Re: BOOK REVIEW -- "Conspiracy Of One" By Jim Moore
cdddraftsman
factual point that Dr. Lattimer thinks and so do I think happened when
the bullet left his neck . His arms are raised at a 45 degree angle ,
fists are clenched and go to almost under his chin . Classic Thornburn
position .......... I happened to witness this first hand , when a
friend of mine had a massive heart attack , right in front of me and
another friend , who can verify this happened . I don't believe he's
reaching for his throat at all . Dr. Lattimer , Dale Meyers and many
others don't either . He won't be able to lower his arms until the
fatal head shot , some seconds later , unlocks his elbows . The
Thornburn position doesn't always happen or is noticed when a person is
lying flat on his back . It can and does happen while a person is
sitting up , if the correct stimulus is applied at the right spot of
the spine .........TL
David Von Pein wrote:
> AUTHOR JIM MOORE HAS THE "LONE ASSASSIN" CONCLUSION CORRECT;
> BUT HIS "SBT" AND "FIRST-SHOT" DETAILS ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0962621927
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I really hate to bash a Lone-Assassin believer, but sometimes it
> becomes necessary, IMO. And in the case of LNer Jim Moore (who wrote a
> 217-page book on the JFK assassination, "Conspiracy Of One", published
> in 1990), unfortunately I feel the need to do so.
>
> Mr. Moore, to his definite credit, has the bottom-line conclusion
> correct when he claims that Lee Harvey Oswald (alone) shot and killed
> President John F. Kennedy and Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit on November
> 22, 1963. But there are two points, in particular, in his book that I
> simply cannot reconcile in my own "LN" mind whatsoever.
>
> One of these points is Moore's belief that the "Single-Bullet Theory"
> gunshot from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle occurred at about frame
> number 235 of the famous Zapruder Film of the assassination.
>
> Mr. Moore claims that President Kennedy was reacting to being lightly
> struck in the face by fragments of metal or concrete after Oswald's
> first shot missed the limousine and hit the pavement to the rear of the
> car. Moore's theory is exactly the same as another author (Jim Bishop;
> in "The Day Kennedy Was Shot"), who also postulated that Kennedy was
> reacting to being sprayed by flying concrete when we see JFK raising
> his arms in obvious distress just after frame 225 of the Z-Film. Moore
> believes that the bullet which pierced JFK's back and throat was
> actually fired by Oswald approximately ten Z-Film frames later.
>
> That theory re. the SBT timeline is one that I just cannot believe at
> all, even if I were being forced at knifepoint to accept it. In order
> to believe Mr. Moore's odd SBT timeline as fact, we would have to
> believe that President Kennedy just happened (coincidentally) to place
> his hands near the exact same location on his body (his neck/throat)
> where a bullet would be making its exit less than one second later.
>
> Which brings up a second problem with Moore's hypothesis -- HOW did
> that bullet get past JFK's hands if they were directly in front of the
> place where the missile would be exiting at Z235? Via the Z-Film,
> Kennedy's hands certainly appear to be IN THE WAY of any bullet that
> would be exiting his throat at Z235. And yet JFK's hands were obviously
> not struck by the passing bullet. Mr. Moore, on page 160, attempts to
> reconcile this problem with this passage:
>
> "It's important to remember that at no time in frames 235 to 238 do
> either of Kennedy's hands cover his neck or throat."
>
> I disagree. In Z235-Z238, it sure looks to me like John Kennedy's hands
> are most certainly covering the exact area of his throat where a bullet
> exited.*
>
> * = Which, of course, makes perfect sense too (via a Z224 SBT bullet
> strike, which I believe is the correct Z-Film time-stamping of the
> event), since Kennedy would naturally be moving his hands toward the
> "pain point" on his neck where a bullet has just ripped through his
> windpipe. But, for some reason, Mr. Moore thinks the President's hands
> are completely clear of the bullet-exiting throat area.
>
> To be completely fair to Jim Moore, it is somewhat difficult to tell on
> the Z-Film exactly where JFK's hands are located in relation to the
> neck wound during this time in question, so Mr. Moore could possibly be
> correct when he says Kennedy's hands aren't in direct line with the
> bullet's flight path. But it looks to me like JFK's left hand is
> dangling right where the bullet exited.
>
> Moore's "Z235" SBT theory has a bunch of other problems too, with
> respect to the second wounded victim who was riding in the Presidential
> limousine on 11/22/63, Texas Governor John B. Connally.
>
> Governor Connally, in my opinion, is positively reacting
> (involuntarily) to a bullet striking him during the Zapruder frames
> prior to when Mr. Moore claims he has been hit. And I've never
> understood WHY so many researchers fail to see and properly assess the
> obvious "Connally reactions" that can be viewed with ease on
> decent-quality copies of the Zapruder movie.
>
> The Zapruder Film is telling us that Connally is being hit by gunfire
> at precisely frame #224. The Governor's right shoulder drops and moves
> forward noticeably at exactly Z224....the right side of Connally's suit
> jacket very clearly "bulges" outward (toward the center of his chest)
> at precisely Z224....JBC's mouth suddenly opens at Z225 and a
> startled/pained/distressed look comes across his face....both of his
> shoulders then rise and fall quickly (as if he's "flinching") starting
> at Z226....and a huge sign of a "hit" is the extremely-rapid "up then
> down" movement of Connally's right arm, which also begins at Z226, just
> two frames after the initial "moment of impact" frame at Z224.
>
> Jim Moore thinks that all of these things going on with Connally were
> merely due to the Governor reacting to the SOUND of a shot that missed
> the whole car! (See Page 119 of "Conspiracy Of One".)**
>
> ** = Good luck to anyone who thinks a piece of fabric (such as a coat
> lapel) can be physically moved simply due to the person wearing such a
> garment merely "hearing" the audible sound of a gunshot going off
> nearby. ;)
>
> This is an astoundingly-inaccurate evaluation by Mr. Moore of the
> pre-Z235 JBC reactions, IMO. And it's particularly silly when
> additional attention is focused on that strange "arm raising" that
> Connally engaged in, starting at Z226 (the very same arm, by the way,
> which was attached to JBC's fractured wrist). The "rising arm" is a
> very odd "unexplainable" if the Governor was NOT reacting to a bullet
> having just hit that very same arm (wrist).
>
> Plus, author Moore also has the exact same "delayed reaction" type of
> problem via his "Z235" SBT timeline that he evidently thinks only
> exists via the Warren Commission's and House Select Committee's SBT
> chronologies. Because Moore has JFK and JBC undergoing the very same
> kind of two-second-long "delayed reaction" when it comes to each of
> them reacting to the first missed shot (with respect to BOTH victims'
> sudden arm movements that occur only AFTER Zapruder frame 225).
>
> The WC and HSCA assumed that John Connally had suffered a delayed
> reaction to being shot during pre-Z225 frames of the Z-Film. But Moore
> doesn't buy the "2-second delay" on Connally's part if the SBT shot had
> actually occurred as early as Z190, per the HSCA analysis. (And I don't
> buy it either.)
>
> But Mr. Moore has to believe in virtually the same kind of "delayed"
> reaction too (for both victims)....because, per Moore, he sees some
> kind of "reactions" on the Z-Film prior to Z235, but Moore thinks these
> are caused by a shot that missed the car (at Z-Frame #186), which is a
> shot that occurred some 2.68 seconds earlier than Moore's "SBT" frame
> at Z235!
>
> Therefore, Mr. Moore seems to be advocating a "Two-Victim, In-Unison,
> Perfectly-Synchronized, Two-Second Delayed Reaction" on the part of
> both Kennedy and Connally (due only to reacting to a shot that missed
> them both, except for concrete fragments assumed to be striking JFK;
> but even there, Kennedy WAITS until Z226 to start jerking his arms
> upward toward his face, even though, per Moore, the President had been
> stung by fragments of concrete more than two full seconds earlier).
>
> Sorry, Jim, but I cannot purchase that scenario. And I also don't think
> it's very likely (at all) that a missed shot could have hit Elm Street
> and then zoom across Dealey Plaza (at grass level after hitting the Elm
> pavement near the limo) and then strike the Main Street curb, resulting
> in bystander James Tague's minor cheek injury. This book claims that
> all of that stuff actually occurred via Oswald's first "missed" shot on
> 11/22/63. (Sounds to me as if Mr. Moore's first-shot missile might be a
> truly "Magic" bullet.)
>
> Another question I have via Moore's (and Bishop's) theory is -- Why
> would concrete pieces hit Kennedy in the FACE if the missed shot struck
> the street to the REAR of the automobile (as Moore suggests did occur
> on page 198 of his book)? It doesn't add up.
>
> A much better overall explanation to tighten these "reactions" up in a
> realistic manner is to endorse a "Z224" SBT timeline. At that Z-Film
> frame, everything fits perfectly. Just watch the film again and see if
> you don't agree.
>
> ------------------------
>
> The second thing in this book that I cannot accept at all is Mr.
> Moore's explanation of why almost all of the witnesses at Parkland
> Hospital said they saw a large wound in the back of President Kennedy's
> head on November 22nd. To quote from page 180 of this book:
>
> "...The explanation for this {head wound} discrepancy is so simple few
> will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy in
> only one position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might
> have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the right
> side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of the
> skull', of course." -- Jim Moore
>
> The above explanation is pure nonsense (even though I am an "LNer"
> myself). And, admittedly, this disagreement I have with Mr. Moore on
> this point doesn't do my own lone-assassin position any favors; but IMO
> it's just common sense.
>
> Moore is telling his readers, in essence, that ALL of the many Parkland
> doctors and nurses actually did see the President's head wound on the
> "right side" of his head, but EACH ONE OF THEM was apparently stupid
> enough to somehow label the wound's location as being at the BACK part
> of the head. (And each of these Parkland persons would later
> demonstrate with their own hands where they thought the wound was
> located; with each person placing their hand on a REAR portion of their
> own head.)
>
> It's just silly to think that ALL of these Parkland witnesses would
> somehow be disoriented enough to NOT know the "side" of the head from
> the "rear" of the head. And all just because JFK was lying flat on his
> back the whole time.
>
> It seems to me that such a strange explanation would be akin to
> becoming confused about the location of a person's ear, just due to the
> fact the person is lying down. For example, why would anyone suddenly
> think an ear was located at the BACK of a person's head, rather than
> the "side" of the head?
>
> Now, having gushed the above tirade regarding the head-wound variables
> and controversy, I'll now say this in favor of the "Single Assassin"
> point-of-view.....
>
> I'll admit, I have no idea how to fully reconcile the many different
> witnesses who claimed to have seen a large exit wound in the rear of
> John F. Kennedy's head. But I do know that there is just as much HARD
> evidence (actually even more) that tends to refute those "Back Of The
> Head" witnesses. Evidence such as:
>
> 1.) The Zapruder Film, which shows no "BOH" wound at all; and shows,
> instead, an exit wound on the RIGHT SIDE of Kennedy's head.
>
> 2.) The autopsy photographs and X-rays, which verify that the exit
> wound was chiefly "parietal" and "temporal" (i.e., "side" and "top" of
> the head), and not "occipital" (i.e., at the "rear" of the head).
>
> 3.) The official autopsy report (signed by all three autopsy
> physicians), which verifies that President Kennedy was shot only twice,
> with both shots coming from "above and behind" the victim.
>
> 4.) The unwavering testimony of all three of JFK's autopsy doctors
> (James Humes, J. Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck), testimony which
> confirms the "RIGHT SIDE-TOP" location of Kennedy's head (exit) wound.
>
> The autopsy photographs and X-rays also verify the fact that there was
> only ONE single bullet hole of entry on the President's head. This is
> critically important, of course, because it (in essence) is telling any
> reasonable researcher that it really doesn't matter exactly WHERE on
> the head the larger (exit) wound was located....because the ONE lone
> wound of entry is verifying that ONLY ONE BULLET struck Mr. Kennedy's
> skull....and that bullet definitely came from behind JFK.
>
> As I said, I cannot fully explain the strange "BOH" tale that has been
> told by so many Parkland (and Bethesda) people since 1963. But I'm
> certainly not willing to insult the basic intelligence of multiple
> professional medical technicians, doctors, and nurses by speculating
> that NONE of these people could tell the SIDE of a patient's head from
> the BACK of his cranium. That's just crazy, IMO.
>
> If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different
> observers could all see the same (wrong) thing re. JFK's head wound,
> I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood
> coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head
> was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on
> his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression
> to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount
> of blood was seen.
>
> I think it's also possible (and, I admit, this is just a guess as well)
> that when Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy was "trying to hold his head on" (as
> Mrs. Kennedy later said) during the high-speed ride to the hospital,
> it's quite possible that the loose piece of "hinged" scalp (which is a
> "flap" of skull/scalp that can be seen in the autopsy photos taken at
> Bethesda after the body was returned to Washington) was at least
> partially hiding the large hole at the right side of JFK's head when he
> was in the emergency room at Parkland.
>
> This "flap" of loose scalp could then have dislodged itself from INSIDE
> the cratered wound on the right side of the head before the autopsy
> photos were taken on the night of November 22. The "flap", as seen in
> the photos, is not covering any portion of the right-side head wound,
> but instead is hinged "outward" from the wound.
>
> Whether that "flap" was configured in that exact "outward" position at
> Parkland we can never know. But I think it's certainly a possibility
> that the "flap" could have been covering the large exit wound,
> especially in light of the fact that Jackie Kennedy, we know, was
> physically handling the President's head during the drive to Parkland,
> and also was "trying to hold his head on".
>
> ------------------------
>
> Another "Conspiracy Of One" drawback is the pitiful lack of photographs
> and/or illustrations. There is a small (and proverbial) section of
> "slick pages" in the center of the book, containing a few
> black-and-white photos (16 total pages); but these pictures are little
> more than perfunctory and peripheral in nature and were probably thrown
> into the center of the book as more-or-less an after-thought (possibly
> because the author felt he needed at least a few photos in a book about
> the JFK assassination, which, after all, was the most-photographed
> murder in history).
>
> And since it was the most-photographed killing in the history of the
> world, any book that purports to be "definitive" re. the JFK case
> should, in my opinion, rely on many of those photos and motion-picture
> film frames to help tell the story. But Mr. Moore's volume is woefully
> lacking in such visual resources. There's not a single picture or graph
> or illustration within this publication (except for the 16-page photo
> spread in the middle of the book). And that's a shame.
>
> I think it's also rather interesting to note that the author (Mr.
> Moore) rakes the "critics" (aka: the Conspiracy-loving Kooks) over hot
> coals because of their "blatant sensationalism" in choosing to publish
> some of the autopsy photos of President Kennedy in their pro-conspiracy
> books over the years, with Moore calling these authors a "tasteless
> mob".
>
> But then Mr. Moore decides to publish three grisly frames from the
> Zapruder Film in the mini photo section within this book (including the
> "impact" Z-Film frame, Z313). And in addition to those three pictures,
> Moore also includes a photo of JFK's blood-stained shirt as well.
>
> Those aren't specifically "autopsy" photographs shown in this book,
> true. But the inclusion of those four blood-filled pictures within this
> volume certainly are contrary to this statement made by Mr. Moore on
> page #178:
>
> "I will not feed on the bloody frenzy they {the "tasteless mob"} have
> so successfully generated."
>
> ------------------------
>
> A Final Word:
>
> Despite my numerous negative remarks about the contents of this book,
> it's my opinion, as mentioned earlier, that Mr. Moore most certainly
> arrived at the correct final conclusion (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald did it
> and did it alone), and that is the most important thing in a true-crime
> publication of this nature.
>
> But for someone who evidently, per this book's text, spent 23 years
> researching the JFK murder case, Jim Moore's fairly-thin 200-plus-page
> "Conspiracy Of One", which doesn't even contain an Index, falls quite a
> bit short of living up to the book's boastful subtitle -- "The
> Definitive Book On The Kennedy Assassination".
>
> David Von Pein
> December 2006
David Von Pein
well aware of.
But one of the reasons I didn't mention it in my analysis of Mr.
Moore's book is due to the fact that I'm not totally convinced that
it's a viable explanation for JFK's arm movements on 11/22. It's
certainly not "provable" in any fashion. It's a possibility, that's for
certain though.
But, if I were to accept the Thorburn analysis as FACT, it would
totally demolish Moore's hypothesis re. his Z235 SBT
timeline....because, via a "Thorburn" position, (obviously) JFK would
have ALREADY BEEN SHOT THROUGH THE NECK by Z-Frame 226-230, many frames
prior to when Moore thinks he was hit. (And, like Mr. Connally's lapel
PHYSICALLY MOVING, I don't think even Mr. Moore can postulate that
JFK's merely HEARING a missed shot, or being "peppered" in the face by
a few concrete fragments, would result in a massive REFLEX like
"Thorburn's".)
The Thorburn thing IS rather convincing, I'll readily admit....but it's
also a kind of funny/odd coincidence that the Thorburn reaction just
happens to result in JFK's hands being placed in the precise spot (give
or take) where a bullet has just exited his throat.
Food for Thorburn thought anyway.
Of course, it really doesn't matter at all in the long run. For,
whether it be "Thorburn's" or simply JFK raising his arms toward the
"pain point" near his neck, it's as obvious as can be (except to Mr.
Moore evidently) that John Kennedy has been shot by Z225 and is
"reacting" to a bullet going through him.
And I'm still perplexed as to how Mr. Moore manages to get that bullet
through JFK's hands at Z235 when his left hand seems to be right in
front of the place where CE399 exited. That's just one more reason to
know that Moore's "14-year-long" study of his "Final Solution" to the
shot timeline is full of holes, IMO.
David Von Pein
A couple of additional points re. Jim Moore's 1990 book:
Another point raised by Moore late in his book is something that I take
to be rather offensive (YMMV)......when he implies that possibly you or
I (or anyone reading his book) might very well have acted as Oswald did
on Nov. 22 (i.e., shoot the President of the United States) had you or
I been "desperate" enough "to end our suffering and gain a place in
history" (page 202).
That particular passage on page 202 of Moore's book made me frown quite
a bit....because I'd like to think that I (or any decent person)
wouldn't be inclined -- no matter how "desperate" we might be -- to
take some potshots at a U.S. President in order to "end our suffering".
That comment by Moore was totally off-base and uncalled for, IMHO.
Also.......
Another in a series of small errors in Moore's book has Moore believing
that a freight train was present atop the Triple Underpass bridge at
the exact time of the assassination -- which is a belief he shares with
Dr. John Lattimer as well. And they're both wrong, and provably
so....no matter what the cop atop the Overpass (J.C. White) told the
Warren Commission.
The Mark Bell film and the last James Altgens photo prove that no train
was on that railway bridge at 12:30 when the President's car was on Elm
Street. .....
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike7.jpg
After all the negative things I've said about "Conspiracy Of One", let
me add a positive note --- Moore provides a series of questions for the
CT-Kooks at the tail-end of his book (in the Epilogue), and this is a
section I very much enjoyed. He uses a rapid-fire verbal approach in
this section of inquiries for the conspiracy theorists, and each
question is a very good and valid one, IMO.*
* = Except, perhaps, the one about Oswald purchasing a "Coke" instead
of his preferred "Dr. Pepper" soft drink from the 2nd-Floor lunchroom
just after shooting JFK. It's just Moore's wild guess that Oswald
"mis-purchased" the wrong kind of soft drink after the shooting (due to
"nervousness"). Perhaps Oswald really wanted a Coca-Cola. (Of course,
the fact that he didn't drink any of it, except maybe one swig as he
walked toward the TSBD exit, would tend to make me think his drink
purchase was one that had an alternate purpose of some sort. Because if
he bought it to drink it....why didn't he take it with him and drink
it?)
Also -- I'm not positive, but I don't think it was ever officially
determined if the Oswald drink WAS, indeed, a "Coke", and not some
other soft drink type. Many times a person will say "Coke", but they
mean "Soft Drink" in general. "Coke" is like "Kleenex". It is oft-times
used as a generic term for "soft drink". Like Kleenex is for "facial
tissue".
Anthony Marsh
> "CONSPIRACY OF ONE" REVIEW ADDENDUMS........
>
> A couple of additional points re. Jim Moore's 1990 book:
>
> Another point raised by Moore late in his book is something that I take
> to be rather offensive (YMMV)......when he implies that possibly you or
> I (or anyone reading his book) might very well have acted as Oswald did
> on Nov. 22 (i.e., shoot the President of the United States) had you or
> I been "desperate" enough "to end our suffering and gain a place in
> history" (page 202).
>
> That particular passage on page 202 of Moore's book made me frown quite
> a bit....because I'd like to think that I (or any decent person)
> wouldn't be inclined -- no matter how "desperate" we might be -- to
> take some potshots at a U.S. President in order to "end our suffering".
> That comment by Moore was totally off-base and uncalled for, IMHO.
>
> Also.......
>
> Another in a series of small errors in Moore's book has Moore believing
> that a freight train was present atop the Triple Underpass bridge at
> the exact time of the assassination -- which is a belief he shares with
> Dr. John Lattimer as well. And they're both wrong, and provably
> so....no matter what the cop atop the Overpass (J.C. White) told the
> Warren Commission.
>
An error picked up and believed by Gerald Posner, who never bothered to
fact check it.
> The Mark Bell film and the last James Altgens photo prove that no train
> was on that railway bridge at 12:30 when the President's car was on Elm
> Street. .....
>
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike7.jpg
>
> After all the negative things I've said about "Conspiracy Of One", let
> me add a positive note --- Moore provides a series of questions for the
> CT-Kooks at the tail-end of his book (in the Epilogue), and this is a
> section I very much enjoyed. He uses a rapid-fire verbal approach in
> this section of inquiries for the conspiracy theorists, and each
> question is a very good and valid one, IMO.*
>
> * = Except, perhaps, the one about Oswald purchasing a "Coke" instead
> of his preferred "Dr. Pepper" soft drink from the 2nd-Floor lunchroom
> just after shooting JFK. It's just Moore's wild guess that Oswald
> "mis-purchased" the wrong kind of soft drink after the shooting (due to
> "nervousness"). Perhaps Oswald really wanted a Coca-Cola. (Of course,
Is there any hard proof of exactly which drink Oswald purchased?
> the fact that he didn't drink any of it, except maybe one swig as he
> walked toward the TSBD exit, would tend to make me think his drink
> purchase was one that had an alternate purpose of some sort. Because if
> he bought it to drink it....why didn't he take it with him and drink
> it?)
>
What's that slogan from the commercial? Brilliant!
So, maybe Oswald was getting rid of the dime that he had used to
reassemble the rifle? ;]>
> Also -- I'm not positive, but I don't think it was ever officially
> determined if the Oswald drink WAS, indeed, a "Coke", and not some
> other soft drink type. Many times a person will say "Coke", but they
> mean "Soft Drink" in general. "Coke" is like "Kleenex". It is oft-times
> used as a generic term for "soft drink". Like Kleenex is for "facial
> tissue".
>
Especially down in the South.
Anthony Marsh
> Yes, Tom, the "Thorburn Position" (not "Thornburn") is something I'm
> well aware of.
>
> But one of the reasons I didn't mention it in my analysis of Mr.
> Moore's book is due to the fact that I'm not totally convinced that
> it's a viable explanation for JFK's arm movements on 11/22. It's
> certainly not "provable" in any fashion. It's a possibility, that's for
> certain though.
>
> But, if I were to accept the Thorburn analysis as FACT, it would
> totally demolish Moore's hypothesis re. his Z235 SBT
> timeline....because, via a "Thorburn" position, (obviously) JFK would
> have ALREADY BEEN SHOT THROUGH THE NECK by Z-Frame 226-230, many frames
> prior to when Moore thinks he was hit. (And, like Mr. Connally's lapel
> PHYSICALLY MOVING, I don't think even Mr. Moore can postulate that
> JFK's merely HEARING a missed shot, or being "peppered" in the face by
> a few concrete fragments, would result in a massive REFLEX like
> "Thorburn's".)
>
> The Thorburn thing IS rather convincing, I'll readily admit....but it's
> also a kind of funny/odd coincidence that the Thorburn reaction just
> happens to result in JFK's hands being placed in the precise spot (give
> or take) where a bullet has just exited his throat.
>
Don't think of the Thorburn reflex as a solution. Think of it as an
analogy. To explain what happens when a bullet passes near the spinal
nerves and excites them.
> Food for Thorburn thought anyway.
>
> Of course, it really doesn't matter at all in the long run. For,
> whether it be "Thorburn's" or simply JFK raising his arms toward the
> "pain point" near his neck, it's as obvious as can be (except to Mr.
> Moore evidently) that John Kennedy has been shot by Z225 and is
> "reacting" to a bullet going through him.
>
> And I'm still perplexed as to how Mr. Moore manages to get that bullet
> through JFK's hands at Z235 when his left hand seems to be right in
I suspect you mean Z-225, not Z-235. I've pointed that out for a while
and no WC defender can answer it.
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> AUTHOR JIM MOORE HAS THE "LONE ASSASSIN" CONCLUSION CORRECT;
> BUT HIS "SBT" AND "FIRST-SHOT" DETAILS ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0962621927
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I really hate to bash a Lone-Assassin believer, but sometimes it
> becomes necessary, IMO. And in the case of LNer Jim Moore (who wrote a
> 217-page book on the JFK assassination, "Conspiracy Of One", published
> in 1990), unfortunately I feel the need to do so.
>
I'ah feel the NEED, o'lord ~~ for a 2,000 page analogy...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm
I use Lattimer's own words to Prove what a Fool He IS;
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165677459.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
No, I meant just what I said....because Jim Moore thinks the SBT shot
occurred at Z235....which is why I mentioned his difficulty in getting
the bullet through JFK's hands (the left hand particularly).
Kennedy's right hand is not blocking the throat (exit) location at
Z224, despite your assertion that it is. But via Moore's Z235 SBT
timeline, JFK has obviously already been hit through the throat, but
Moore believes a bullet managed to miss his hands, which seem to be
(via the Z-Film) directly in front of his neck at that point. Silly
beyond all belief; but that's what the man said in his book.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg
~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8fafa03f22c6874/?hl=en#
David Von Pein
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0962621927
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(except the movement of JBC's jacket, which is ignored altogether by
the book's author) were merely due to the Governor reacting to the
SOUND of a shot that missed the whole car! (See Page 119 of "Conspiracy
Of One".)
This is an astoundingly-inaccurate evaluation by Mr. Moore of the
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I suspect you mean Z-225, not Z-235." <<<
>
>
> No, I meant just what I said....because Jim Moore thinks the SBT shot
> occurred at Z235....which is why I mentioned his difficulty in getting
> the bullet through JFK's hands (the left hand particularly).
>
That's like the pot calling the kettle black. You call Moore a kook for
picking frame Z-235 and yet you pick frame Z-225 which has the same
problems.
> Kennedy's right hand is not blocking the throat (exit) location at
> Z224, despite your assertion that it is. But via Moore's Z235 SBT
> timeline, JFK has obviously already been hit through the throat, but
> Moore believes a bullet managed to miss his hands, which seem to be
> (via the Z-Film) directly in front of his neck at that point. Silly
> beyond all belief; but that's what the man said in his book.
>
What you are saying about Moore I can say about you.
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg
>
That's the best copy you could come up with?
> ~~~~~~
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8fafa03f22c6874/?hl=en#
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I suspect you mean Z-225, not Z-235." <<<
>
> occurred at Z235....which is why I mentioned his difficulty in getting
>
> The hands of Kennedy are not blocking the throat (exit) location at
> Z224, despite your claims that the throat is blocked at the point. But
> at Moore's Z235 SBT timeline, JFK has obviously already been hit
> through the throat, but Moore believes a bullet slipped through his
> fingers (I guess) at Z235. Silly beyond all belief....but that's what
> the man said in his book.
>
Yes, JFK had obviously been hit through the throat before Z-224 which
explains why his hands are up in front of his throat by Z-225. It takes
at least 4 Zapruder frames to get those hands up. Dale Myers shows JFK's
hands up in front of his throat by Z-224. Why would Dale Myers lie to
you about this?
> ~~~~~~
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8fafa03f22c6874/?hl=en#
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I suspect you mean Z-225, not Z-235." <<<
>
> occurred at Z235....which is why I mentioned his difficulty in getting
> the bullet through JFK's hands (the left hand particularly).
>
> The hands of Kennedy are not blocking the throat (exit) location at
> Z224, despite your claims that the throat is blocked at the point. But
> at Moore's Z235 SBT timeline, JFK has obviously already been hit
> through the throat,
> but Moore believes a bullet slipped through his fingers (I guess) at
> Z235. Silly beyond all belief....but that's what the man said in his
> book.
>
So does Dale Myers. His diagram shows a bullet literally missing JFK's
fingers by 1/4 inch. Yet you don't call Dale Myers a kook. Seems like a
little bit of a double standard.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm
> ~~~~~~
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8fafa03f22c6874/?hl=en#
>
aeffects
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "I suspect you mean Z-225, not Z-235." <<<
> >
> >
> > No, I meant just what I said....because Jim Moore thinks the SBT shot
> > occurred at Z235....which is why I mentioned his difficulty in getting
> > the bullet through JFK's hands (the left hand particularly).
> >
>
> That's like the pot calling the kettle black. You call Moore a kook for
> picking frame Z-235 and yet you pick frame Z-225 which has the same
> problems.
>
> > Kennedy's right hand is not blocking the throat (exit) location at
> > Z224, despite your assertion that it is. But via Moore's Z235 SBT
> > timeline, JFK has obviously already been hit through the throat, but
> > Moore believes a bullet managed to miss his hands, which seem to be
> > (via the Z-Film) directly in front of his neck at that point. Silly
> > beyond all belief; but that's what the man said in his book.
> >
>
> What you are saying about Moore I can say about you.
>
> > http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg
> >
>
> That's the best copy you could come up with?
you mean the Nutter's have a better stock of Z-frames.... better than
MPI imagery?
Tell us it ain't so, Von Pein!
> > ~~~~~~
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8fafa03f22c6874/?hl=en#
> >