Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard's sp
Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard's sp
2013-05-26 03:08:30
These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
"In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
each
vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
"Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
us A, B and a part of side E.
"Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
"How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
"All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
course :) "
reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
"In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
each
vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
"Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
us A, B and a part of side E.
"Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
"How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
"All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
course :) "
Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard'
2013-05-26 04:44:51
Wow, what a brilliant analogy. Whoever the cohort is, bravo to both of you!
On May 25, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
"In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
each
vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
"Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
us A, B and a part of side E.
"Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
"How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
"All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
course :) "
On May 25, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
"In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
each
vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
"Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
us A, B and a part of side E.
"Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
"How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
"All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
course :) "
Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard'
2013-05-26 07:03:02
From: Wednesday McKenna
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM
Subject: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur
reconstruction of Richard's spine
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
and bury it that way, too.
That's because cats have a very small rib-cage in proportion to their body
size (which is also why they sleep a lot) and detached collar bones. This
isn't true of humans, whose upper bodies form a fairly rigid box. And even
so, the cat's spine wouldn't bend in a lateral direction, at least while
there was still flesh on it.
The vertebrae of mammals have very little side-to-side movement unless they
are deformed - our spines flex fore and aft, as distinct from reptiles and
fish, who flex laterally. That's why sharks beat their tails from side to
side and dolphins beat theirs up and down. No amount of cramming will make
a mammalian spine flex very far laterally unless it's deformed that way, or
the flesh has already decayed to the point where the vertebrae are no longer
joined together.
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM
Subject: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur
reconstruction of Richard's spine
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
and bury it that way, too.
That's because cats have a very small rib-cage in proportion to their body
size (which is also why they sleep a lot) and detached collar bones. This
isn't true of humans, whose upper bodies form a fairly rigid box. And even
so, the cat's spine wouldn't bend in a lateral direction, at least while
there was still flesh on it.
The vertebrae of mammals have very little side-to-side movement unless they
are deformed - our spines flex fore and aft, as distinct from reptiles and
fish, who flex laterally. That's why sharks beat their tails from side to
side and dolphins beat theirs up and down. No amount of cramming will make
a mammalian spine flex very far laterally unless it's deformed that way, or
the flesh has already decayed to the point where the vertebrae are no longer
joined together.
Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard'
2013-05-26 19:24:40
Yes Wednesday....kudos to you and your friend...Eileen
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, what a brilliant analogy. Whoever the cohort is, bravo to both of you!
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
> reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
> terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
> experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
> specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
> someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
>
> "In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
> impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
> they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
> placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
> each
> vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
>
> "Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
> side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
> vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
> turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
> us A, B and a part of side E.
>
> "Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
> scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
> condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
> representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
> did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
> have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
> up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
>
> "How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
> their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
> standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
> and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
> a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
> alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
> that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
> grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
>
> "All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
> course :) "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, what a brilliant analogy. Whoever the cohort is, bravo to both of you!
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
> reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
> terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
> experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
> specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
> someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
>
> "In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
> impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
> they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
> placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
> each
> vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
>
> "Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
> side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
> vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
> turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
> us A, B and a part of side E.
>
> "Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
> scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
> condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
> representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
> did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
> have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
> up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
>
> "How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
> their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
> standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
> and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
> a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
> alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
> that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
> grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
>
> "All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
> course :) "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard'
2013-05-26 20:31:26
Thank you Weds for articulating something I thought when we first saw the programme in fact I think that you posted something along these lines at the time.
--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
> reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
> terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
> experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
> specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
> someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
>
> "In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
> impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
> they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
> placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
> each
> vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
>
> "Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
> side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
> vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
> turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
> us A, B and a part of side E.
>
> "Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
> scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
> condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
> representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
> did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
> have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
> up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
>
> "How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
> their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
> standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
> and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
> a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
> alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
> that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
> grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
>
> "All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
> course :) "
>
>
>
>
--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
> reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
> terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
> experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
> specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
> someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
>
> "In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
> impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
> they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
> placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
> each
> vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
>
> "Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
> side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
> vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
> turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
> us A, B and a part of side E.
>
> "Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
> scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
> condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
> representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
> did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
> have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
> up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
>
> "How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
> their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
> standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
> and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
> a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
> alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
> that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
> grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
>
> "All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
> course :) "
>
>
>
>
Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard'
2013-05-26 21:07:03
Indeed. I haven't had time to read it all yet but I congratulate you both - what I've read is impressive H
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 19:24
Subject: Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard's spine
Yes Wednesday....kudos to you and your friend...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, what a brilliant analogy. Whoever the cohort is, bravo to both of you!
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
> reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
> terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
> experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
> specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
> someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
>
> "In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
> impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
> they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
> placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
> each
> vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
>
> "Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
> side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
> vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
> turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
> us A, B and a part of side E.
>
> "Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
> scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
> condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
> representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
> did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
> have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
> up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
>
> "How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
> their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
> standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
> and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
> a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
> alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
> that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
> grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
>
> "All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
> course :) "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 19:24
Subject: Re: Co-Conspirator's comments re: amateur reconstruction of Richard's spine
Yes Wednesday....kudos to you and your friend...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, what a brilliant analogy. Whoever the cohort is, bravo to both of you!
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> These are my co-conspirator's notes/comments regarding our amateur
> reconstruction of Richard's spine. She's the one who knows medical
> terminology and anatomy, who has scoliosis herself, and 10+ years
> experience transcribing and editing osteopathic specialists' (and other
> specialists') reports...if that counts for anything. Not an expert, but
> someone who's been around them and their knowledge for a long time.
>
> "In trying to view the vertebrae of Richard's spine, it is almost
> impossible to draw any conclusion from these photographs. Not only are
> they not laid out in any sort of anatomical alignment, they are not even
> placed in the same positions. Therefore, we are getting different views of
> each
> vertebrae and NOT in relation to each other.
>
> "Consider a child's set of blocks. On the first block we'd see on each
> side the letters A, B, C, D, and on each end probably E and F. With these
> vertebrae we are seeing perhaps a full view of A while the next might be
> turned to show more of side B and a bit of A, while vertebra #3 might show
> us A, B and a part of side E.
>
> "Until we have a 3D rendering of the vertebrae and an orthopedist who knows
> scoliosis, we are never going to know the realities of Richard's
> condition. I can say with certainty that the photos are not an accurate
> representation of his spine in life. I know Leicester says that the bones
> did not shift from their position in situ, but that's not how they would
> have appeared in a vertical, load-bearing position. That's how they ended
> up having been crammed into a grave too small and distorting the body.
>
> "How many people have handled a cat? Long, slinky, flexible, able to twist
> their backs into many positions that look unnatural. But when walking and
> standing, their spines are straight. How many have handled a dead cat?
> You can pretty much fold that cat in half, with its tail next to its nose
> and bury it that way, too. When you exhume that cat, it will present with
> a U-shaped spine. But it does not represent that cat's anatomic spinal
> alignment in life. I do believe, as do others more learned than myself,
> that this is the case with the spinal alignment as presented from the
> grave. Richard alive and standing would have had a very different spine.
>
> "All of this is in my humble and only mildly orthopedic learned opinion, of
> course :) "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.