Dr. Woggan,

My name is Dr. Eric Krebs.  I have completed the first 2 parts of the series in Dallas, but will not be able to complete the 3rd part this May due to a schedule conflict with the ICPA, but am looking forwared to taking it later this year.  Anyway, I have been using your line analysis on all of my new patients (and some of my old ones as well) and I have come across a few questions regarding the X-ray analysis.  FYI-my previous form of analysis is based on Gonstead lines.

1.)  Apparent Head Weight

Do you assume that every man, woman and child has a 10# head?  Would it make sence to say that for every inch of head forward posture that there is a 100% increase in head weight, and not take the actual head weight (which would be difficult to measure or calculate)?

2.)When analyzing the skull base line in relation to the atlas plane line, the flexion or extension malposition is of the atlas not the occiput, correct?  Are the following statements correct?

X = Y.....there is no malposition of the atlas

X > Y.....extension malposition of atlas (by the degreee difference from 90)

X < Y..... flexion malposition of atlas (by the degree difference from 90

3.)When analyzing the C2 body base line in relation to the gravity weightbearing line.  The notes state that this angle should be between 82-90 degrees.  What does an increased or decreased angle indicate?  It seems that a decreased angle would indicate a flexion malposition of C-2, and an increased angle would indicate an extension malposition of C-2, correct?

4.)  For the occiput adjustment -Z is driving the occiupt Inf to Sup.  Is there some difference in the orthogonal system in relation to the occiput?  Normal orthogonal for -Z is a posterior translation that would be treated post. to ant.  correct?

5.)  Based on Gonstead analysis, the cervical curve is measured taking perpendiculars from the APL and the C7 body base line.  I have long thought this measurement was inaccurate, but does it have any significance in relation to how the spine is compensating?  For example, the cervical lordosis is measured at 40 degrees (slightly hypolordotic) but the Stress analysis reveals a 30 degree angle (indicating a 34% loss of curve).  Wouldn't this indicate that the atlas must be stuck in an extension malposition to compensate for the difference in measurements?

6.)  Eye plane line

I still cant help but think that the eye plane line must be analyzed according to a horizontal plane (and possibly a vertical plane).  If the eye plane line is not parrallel to a horizontal plane, then you could be measuring a pseudo-flexion, or pseudo-extension film.  This would alter all of the measurements and make the analysis inaccurate, correct?

Also, when doing the analysis, are we "assuming" or "accepting" the ant-sup portion of the sella turcica to be the center point of the skull?  If so then I understand why the gravitional weight bearing line is pervectly vertical, if not, then I have a whole new set of questions regarding vectors!

7.) Body base lines.

According to Gonstead analysis, the body base lines indicate posteriority of the vertebrae when they converge if they converge within the depths of the film (approximately 6 inches).  This is the complete opposite of  the current analysis.  Please explain or advise.

You can reach me directly at drkrebs@chiropractic4kidz.com or at 512-328-5439 if it would make it easier to answer these questions.

Thank you!!!!!