Also if picking on Chris means challenging him when he makes unfounded absolute statements and gets children to parrot them , then that is an obscene definintion of picking on someone.
Chris you say this statement is an alternative theory to what SD doctors found out...but this was on your site many many moons before the doctors discovered the rare "fall related" injury noted in the article. The doctor seems to support your idea of inpingement but makes no mention whatever of this sort of detachment.
I guess the crux of my and Pabilbons statements and comments are that the over-whelming evidence points in the direction we feel has happened and your supposition is founded only on your speculation, you give no other evidence. I don't doubt the Dr. but he doesn't do anything but really indicate that arm/shoulder injury can in fact happen and he's intrigued by your theory.
Again if this wasn't being picked up and run with by kids I'd let you maintain whatever ruminations you feel apply...but when the indoctrination of kids to a highly suspect theory is being undertaken, I will object everytime it is brought out. I'm sorry if you think I'm somehow picking on you, I believe I've shown you respect and given you plenty of room to lay out exactly what your arguement is...unfortunately when we get down to brass tacs you break into this tap dance;
He wasn't even talking about the rare "fall type" injury at all...but you attempt to divert the conversation. It does bolster the belief that Prior was injured in the collision...certainly doesn't detract from it...just more evidence..hard fact evidences that we are presenting you...It won't hurt to re-adjust how you view this, I don't think it will ruin anyones beliefs that you are an astute observer of mechanics...just a line of theory that has been investigated and found lacking...either to be discarded or put on the shelf until more evidence to help your side comes into play.