy doctors said there were photos of the EOP entrance taken from
> both behind the skull, and looking down inside it--one of these is
> missing. The photo of the chest cavity, showing the bruise on the
> lung, is also missing.)
>
|
