Re: Thorburn's Position? Or A Simple Lifting Of The Arms? .... Does It Really Matter?
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN F. KENNEDY'S "ARM-RAISING".....WHAT CAUSED IT?
> AND DOES REALLY MATTER AT ALL?
In typical LN fashion, when the facts are against your side, you resort
to "does it matter ?". Kinda like the WC saying that it wasn't
important to determine which shot hit Governor Connally.
David, it is important as far as the credibility of Lattimer is
concerned. Apparently, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
David Von Pein
reasonable (and alternate) interpretation of what we're seeing here....
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z244.jpg
....I just don't think it's the ONLY conceivable explanation.
And my "Does It Really Matter?" comment is based on just ordinary
common sense as far as I see it -- i.e., we KNOW Kennedy's been hit by
that point in time....so it's not really critical to any major "fact"
or "timeline" in the case to know for certain WHY he's lifting his
arms...other than the obvious determination that he's doing so because
he's JUST BEEN HIT BY A BULLET.*
* = Unless some doctor wants to put forth some scientific theory re.
"Thorburn's" that would have JFK having to react to the bullet striking
him in a millionth of a second or some such small bit of time...and
thereby shrinking the available Z-Frames when JFK could have been
struck.
Maybe such a Thorburn theory is among us...I haven't heard it I don't
think. But, even there, the Thorburn's theory would still only be a
guess as to the cause of Kennedy's arm-raising. So we'd still be back
to Square 1, it would seem.
Shall I now do five minutes on the SBT being a fact?
Or maybe ten minutes on why the Multi-Gun/One-Patsy plot is only a plot
for lunatics?
Okay. Maybe another day.
Care for an olive?
:)
See ya.
David Von Pein
AND DOES IT REALLY MATTER AT ALL?
-------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the whole "Was JFK Exhibiting The Thorburn's Position?"
debate is completely immaterial and makes no difference at all in the
broader scheme of things re. when JFK was hit by gunfire.
We know that the spinal cord of JFK was not physically severed, nor was
it damaged in any way at all. And we know that JFK is certainly
"reacting" to a gunshot wound to his body at the time when he exhibits
the "Thorburn" type of arm-raising.
So who really CARES if it was "Thorburn's" or merely an involuntary (or
voluntarily) raising of the arms that we're seeing on the Z-Film?
Either way, he's obviously been hit by a bullet by Z225-Z226.*
* = Except in the minds of certain authors like Jim Bishop and Jim
Moore, who want the masses to believe that JFK was struck in the FACE
by concrete/bullet fragments, even though the missed shot they propose
struck to the REAR of the limousine. Doesn't add up.
And another thing that doesn't add up in that regard is how ONLY
Kennedy -- THE INTENDED VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THE FIRST PLACE --
was hit by shards of concrete (or whatever) via such a missed shot? Not
a single other person (who were all very close to JFK in the limo)
reported feeling any spray of concrete during the time of the shooting.
Per that theory, ONLY Kennedy supposedly felt this spray...and then
apparently he WAITED two-plus seconds to jerk those arms up, even
though he must have been struck by such fragments of concrete well
before Z225. Makes no (logical) sense to me...at all.
But what does make TOTAL sense (given the totality of all of the
evidence) is the Single-Bullet Theory. Every single thing is fully
explained by the SBT. Everything. ANY anti-SBT speculation is filled
with many, many more "unexplainables" than is the single-bullet
scenario. It's not even close in that regard. .....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
David Von Pein
December 2006