"pjspeare@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <pjspeare@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c07d27cf-04a8-490b-bca2-d660b2d05540@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
> 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.)
As per the national archives, the photos were of the missing material,
including the right lung apex, but the quality was poor. I asked them when
I was there in '04.
Chad
|
