"robert harris" <reharris1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:reharris1-629EE1.09414527032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <47e92f82@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Chad Zimmerman" <doccrz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "robert harris" <reharris1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:reharris1-0F1626.00072625032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > 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.
>>
>> Depends on where that hole in the jacket was relative to the anatomical
>> neck, Bob.
>
> No, it doesn't. The marker on my back didn't move at all.
As much as you think you were replicating JFK's body and clothing, you
weren't, Bob.
Your demonstration was done to show what you wanted it to show, while more
accurate demonstrations show other outcomes. I've done this on myself and
the Discovery Channel did it with a JFK stand-in. It isn't rocket science,
but it involves more thought than sticking tape in the wrong place and
filming for a few seconds of movements.
>
>> Depends
>> on whether he had slumped forward and then leaned back against the
seat,
>> Bob.
>
> We are talking about your subject, Chad. Or is that what you made him
> do, in an attempt to force that thing to rise?
Actually, we're talking about the stand-in, you...and anyone else that
wants to try this. Bob, in order to get anything to move from a position
of rest, it takes 'force'. Now, why don't you sit down and make a list of
all the things that could happen to make a point on fabric move relative
to the spine.
>
>
>> Depends
>> on a lot of things that you probably won't care to even think about.
>>
>> I'd like to challenge you, Bob, to placing a marker at T2-3 in a
neutral
>> position and cup fabric
>> as seen in the Croft photograph...and have that marker still at T2-3,
>> okay.
>
> I not only think about that, I discussed it in this video:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY&feature=related
>
> Of course, the hole was moved upward, but it's ludicrous to think it
> rose all the way to the neckline. That just didn't happen.
Depends on how far it was from the neckline to begin with, Bob. This is
the point you guys always drop. You make outrageous claims that it had to
move 6". Based on what?
>
> But why are you changing the subject? We were talking about your
> "experiment".
And we're talking about yours, Bob. You provided the video, now you want
to ignore it.
>
>
>>
>> Let me know when you're done with that. You might want to recheck the
>> average lifespan of
>> an American male prior to engrossing oneself in that endeavor.
>>
>> >
>> > And neither did your subject's.
>>
>> Bob, the x-ray showed exactly where the markers were relative to the
>> spine.
>
> Yes, you couldn't have produced the Xrays until after you positioned the
> marker, eh Chad?
Bob, I measured the exact distance below the collar and glued the marker
in place. That's all the positioning I did. If you recall, I wasn't the
one wearing the ****rt and suit.
>
>> While you'd
>> prefer to call others names and assume shenanigans, there were none.
>
> Chad, why did you need the props to produce that segment of the TV show?
You mean to get the arm up into a position closer to JFK's? This was
likely due to the fact that we didn't have the limousine there Bob. Sorry.
>
> Why couldn't you have just videotaped the back of your subject so we
> could see the metal thingie rise to the neckline?
How many times do I need to reiterate to you that I wasn't holding the
camera or doing any of the directing? Perhaps you'd like to scroll through
the credits and see if my name comes up under videography or as director.
Nor did I edit. Being that it was almost 4 years ago, I couldn't even say
if they filmed it or not.
This is bordering on plain old lunacy, Bob.
>
>>
>> In a neutral position, the hole in JFK's jacket wasn't anywhere near
>> where
>> most of you guys
>> put it.
>
> My video includes a photo of JFK's coat and the hole, encircled.
>
> It's pretty tough to get it wrong that way:-)
Then why is your marker on your ****rt all the way down near the lower edge
of your shoulder blade, Bob?
I like how you use Burkley's quote on where the bullet hit relative to the
spine, Bob. This is interesting because there is no way that Burkley
could've known exactly where relative to the spine since nobody marked the
hole and x-rayed it. Yet, the autopsy findings were of a bruised right
lung apex and damage to strap muscles...but no thoracic penetration. I
know, they simply lied, right? When in doubt, go with the visual
guesstimations!
Nevermind that JFK would've had to have one of the shortest necks in
history in order to get T3 where that hole was!
So, what does Bob do? He ignores the FPP analysis of the abrasion collar
on the real wound and moves it down to where an actual clot of blood is,
then calls the real wound a clot of blood! Why? Cause the other hole is
too high to be at T3. Funny, that's just what the FPP said too, Bob!
>
>
>> You make all sorts of assumptions based upon a limited knowledge of
>> anatomy and
>> then write lengthy articles on it as though you did. Most don't have a
>> clue
>> or their eyes are so
>> far shut they don't want or can't see it.
>
> Gosh, shame on "us", whoever "we" are:-)
>
> But when do we get back to *your* little production, Chad?
Yes, that way we can eliminate any discussion of your feeble attempts at
one, right?
Divert, dodge....
>
>>
>> >
>> > Why don't you explain to us, why it was necessary to do the Xrays at
>> > all, Chad?
>>
>> Well, if you can find a better way to accurately determine the exact
>> location of
>> an external location relative to the spine, please let me know, Bob.
>
>
> Proximity to the spine was not the issue, and you know it. And even if
> it was, you could have simply let your viewers watch the thing rise, and
> *then* snapped your Xray.
I DIDN'T FILM, PRODUCE, DIRECT OR EDIT THE FILM, BOB.
Go complain to them.
>
> But as you know all too well, the problem was that you had that marker
> moving all the way up to the neckline, which was simply impossible.
Impossible? I've done it numerous times, Bob. I imagine you ignored or
forgot those posts years ago. You think it is impossible for a spot on
fabric to move 2" relative to a fixed location on the spine? How does
fabric bunch up then, Bob?
>
>
>>
>> If you've developed x-ray vision goggles and haven't sold the patent,
I'd
>> suggest
>> doing so. You could probably fund the release of your Jesus song.
>
> Glad you liked it, Chad.
Actually, I did. But, Bob, would Jesus call people the names that you do?
>
> But if that marker rose to the neckline, only Jesus could have done it.
Only in your mind, Bob.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>> Bob, perhaps you should write the Discovery Channel a letter. I wasn't
>> doing
>> the
>> directing or filming, nor did I have anything to do with editing. Do
you
>> understand
>> that?
>
> Tell me something, Chad. If that marker rose very little or not at all,
> what was plan B? Would that have made the final cut?
There was no plan B, Bob. Nor was one needed. Funny what happens when one
actually analyzes things in detail ahead of time, Bob.
>
> You said yourself, that results were not consistent. Were you just
> incredibly lucky that on the first try, it rose to exactly where the WC
> tried to place the wound?
When details are well thought out, Bob, luck doesn't exist. It is only for
those that can't explain why something happens in a positive manner that
luck exists. Thus, you're simply illustrating your own lack of knowledge
regarding this matter.
>
> Oh wait a minute! I found your statement on that.
Hehe, that statement has nothing to do with anything really, Bob.
>
> "We took many takes of almost everything we did. Let me explain further.
> For instance, when he asked me to glue the marker to the ****rt, I didn't
> know he just wanted me to act as though I was. I actually did it. So, to
> retake the shot, he had me use a ****tion of the tail of the ****rt in
> close up to get a shot of me marking the ****rt, etc."
>
> Tell me something Chad. If you were only supposed to "act as though" you
> were gluing the marker to the ****rt, how did you actually carry out the
> test??
Are you trying to insinuate that one aspect of the filming should be
spread across the entire thing, Bob? Assume much?
The reason they wanted me to act as though it were being glued on the
marked location was in case they wanted to film it more than once with
different camera settings, Bob. They didn't tell me this, so I actually
glued the marker in place, then they refilmed the 'gluing' on another part
of the ****rt. The fact is that the marker was glued in the proper location
so it couldn't move or fall, Bob.
>
> I mean, wouldn't the thing just fall down the guy's back as he was
> sitting there?
I can't think of a more redundant comment than that, Bob.
>
> And why would you be willing to make a false statement about the nature
> of your experiment, on national television, Chad.
I made a false statement? Based on whose criteria, Bob? Yours?
>
> You also stated that you took four Xrays. Why didn't you mention that in
> the program too?
Perhaps I did, Bob. I don't recall, nor did I film, produce or edit the
show. Do try to get that into your cortex at some point, okay? As I
recall, we took two AP and two lateral films that day, Bob.
>
> Speers, whom you were talking to at the time of that cite, wrote an
> excellent article on this sleezy production, at this address:
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12b:bull****andbeyond
Yes, he probably did. He, like you, likes to believe he knows things that
he does not. Perhaps you've heard of the phrase 'journalistic integrity',
Bob. Not much of that exists around these parts, or in the productions of
those here.
Pat has lots of mundane questions that have rather simple explanations
usually. But, since he apparently doesn't understand much regarding how
various cameras operate or any remote understanding of radiology, he'll
continue with his misguided misconceptions to other that have no such
understanding of such things.
I do have a couple of preliminary things for Pat, however.
The collar isn't seen on the standing AP because there wasn't enough light
behind it to show enough contrast for the camera to pick it up. The
original settings used for that film were a touch dark, which causes less
dense areas, such as the collar, to be too dark to see on a standard
viewbox or picked up by the camera. In such situations, a 'hot light' is
often used to look at darkened areas for radiographic imagery. Simply
because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't, it simply means that
you didn't think very hard to find an alternate explanation. My guess is
you were too busy trying to be a champion of unmasking deceit rather than
a journalist looking at all possible angles.
With regards to the sitting x-ray 'differences', I think there is a rather
easy explanation for what you see. Because that film was lighter, they
took the films with them to produce additional takes to enhance contrast,
etc. The side by side comparison is where your problem lies. I don't think
the right hand comparison footage was done at the clinic that day and was
done in California to better enhance the contrast. The left and right
heights of the collar appear to be in the same place relative to the
spine. The marker is in the same place. However, the dimensions are off,
leading me to think they resized the video footage in post for the side by
side comparison, altering the dimensions a bit and skewing the film.
Anyone with a decent video editing suite can do this at home with any
image. It is simply a by product of post production by those that don't
think others are going to spend as much time looking for 'deceit'. It may
be hard to fathom, but producers and editors don't have you in mind when
they produce such things- just like the HSCA and WCC illustrations of
concepts didn't have your 'exactness' in mind when illustrating concepts,
Pat.
Regarding your 'analysis' of my webpage stuff, you really need to learn
what 'context' really is. Since I don't have JFK's x-rays handy to show
every bend and contour of his entire cervical spine, I made illustrations
to the best of my ability to....get ready... ILLUSTRATE something. When
illustrating concepts, often slight variations occur and should be
expected. You treat every such subtlety as a gasping surprise. In most of
my illustrative examples, the line is drawn through near the junction of
C7-T1. Now, one can move forward and backward on that line and find a
different corresponding vertebral level based upon the vertical height of
that point. I usually reference the area of the spine that the bullet
traversed, not necessarily its outermost component on a diagram, Pat. The
bullet path on nearly every image I've ever produced shows the bullet path
going by C7-T1 give or take a small amount. If it suits your purpose of
accuracy, move the line a tiny amount to put it where I said the wound was
and 'pat' yourself on the back. Either way, he wasn't hit at T3. His lung
was not punctured. Niether the Bethesda or the Parkland doctors noted a
collapsed lung or thoracic cavity perforation. There is no radiographic
evidence of intrathoracic damage except for a bruise to the right lung
apex, something that likely occurred secondary to a pressure cavity. The
only evidence of a T3 hit is based upon visual estimates based on its
appearance to the shoulder height. That's it. Guesses, Pat. Wouldn't it be
amazing if someone tore apart your work as you have to others by inventing
context?
On another note, Pat, my website going down had nothing to do with your
site going up. I hate to burst your bubble, but it went down when I bought
a business and moved everything to Colorado and decided not to renew the
hosting. I had more im****tant obligations than maintaining a site and
spending unknown hours refuting your false accusations.
Nice to see you quoting Marsh on your site. Were you aware that he also
believes the bullet passed by C7-T1?
Chad
|
