Demolishing the stupid "Thorburn reaction" hypothesis

[Ralph Cinque]

Thanks to Steve Andis, I have taken up the issue of JFK's muscular
response after emerging from behind the Stemmons freeway sign in the
Zapruder film. I can tell you that it was not a "Thorburn reaction" as
proposed by urologist John Lattimer, a leading medical apologist for the
official story. And I found a fascinating video about it created by Gil
Jesus, whom I never heard before but whom I now have immense respect for.
We have got get Gil Jesus to join us in the OIC! I'm on a mission to do
that. Check out my latest blog:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/01/steve-andis-has-spurred-me-to-look.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

I'd be more worried about a "McAdams reaction", Ralph, and he's not even a
urologist.

[Jason Burke]

Yeah, get ol' Gil to join your coven, Ralph.
THAT will get you some respect, Ralph.

[Ralph Cinque]

I have no idea what you mean by a McAdams reaction.

If you go to PubMed, the largest medical database in the world, you don't
find any references to the "Thorburn position".

Try it yourself. Type it in:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/


And if you look for a definition of "Thorburn position" online, all you
find are references to Thorburn's one paper and the JFK assassination.

Apparently, no one else in the history of Medicine experienced the
reaction that one doctor, Dr. Thorburn, wrote about concerning just one
patient in 1886.

The totality of the "Thorburn position" has been Thornton then Lattimer
and nothing else. In 128 years of trauma and medicine? That is bull. Total
bull.

[John Fiorentino]

Cinque, along with his Oswald in the doorway fantasy, doesn't have any
medical knowledge either.

How *odd* for someone who was licensed as a Chiropractor..........right
Cinque??

The Thorburn position is well known in medicine.

Thorburn position

Thorburn position: A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately
after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region.

John F.


"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78576650-2770-44e5...@googlegroups.com...

[OHLeeRedux]

Whatever you call the phenomenon, the Z-film clearly shows that JFK's
elbows went up above the level of his hands, his hands in front of his
throat but not touching it. That is an awkward and unusual position for
someone to suddenly exhibit. It was obviously the result of spinal trauma,
whether or not you invoke Dr. Thorburn's name.

How do you explain JFK's reaction, Ralph? Did "they" superimpose Billy
Lovelady's arms and hands on the president's body?

[Ralph Cinque]

Suddenly exhibit it? Are you nuts? What happened suddenly is that JFK was
suddenly shot in the neck. How do I explain his reaction? How about that
he just did it. In other words, it was a muscular action on his part, not
a neurological reflex.

Kennedy had been shot in the neck from the front, and he brought his hands
up to the site of injury.

When people are choking on food, don't they bring their hand or hands up
to their neck? Well, JFK was choking on a bullet.

And it is very reasonable to assume that he was choking on a bullet
because the bullet, shot from the front, obviously did not exit out the
back of his head. And yet, it wasn't found on autopsy. Dr. Humes did not
examine the throat wound because he was falsely told that it was just a
tracheotomy incision. It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr.
Perry on the phone that he learned that there had been a bullet hole
there- what Perry believed to be an entry wound.

Well, Humes should have demanded to go back in and re-examine JFK to track
that bullet, with the threat of screaming bloody murder if they didn't let
him do it. But, Humes didn't do that; instead he burned his autopsy notes.

But, we know there was no bullet there because they thoroughly x-rayed
JFK's body, including that area, and they reported seeing no such bullet.
Therefore, either they falsified the x-ray OR that bullet was extracted
from JFK at the "pre-autopsy" as per David Lifton and others.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Isn't there a 'Thorburn position' in the Kama Sutra, Ralph?

[John Fiorentino]

MORE THREATS FROM CINQUE'S NUTTY COUSIN.............

I received this today......

John,

I thought we had a little chat last month of me telling you to back off
hassling my cousin Ralph. Yet here I find you badmouthing about him again.

Just to be clear you badmouth Ralph, you badmouth me and I don't take too
kindly being dissed by some punk like you. I am a senior member of the
Oswald Innocence Campaign and I take the insults personally.


So put it this way. I come to where you are located and I demonstrate the
Thornburn position on you after I chopped you one in the neck. What do you
say Johnny boy? You fuck with Ralph, You fuck with me and I'm a little
more hands-on with my dealings.

I asked you before but obviously that didn't sink in. Give me your phone
number to make this easier(or I'll find it myself) You up for this John
Fagatino?

Tony "The Tone" Longo
Pacific Coast Blues

John F.


"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78576650-2770-44e5...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/30/2014 10:38 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Whatever you call the phenomenon, the Z-film clearly shows that JFK's
> elbows went up above the level of his hands, his hands in front of his
> throat but not touching it. That is an awkward and unusual position for
> someone to suddenly exhibit. It was obviously the result of spinal trauma,
> whether or not you invoke Dr. Thorburn's name.
>

I don't call it the Thorburn reflex because Thornburn involves a higher
point of damage and actual cutting of the nerve.
Here is what Artwohl says:

1. JFK was not exhibiting a "Thorburn response." He was exhiting an
immediate response to the bullet passing through the base of his right
neck. It sort of looks like a Thorburn's position, but it is not a truly
what Thorburn was describing, which is a much delayed reaction (days to
months) following a low cervical cord transection.

> How do you explain JFK's reaction, Ralph? Did "they" superimpose Billy
> Lovelady's arms and hands on the president's body?
>
>

To me it looks like a reflex reaction to the bullet passing so close to
the C8 nerve that its shock wave moves the tip of T-1, and fractures and
displaces it enough to excite the C8 nerve. This causes flexion of the
arms.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/30/2014 8:59 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Cinque, along with his Oswald in the doorway fantasy, doesn't have any
> medical knowledge either.
>
> How *odd* for someone who was licensed as a Chiropractor..........right
> Cinque??
>
> The Thorburn position is well known in medicine.
>
> Thorburn position
>
> Thorburn position: A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately
> after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region.
>
> John F.
>

What did Robert Artwohl say? He is a real doctor:

1. JFK was not exhibiting a "Thorburn response." He was exhiting an
immediate response to the bullet passing through the base of his right
neck. It sort of looks like a Thorburn's position, but it is not a truly
what Thorburn was describing, which is a much delayed reaction (days to
months) following a low cervical cord transection.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

A syndrome is named after the first person to document it.
Artwohl has talked about it.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

JFK did not grab his throat as people do when choking. His hands are IN
FRONT OF HIS THROAT in the Z-film, not clutching his throat as choking
people do. And choking people do not raise their elbows up at the awkward
angle that JFK did. That is a neurological reaction, much like kicking
your leg when a doctor raps your knee.

A bullet entering the throat would not stop without exiting unless it hit
bone, and there was no damage to JFK's spine in the neck area.

Yet again, your theory requires you to insert "conspirators" into the
picture, tampering with and concealing evidence. Your harangue regarding
the term "Thorburn reaction" is an irrelevant red herring.

[Steve Barber]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 1:26:33 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Suddenly exhibit it? Are you nuts? What happened suddenly is that JFK was
>
> suddenly shot in the neck. How do I explain his reaction? How about that
>
> he just did it. In other words, it was a muscular action on his part, not
>
> a neurological reflex.
>
>
>
> Kennedy had been shot in the neck from the front, and he brought his hands
>
> up to the site of injury.

No he didn't Ralph. The President's hands never went anywhere NEAR his
throat. Both hands are at mouth level, completely covering his mouth. Take
a strong look at a blow up of Zapruder frame 246. The right hand is at his
right cheek, his left hand immediately beneath the right up against the
right hand, over his mouth. At no time do his hands go anywhere near his
throat, even after he has lowered them. Mrs. Kennedy has his left arm in
her hands near the elbow, and he lowered his left arm and his right hand
is at chest level. No movement towards the throat at any time.

>
>
>
> When people are choking on food, don't they bring their hand or hands up
>
> to their neck? Well, JFK was choking on a bullet.

Wrong again. HE wasn't "choking on a bullet". He was reacting to a bullet
having passed through his throat from a bullet that entered his back.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/31/2014 1:26 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Suddenly exhibit it? Are you nuts? What happened suddenly is that JFK was
> suddenly shot in the neck. How do I explain his reaction? How about that
> he just did it. In other words, it was a muscular action on his part, not
> a neurological reflex.
>
> Kennedy had been shot in the neck from the front, and he brought his hands
> up to the site of injury.
>
> When people are choking on food, don't they bring their hand or hands up
> to their neck? Well, JFK was choking on a bullet.
>
> And it is very reasonable to assume that he was choking on a bullet
> because the bullet, shot from the front, obviously did not exit out the
> back of his head. And yet, it wasn't found on autopsy. Dr. Humes did not

Dr. Perry said that's probably what happened. That the bullet entered his
throat and hit the vertebra and was deflected up and out of the back of
his head. If you're going to develop a kook theory then you need to look
around for more ammunition to support it.

> examine the throat wound because he was falsely told that it was just a
> tracheotomy incision. It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr.
> Perry on the phone that he learned that there had been a bullet hole
> there- what Perry believed to be an entry wound.
>

The very earliest theory to be leaked out of Bethesda was that a bullet
hit JFK in the back of his head and exited his throat.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

> Well, Humes should have demanded to go back in and re-examine JFK to track
> that bullet, with the threat of screaming bloody murder if they didn't let
> him do it. But, Humes didn't do that; instead he burned his autopsy notes.
>

Demanded? He was told to shut up or be shot.

> But, we know there was no bullet there because they thoroughly x-rayed
> JFK's body, including that area, and they reported seeing no such bullet.

I don't know how to explain this to you, but sometimes people are shot and
the bullet falls out. Ever hear of a guy named John Connally? There was no
bullet seen on his X-rays, but they said the bullet fell out. The story I
like best is that it fell into his pants cuff when he tried to stand up
when they got to the hospital.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/31/2014 1:21 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:38:16 AM UTC+1, OHLeeRedux wrote:

> The details of Jack's death are as a Mandelbrot Set equation...... it goes
> on forever, kind of like life itself. Lies are its generator, but the
> truth tends to he static. You follow that?
>


How about "There were many rooms in the mansion. I was not privy to who
struck John." Do you understand that?

[BT George]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 12:26:33 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Suddenly exhibit it? Are you nuts? What happened suddenly is that JFK was
>
> suddenly shot in the neck. How do I explain his reaction? How about that
>
> he just did it. In other words, it was a muscular action on his part, not
>
> a neurological reflex.
>
>
>
> Kennedy had been shot in the neck from the front, and he brought his hands
>
> up to the site of injury.
>
>
>
> When people are choking on food, don't they bring their hand or hands up
>
> to their neck? Well, JFK was choking on a bullet.
>
>

When people are choking on food they generally bring their hands up and
grab their necks with their elbows pointed in a sloped, yet clearly
*downward* oreintation. (In rare cases they might bring their elbows
parallel to the ground or near to it.)

JFK's elbows go well above that level, and at one point mildly *reverses*
the downward slope typically exhibited. Morever he *never* actually
grasped his neck with his hands and in fact, his earliest reaction has his
fists coming closely together around the point of his mouth/nose.

I have never seen anyone reacting to a choking on anything in that way,
and there is no reason to believe that a shot in the throat (from the back
or front) would *automaticallY* be reacted to in the manner JFK did absent
some kind of spinal trauma.

Now as to whether it was actually a bona-fide Thorburn Position is
debatable, but that there was spinal trauma seems evident from the strange
reaction and the sustained manner in which his elbows remained out to his
side until the fatal headshot.

BT George

[OHLeeRedux]

John Fiorentino

MORE THREATS FROM CINQUE'S NUTTY COUSIN.............

I received this today......

John,

I thought we had a little chat last month of me telling you to back off
hassling my cousin Ralph. Yet here I find you badmouthing about him again.

Just to be clear you badmouth Ralph, you badmouth me and I don't take too
kindly being dissed by some punk like you. I am a senior member of the
Oswald Innocence Campaign and I take the insults personally.


So put it this way. I come to where you are located and I demonstrate the
Thornburn position on you after I chopped you one in the neck. What do you
say Johnny boy? You fuck with Ralph, You fuck with me and I'm a little
more hands-on with my dealings.

I asked you before but obviously that didn't sink in. Give me your phone
number to make this easier(or I'll find it myself) You up for this John
Fagatino?

Tony "The Tone" Longo
Pacific Coast Blues

John F.

LOL!

Pathetic.

[Ralph Cinque]

My cousin Tony did NOT send you that, Fiorentino. For goodness sake, wise
up. But there are Parts II and III about you on my blog:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/01/there-have-been-some-naysayers-on.html

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-point-is-that-term-thorburn-position.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/31/2014 3:21 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> MORE THREATS FROM CINQUE'S NUTTY COUSIN.............
>
> I received this today......
>
> John,
>
> I thought we had a little chat last month of me telling you to back off
> hassling my cousin Ralph. Yet here I find you badmouthing about him again.
>
> Just to be clear you badmouth Ralph, you badmouth me and I don't take
> too kindly being dissed by some punk like you. I am a senior member of
> the Oswald Innocence Campaign and I take the insults personally.
>
>
> So put it this way. I come to where you are located and I demonstrate
> the Thornburn position on you after I chopped you one in the neck. What
> do you say Johnny boy? You fuck with Ralph, You fuck with me and I'm a
> little more hands-on with my dealings.
>
> I asked you before but obviously that didn't sink in. Give me your phone
> number to make this easier(or I'll find it myself) You up for this John
> Fagatino?
>
> Tony "The Tone" Longo
> Pacific Coast Blues
>
> John F.
>

And this was passed by the censors? No wonder so many people left this
newsgroup complaining about death threats.

[John Fiorentino]

That's Artwohl's opinion.

He *may* even be right.

However, the whole thing is a non-issue in the overall scheme of things.

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:52ebed05$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Ralph Cinque]

Ollie, you're not looking at the Zapruder film closely enough. All of
JFK's actions are purposeful, and not reflex. He brings his right hand up
to this mouth because he is trying to cough up a bullet. And he brings his
left hand up to his tie. It looks like he is grasping his tie, trying to
loosen it. His hands are not at the same level, and they are not doing the
same thing. Take a lesson from Gil Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFHYwot6bk

[John Fiorentino]

Pathetic, really.

John F.


"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:32edce82-086b-4074...@googlegroups.com...

[bpete1969]

I think it's general knowledge as to who sent it.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

JFK is not grasping his tie. He is not even touching it.

Coughing up a bullet? I cannot say that's the silliest thing I ever heard,
but it ranks in the top ten.

[Ralph Cinque]

"No he didn't Ralph. The President's hands never went anywhere NEAR his
throat. Both hands are at mouth level, completely covering his mouth."

Oh really? Are you sure about that?

http://tinypic.com/r/2005hj7/8

[Steve Barber]

Yes, Ralph, I am positive of this.

[Ralph Cinque]

Then you are blind, Steve, because both hands are NOT at mouth level.

If this were a neurological reflex that automatically sprang up, why is
one hand cupping his mouth while the other seems to be pulling on his tie
to loosen it? It isn't a reflex; it is deliberate, purposeful action with
an intention.

http://tinypic.com/r/2005hj7/8

[Anthony Marsh]

Close enough.

[John Fiorentino]

Steve is correct about this Cinque!

BTW - Why are all of your graphics, pics, etc. so damn distorted?

John F.






"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:98bd3b7a-adfe-4c2c...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true.

[Ralph Cinque]

No, Steve is incorrect. JFK's hands are at different levels doing
different things.

http://tinypic.com/r/2005hj7/8


And why do you make claims without submitting any visual evidence at all?

[Steve Barber]

Knock it off Cinque!! Are you *that* obtuse? There are literally hundreds
of Zapruder frame images available on the Internet, yet you post the
blurriest crap you can find in a failed attempt to prove what you are
claiming President Kennedy is doing, and out of your desperation, instead
of posting the clearer frame Z-230, you chose the blurred Z-231!

On top of this, you selected a frame from a movie film of a man in
distress, who is bringing his hands up to a point that they have not yet
reached by that movie frame in the film that everyone knows exactly where
those hands end up, once they reached their destination. Nice try, but
another failed attempt to prove your point, Ralph. Anyone with common
sense can see that President Kennedy's left hand is not anywhere near his
throat, it's several inches away from the area where the throat wound was
located.

Get real, Cinque!

[Mitch Todd]

Interesting that you picked frame 231 instead of 242 or 245, when the
left hand is in front of JFK's face.

You're not trying to pull a swiftey, now are you, Ralph? ;->

[Ralph Cinque]

His left hand is even lower than his throat. It's down on his tie, and it
looks like he is pulling it to the left, trying to loosen it, while his
right hand is cupping his mouth.

Here is frame 230:

http://tinypic.com/r/4l0lld/8

And don't complain to me about blur. It shows what it shows, and it shows
plenty.


Here is the slow-motion Z-film. If you watch it from frame 225 when he
emerges from behind the freeway sing until the fatal head shot at frame
313, you see that his two hands are moving independently of each other
throughout and are only briefly on the same level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ

That is not a Thorburn reflex action or any other reflex action. Get real,
Barber!

[Steve Barber]

First of all, I didn't say it was the "Thorburn reflex". Second of all,
you are absolutely wrong about his left being at his throat, pulling at
his tie, but you go ahead on and make believe that it happened, Ralph, in
your little fantasy world regarding November 22, 1963.

And third of all, I will make it a point to complain to you about the
blur, because it gets you where you live.

[Ralph Cinque]

No, I'm not pulling a swiftey. Just the watch the whole film, and you'll
see that JFK's hands are moving constantly, and only briefly are they
together and symmetrical. It's you and the others who are pulling a
swiftey.

[Mitch Todd]

"Ralph Cinque" wrote

>No, I'm not pulling a swiftey.

So why did you use frame 230, and ignore the later frames that showed
JFK's left hand in front of his mouth?

>Just the watch the whole film, and you'll
>see that JFK's hands are moving constantly, and only briefly are they
>together and symmetrical. It's you and the others who are pulling a
>swiftey.

So what? JFK's arms and hands start off in very asymmetrical positions,
and end up with about as much symmetry as you can expect.

>It's you and the others who are pulling a swiftey.

"I know you are but what am I!" Witty repartee there, Ralph.

[Ralph Cinque]

From Z-225 when JFK emerges from behind the freeway sign until Z-237,
JFK's hands are at different levels. Here is Z-237:

http://tinypic.com/r/2ceswig/8

And even after that, hardly ever are they together. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

JFK's arms were NOT moving in some kind of reflex action; they were just
moving.

What MD ever supported the Thorburn idea except for John Lattimer who is
long dead? What MD supports the idea today?

[Anthony Marsh]

I enjoy it immensely when the WC defenders throw their own experts under
the bus.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

Look at JFK's elbows in Z-237, Ralph. A person does not assume that
awkward and unnatural position voluntarily, unless he is imitating a bird
flapping its wings. Someone "choking on a bullet" would have no reason to
raise his elbows that high.

No matter what name you give it, it is clearly a neurological reflex.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ralph, stop pulling at your "swiftey"(sic?).........you'll go blind and
hair shall emerge on your knuckles.

[Ralph Cinque]

Not true at all, Ollie. There is no reason why he wouldn't do it that
way. For one thing, it keeps the elbows out of the way. In fact, it's a
position of mechanical advantage compared to keeping the elbows in. You
don't know what you're talking about.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

You just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you Ralph?

[Ralph Cinque]

One of us has an education in human kinesiology, Ollie, and it isn't you.

[Gerry Simone (H)]

Steve, you still believe in that silly theory that a bullet that strikes
JFK 5 inches or so from his collar exits his throat above the Adam's
apply?

Some argue that JFK's hands were dropping after a much earlier hit (say
190 per the HSCA), but then his hands rise up slightly, possibly from a
throat wound.

Ever wonder why there's a huge disparity in the appearance of that throat
wound by the time the autopsy was done and how the Dallas doctors
described it after only a neat, small incision to permit the tracheostomy?
(Maybe someone yanked a bullet outta there, but that's another
discussion).


"Steve Barber" <elpdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53d498cf-ddfe-497a...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, January 31, 2014 1:26:33 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Suddenly exhibit it? Are you nuts? What happened suddenly is that JFK was
>
> suddenly shot in the neck. How do I explain his reaction? How about that
>
> he just did it. In other words, it was a muscular action on his part, not
>
> a neurological reflex.
>
>
>
> Kennedy had been shot in the neck from the front, and he brought his hands
>
> up to the site of injury.

No he didn't Ralph. The President's hands never went anywhere NEAR his

throat. Both hands are at mouth level, completely covering his mouth. Take
a strong look at a blow up of Zapruder frame 246. The right hand is at his
right cheek, his left hand immediately beneath the right up against the
right hand, over his mouth. At no time do his hands go anywhere near his
throat, even after he has lowered them. Mrs. Kennedy has his left arm in
her hands near the elbow, and he lowered his left arm and his right hand
is at chest level. No movement towards the throat at any time.



>
>
>
> When people are choking on food, don't they bring their hand or hands up
>
> to their neck? Well, JFK was choking on a bullet.

Wrong again. HE wasn't "choking on a bullet". He was reacting to a bullet
having passed through his throat from a bullet that entered his back.

>
>
>
> And it is very reasonable to assume that he was choking on a bullet
>
> because the bullet, shot from the front, obviously did not exit out the
>
> back of his head. And yet, it wasn't found on autopsy. Dr. Humes did not
>
> examine the throat wound because he was falsely told that it was just a
>
> tracheotomy incision. It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr.
>
> Perry on the phone that he learned that there had been a bullet hole
>
> there- what Perry believed to be an entry wound.
>
>
>
> Well, Humes should have demanded to go back in and re-examine JFK to track
>
> that bullet, with the threat of screaming bloody murder if they didn't let
>
> him do it. But, Humes didn't do that; instead he burned his autopsy notes.
>
>
>
> But, we know there was no bullet there because they thoroughly x-rayed
>
> JFK's body, including that area, and they reported seeing no such bullet.
>
> Therefore, either they falsified the x-ray OR that bullet was extracted
>
> from JFK at the "pre-autopsy" as per David Lifton and others.

[John Fiorentino]

Gerry................

None of your *measurements*, etc., are correct.

And of course the bullet exited BELOW the "Adam's apple" not above it.

John F.




"Gerry Simone (H)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:52f36da0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Steve Barber]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:45:39 PM UTC-5, Gerry Simone (G) wrote:
> Steve, you still believe in that silly theory that a bullet that strikes
>
> JFK 5 inches or so from his collar exits his throat above the Adam's
>
> apply?

Actually Gerry, it exited below the Adams Apple.

>
>
>
> Some argue that JFK's hands were dropping after a much earlier hit (say
>
> 190 per the HSCA), but then his hands rise up slightly, possibly from a
>
> throat wound.

Well, I do not believe this to be true at all.

>
>
>
> Ever wonder why there's a huge disparity in the appearance of that throat
>
> wound by the time the autopsy was done and how the Dallas doctors
>
> described it after only a neat, small incision to permit the tracheostomy?
>
> (Maybe someone yanked a bullet outta there, but that's another
>
> discussion).

No, not at all.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 31 January 2014 08:46:53 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Thanks to Steve Andis, I have taken up the issue of JFK's muscular
>
> response after emerging from behind the Stemmons freeway sign in the
>
> Zapruder film. I can tell you that it was not a "Thorburn reaction" as
>
> proposed by urologist John Lattimer, a leading medical apologist for the
>
> official story. And I found a fascinating video about it created by Gil
>
> Jesus, whom I never heard before but whom I now have immense respect for.
>
> We have got get Gil Jesus to join us in the OIC! I'm on a mission to do
>
> that. Check out my latest blog:
>
>
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/01/steve-andis-has-spurred-me-to-look.html

Ralph are you sure that Thorburn based his findings on only one case?

I thought that it was more than that.

If memory serves me well, that is.

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Ralph Cinque]

JFK most definitely did not exhibit a Thorburn reation, and John Lattimer
is the only physician who ever suggested such a thing. The parallels
stink! Thorburn's patient had been stone-cold unconscious for 5 days
before he went into that position. Thorburn's patient had incurred trauma
at the level of C5/C6. Thorburn's patient never brought his hands to the
center; he just flexed his biceps. Look, it wasn't the same! Stop the
nonsense!

[Steve Barber]

You have no explanation for the unusual position President Kennedy was in
upon being shot through the back, when his hands flew up to mouth and
cheek level, Ralph.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Wrong, Ralph. Other physicians have suggested that JFK was exhibiting a
Thorburn Position.

Dr Marc Micozzi in the pages of JAMA comes to mind.

Perhaps you could do a bit of relevant reading before you make your next
sweeping statement, Ralph.

It would make a refreshing change were you to do so.

Informative/Corrective Regards,

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

JFK most definitely did not exhibit a Thorburn reation, and John Lattimer
is the only physician who ever suggested such a thing. The parallels
stink! Thorburn's patient had been stone-cold unconscious for 5 days
before he went into that position. Thorburn's patient had incurred trauma
at the level of C5/C6. Thorburn's patient never brought his hands to the
center; he just flexed his biceps. Look, it wasn't the same! Stop the
nonsense!

There are a practically infinite number of things that JFK did NOT do,
Ralph. What is important is what the Z-film shows that he DID do, which
was to raise his elbows to an unusual height, clinch his fists and move
his hands up in front of his neck and mouth -- all within a matter of a
second. That is not something that people normally do consciously,
certainly not when they are choking. His reaction was clearly a reflex
action induced by spinal trauma. It doesn't matter what name you give it.

[Ralph Cinque]

He was reacting to being shot in the throat.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

He was reacting to being shot in the throat.

That might be a reasonable statement if the bullet went on to cause trauma
to JFK's spinal cord. But then the question of where that bullet ended up
would arise.

I know, I know. The FBI's dog ate it.

[Steve Barber]

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:37:13 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> He was reacting to being shot in the throat.

He was reacting to being shot through the back.

[Ralph Cinque]

Dr. Marc Micozzi is wrong. He doesn't even know who Thorburn was. This is
what he said:

"The media reports said Kennedy was consciously "clutching at his injured
throat." But this is untrue. Kennedy's actions were an immediate reflex,
called the Thorburn position. A Civil War doctor first described this
reflexive action after he observed soldiers who received gunshot wounds to
the neck."

Dr. Thorburn was a British physician in London, and it was decades after
the Civil War.

Micozzi is just another lapdog mouthpiece for the official story. You
think he adds legitimacy to the claim? You're wrong! Dr. Cinque can take
Dr. Micozzi.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Er, but Ralph, YOUR original claim was that:

QUOTE ON:

JFK most definitely did not exhibit a Thorburn reaction, and John Lattimer
is the only the physician who ever suggested such a thing.

QUOTE OFF

Yet now you ACKNOWLEDGE that, as well as Dr John Lattimer, Dr Marc Micozzi
ALSO suggested a Thorburn reaction!

Perhaps you have now taken to debunking yourself, Ralph?

BTW, Dr Micozzi sure sounds like a PHYSICIAN to ME, Ralph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Micozzi

Or are you going to dispute the bleeding obvious on that matter as well?

Concerned Regards,

[Steve Barber]

Ralph. Get a grip.

President Kennedy, at no time, ever "clutched at his throat", nor did he
so much as touch his throat with his hands. End of story.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/20/2014 10:48 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Ralph Cinque
> He was reacting to being shot in the throat.
>
>
>
> That might be a reasonable statement if the bullet went on to cause trauma
> to JFK's spinal cord. But then the question of where that bullet ended up
> would arise.

Not necessary. Have you ever had your reflexes tested by a doctor? When
the doctor hits your nerve with the rubber hammer does that cause trauma
to your spinal cord? I hope not. It EXCITES the nerve. That's what
happened to JFK. The bullet grazed the tip of the T-1 vertebra, pushing it
into the C8 nerve and exciting it. That caused the reflex action we see
with JFK's elbows.

[Ralph Cinque]

My point was, and is, that in Medicine- the whole field of it- there is no
real recognition of the Thorburn reaction. Is it ever referenced to
anything but the JFK case? If so, it is extremely rare, so rare as to be,
for all practical purposes, non-existent.

And Micozzi got it all wrong. It wasn't Civil War, it was turn of the
century. It wasn't America, it was England. It wasn't a war injury but an
industrial trauma. You see, he really didn't know anything about it. He
was just waxing on authoritatively about something he knew nothing about
it.

If we tap 100 MDs on the shoulder and ask them about the "Thorburn
position", most will say they never heard of it. Do you want to bet?

Micozzi was a friend and close associate of Dr. George Lundberg, medical
apologist extradinaire for the official lie. Do I have to point out how
much Lundberg is reviled by the JFK truth community? Lundberg eventually
asked Micozzi to write the lead editorial for the special issue of JAMA
which defended the official story.

And you think we should view Micozzi as an independent medical resource?
Micozzi was just LattimerII. That is what is bleeding obvious.

[Ralph Cinque]

You need to watch this video, Steve. JFK grabbed his tie with his left
hand to loosen so that he could breathe better. His right hand went over
his mouth as if to cough up a bullet. This wasn't a "reflex." It was a guy
consciously and deliberately doing something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFHYwot6bk

[Ralph Cinque]

That is total nonsense, Marsh. JFK got hit at the top of the back at the
level of T3, which was confirmed by several physicians, including his own
doctor. But even if you were right, which you're not, why would it have
"excited" the nerves on both sides? It wasn't grazed on both sides was it?
There is a separate nerve that emerges from the intervertebral foramen on
each side, and you can't have the "tip" of T1 pushing into both of them.
There wasn't two separate bullets grazing each side, was there? And what
exactly do you mean by the "tip" of T1? Point to it in this drawing:

http://tinypic.com/r/2r3ysk9/8

Marsh, you're not a doctor. You're not an expert. You're just the guy who
says that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy but did shoot Tippit.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ralph Cinque

Really? Someone who has just been shot in the throat and is trying to
"cough up a bullet" (that one still makes me laugh), puts his hand --
"consciously and deliberately" according to you -- up to his mouth so he
can catch the bullet when it comes out. He apparently was concerned about
littering in the limo.

Your imagination never ceases to amaze me, Ralph. You are the
quintessential example of someone who makes it up as he goes along.

[tims...@gmail.com]

No, Ralph. YOUR claim was that NO physician apart from Dr John Lattimer
had ever suggested such a thing as JFK exhibiting a Thorburn Position
after being shot.

In fact, Dr Marc Micozzi wrote in the pages of JAMA that he agreed that
JFK was exhibiting a Thorburn Position only AFTER viewing a video
production, *Confirmation Of The Single Bullet Theory*, co-authored by a
Dr Michael West, that was aired at an annual meeting of the American
Academy Of Forensic Science.

So that's now THREE physicians, Ralph - Dr Lattimer, Dr West and Dr
Micozzi.

You're completely wrong, as usual plus your Thorburn blog piece was
riddled with errors as well. Thorburn cited more than one case.

You've never even read Dr Thorburn's original article in the publication
Brain, have you, Ralph?

But that doesn't stop you pronouncing upon it in a quite ABSURD fashion.

Corrective Regards,

[Steve Barber]

We've been through this before, Ralph. At no time does President Kennedy
grab at his tie, and at no time does President Kennedy's hands go anywhere
near his throat. You can believe it all you want, but it isn't going to
make it true. And he is not "coughing up a bullet" because the bullet that
exited his throat went through John Connally. End of story.

[OHLeeRedux]

If anyone wants to pay $38, they can get a PDF of Dr. Thornburn's article
here:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/4/510.extract

[Ralph Cinque]

What did I say, Berber? I said JFK grabbed his tie with his left hand to
loosen it so that he could breathe better, and his right hand went over
his mouth, as if to cough up a bullet. And here's a picture of him doing
it. Argue with the picture.

http://tinypic.com/r/2i0vev7/8

[Ralph Cinque]

A picture speaks a thousand words, Barber. We can see JFK cupping his
mouth with his right hand and pulling on his tie with his left. That is
not a reflex.

http://tinypic.com/r/2i0vev7/8

[Ralph Cinque]

Hey Brennan! Let's put the whole stinking Thorburn right on the table,
shall we? And just for that that I'm going to make you famous again. So
keep your eyes on my blog. But to sum up the non-parallels between JFK and
Thorburn's 19th century patient: Thorburn's patient was 5 days unconscious
at the time he manifested his reaction; Thorburn's patient experienced
trauma at the C5/C6 area; and Thorburn's patient had biceps flexion but no
movement of his hands medially to his mouth/throat area. The presumption
that what we are seeing on JFK is the Thorburn reaction is absolutely
preposterous. Here's the drawing that Thorburn made of his unconscious
patient. You want to claim that it resembles what we see on Kennedy?

http://tinypic.com/r/b6t387/8

I will publicly debate any MD you can get about it. You want to get into
this? You want to debate Neurology with me? Bring it on.

Dr. Lattimer and the Great Thorburn Hoax

by Wallace Milam

New York urologist John Lattimer entered the Kennedy assassination
controversy quite early. Beginning with an article in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1966, Dr. Lattimer has been a
shrill and frequent defender of the findings of major government
investigations that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by
two bullets fired from behind them by Lee Harvey Oswald. Dr. Lattimer has
carried out numerous shooting experiments, firing at human skulls and
mock-ups of human necks and chests. In 1972, he became the first
"independent" medical person to be allowed to examine the Kennedy autopsy
materials. Over the past 28 years, Lattimer's research has been reported
in both the popular and scholarly media.

A key element in Lattimer's reconstruction of the wounding of President
Kennedy has been his claim that the movement of Kennedy's arms seen in the
Zapruder film is the result of some sort of spinal trauma, causing the
elbows to splay outward and the hands to turn inward with fists clenched.
In the mid-1970's, Dr. Lattimer seized upon an illustration in a
nineteenth century medical journal and published it as "proof" that a
transiting bullet had produced a neurological response known as
"Thorburn's position."

When Lattimer's writings concerning this alleged spinal trauma are
carefully examined, they reveal not only a pattern of misrepresentation
and misinterpretation of his source materials, but an actual ALTERATION of
those materials. John Lattimer has not only been wrong, he has engaged in
deception.

The Wandering Wound

Lattimer first wrote on the wounding of Kennedy in 1966. In JAMA, he
stated that the bullet "missed both the bodies and the transverse
processes of the vertebrae." (l) Two years later, in an article called
"The Kennedy-Connally Single Bullet Theory: A Feasibility Study," Lattimer
said the bullet "did not hit any bones in President Kennedy and indeed did
not hit any vital structures." (2)

In 1972, Dr. Lattimer was allowed to see the Kennedy autopsy materials.
Soon after, he wrote that there were two 4-mm slivers of metal in
Kennedy's neck. He stated that they were "near the tip of the transverse
process of the seventh cervical vertebra which the bullet may have
grazed." (3) Two years later, in an article co-authored with his sons,
Lattimer wrote that the bullet "grazed the tip of the transverse process
of the President's sixth or seventh cervical process, dislodging two tiny
fragments of bone .... our x-ray studies of various materials indicate
that they are more likely fragments of bone rather than metal." (4) In an
article for the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, written
ostensibly with two neurologists, Edward Schlesinger and Houston Merritt,
Lattimer reported that the radio-opaque material in Kennedy's neck was
bone and that it was in the general region of the "transverse process of
the sixth cervical vertebra of the right side...." (5) Lattimer said
"...the tip of C-6 (not C-5 or C-7) had been struck by the bullet.... "
(6) But just two years later, when Lattimer was contacted by the House
Select Committee on Assassinations, he is reported as having told their
investigators that "a missile passed through the area" and that there was
a fracture of C-6 or C-7. (7) In 1980, Lattimer wrote Kennedy and Lincoln.
Here he offered still another account of the damage to Kennedy's neck. It
seems Lattimer had concluded at that point that the bullet had produced a
"concussive-contusive" trauma to C-6 even though that same bullet "grazed"
the "tips of the transverse processes of the lower cervical vertebrae, or
possibly the uppermost thoracic vertebra... (8). Coming full circle,
Lattimer again appeared on the pages of JAMA in 1993, writing that
Kennedy's behavior was "due to the shock to C6-7..." (9). Thus, even
though the Kennedy X-rays were examined by Lattimer back in 1972, and no
new X-rays have surfaced, his interpretation of just where any damage
occurred has varied considerably. But, as we shall see, there seems to be
a motive--albeit a malevolent one--to his uncertainty.

Lattimer Discovers Thorburn

It was in the 1976 article for the Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine that Lattimer first sought to explain Kennedy's movements as a
response known as "Thorburn's position" or "Thorburn's reflex." The
diligent research of Milicent Cranor now makes it possible to understand
just how this "insight" came about. It is not a pretty picture. It will be
recalled that neurologists Schlesinger and Merritt are listed as
co-authors of the article entitled "President Kennedy's Spine Hit by First
Bullet." Ms Cranor contacted Dr. Edward Schlesinger on July 1, 1994, to
ask about his role in the article, specifically whether or not he agreed
that Kennedy's movements seen in the Zapruder film were consistent with
"Thorburn's position." To her astonishment, Schlesinger reported that he
had never even seen the Zapruder film! Three times during the
conversation, he stated he had never done so, adding at one point:


I've never seen it .... I don't know.... I had conversations with Dr.
Lattimer about it and told him to look into the Thorburn business. I
personally didn't write it, I wasn't consulted when it was written, he
showed me the manuscript and then he put it into book form, and it was
never to me something that I was intentionally involved in. It was just.
..in the beginning when he wrote a paper about it, I found that it was
neurologically unsophisticated, and so I told him about the
possibilities." (10)


Truly amazing! A neurologist lends his name to an article by a urologist,
defining a neurological reaction he has never seen! Thanks to Ms. Cranor's
research, we now know (a) that Dr. Lattimer's vaunted "Thorburn position,"
later borrowed and relied upon by Dr. Michael West and author Gerald
Posner, was casually suggested by a man who "wasn't consulted when it was
written," who had never even observed the President's reaction, and who
casually tossed it out as a suggestion to Dr. Lattimer when he saw that
Lattimer's paper was "neurologically unsophisticated." But there is more:
according to Dr. Schlesinger, the other neurologist, Dr. Merritt, also
lent his name to the article without actually having any input into its
content. Schlesinger told Ms. Cranor, "And he [Lattimer] put Dr. Merritt's
name on it. And Merritt had nothing to do with it." (11) [Emphasis
his.]

Schlesinger had planted the "Thorburn seed" on fertile ground. By the time
Kennedy and Lincoln appeared in 1980, what had been a casually-proffered
theory had grown into an "indisputable fact." Now, according to Lattimer,
Kennedy's reaction was "an almost classic demonstration of what may be
called a Thorburn's position, indicating a lesion of the lower neck area."
(12) The book contained a sketch taken from Dr. Thorburn's 1889 article,
showing his injured patient lying with arms laid outward. (13) (SEE FIG.
1-b)

Boarding a Rickety Bandwagon

"Thorburn" was next borrowed by Dr. Michael West, a deputy medical
examiner in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Dr. West produced a video which, sad
to report, was well received when it was presented before the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences in New Orleans in February, 1992. Dr. West
added his own spin to Thorburn, calling the phenomena "Thornburg's
position," (14) assigning it specifically to wounds to "the vertebra of
C-6," and adding that "the victims elbows and shoulders rise and the hands
curl down.... The President would have been unable to lower his hands.
They would have been in the Thornburg position (sic) and he would not have
been able to bring them down." (15) West offered no explanation for the
fact that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy beginning to lower both arms at
the elbow at frame 241 and continuing to do so until he was fatally shot
in the head.

Then came Gerald Posner. In his 1993 book Case Closed, so widely acclaimed
by the establishment media and so vilified by conspiracy theorists, Posner
joined the Thorburnites. Drawing heavily on Lattimer and Dr. West (whom he
cites repeatedly), Posner unequivocally places the spinal trauma at C-6
and calls it "Thorburn's Position," which he says is "spinal injury that
forces the victims arms to jerk up into a fixed position, almost parallel
with the chin, the hands gathered near the chin and the elbows pushed out
to the sides. This is exactly the position the President started assuming
at frames 226-227. (16) Like West, Posner is convinced that this alleged
Thorburn's reflex left Kennedy's arms locked in place, and that only the
fatal head shot seconds later released them. (Like West, Posner offers no
explanation for the immediate lowering of Kennedy's arms.) Indeed, Posner
offers new "evidence" of a type of Thorburn paralysis of the arms: that
Mrs. Kennedy tried to push Kennedy's left arm down with first one then
both her hands. Posner says she "grabbed" his arm with one hand then with
both hands tried to lower the locked limb: "...but the film clearly
records his resistance. His arm did not lower."(17) A careful study of the
Z film shows that Posner's representation of events is not accurate.
Kennedy's hands have begun to lower even before Jackie places her hands on
his arm. Her movements, instead of being efforts to pull his arms down,
are actually efforts to either move herself closer to him or pull him
toward her. There is no sign of any downward effort being exerted by
either of Mrs. Kennedy's hands; even if there were, the President could
conceivably have consciously chosen to keep his hands at his injured
throat. Finally, Posner fails to point out that at the time Jacqueline
Kennedy is supposedly vigorously trying to pull her husband's arm down,
she is actually looking at Governor Connally.

Thorburn According to Thorburn (not Lattimer)

Through Ms. Cranor's efforts, I finally obtained a copy of Dr. Thorburn's
original article. It was only then that the extent of Dr. Lattimer's
scientific charade became evident. Eighteen years after his work was
prostituted, it is finally time to let Thorburn speak for Thorburn:

In June, 1886, Dr. William Thorburn received a patient at his infirmary in
Manchester, England. A workman had lost his balance and fallen while
standing on a scaffolding whitewashing a wall. The back of his neck
slammed against a bench while his feet remained caught in the ladder. As a
final blow, the bucket of whitewash fell back upon him. Dr. Thorburn, who
did not see the patient until he was brought to the hospital four days
later, observed the man as his condition deteriorated over the next three
weeks. After the workman's death 26 days after the accident, Thorburn
performed a post mortem examination and then wrote about the incident as
"Case I" in Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord.
(18)

Dr. Lattimer sees such parallels in the injuries and reactions of the
workman and Kennedy that he calls the President's response "an almost
classic demonstration of what might be called a Thorburn position." (19)
But if he read Dr. Thorburn's article at all, he must have noted many
significant differences:


a. Thorburn's workman was rendered immediately unconscious (20); Kennedy was not.

b. According to Lattimer and his disciples, Kennedy's arms flew immediately into place and locked there. Thorburn's patient had no such immediate reaction. On regaining consciousness, his legs were paralyzed, but "his arms were partially so." (21) The engraving of the injured workman, showing his arms laid outward (Fig. 1-a), depicts his condition four da s after the accident, a fact which Lattimer deliberately distorted. (See below.)

c. While one of Kennedy's vertebra and his spinal cord may have been grazed (HSCA's medical panel concluded that a bullet did not hit one of Kennedy's vertebra and that the damage "if any, was purely negligible." (22), the workman suffered "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord.... "(23)

d. The possible damage to Kennedy's vertebra occurred at the level of C-6 or C-7 (and even possibly T-1) according to the HSCA medical panel. As we have seen, Lattimer first claimed the bullet struck neither vertebrae nor the spinal cord. Then he narrowed the choices to C-6 or C-7, finally settling on C-6. He specifically ruled out C-5. But Thorburn's victim had a dislocation between the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae with complete paralysis of all nerves below C-5, the spinal cord being completely destroyed "immediately below the level of origin of the fifth cervical nerves." (25) As will be seen, Lattimer took steps which hid these facts as well.

e. Finally, the engraving of Thorburn's patient (Fig. 1-a) shows the position of his arms to be quite the opposite of Kennedy's. The workman's arms are abducted, falling to his side, away from the throat and midline of the body, while Kennedy's arms are adducted, his hands in front of his throat.


Lattimer Plays the Caption Game

Dr. John Lattimer had a problem. He wanted to cite Thorburn's work--with its engraving--as an explanation of Kennedy's movements, but if anyone should look closely at Thorburn's article (and the captions on his engraving), they would see the contradictions. So, Dr. Lattimer has never once, in all his writings, quoted directly from Thorburn's "Case I." And, when he reproduced the Thorburn engraving, he altered the captions, adding untrue statements and deleting information which was harmful to his thesis.

Compare the actual Thorburn illustration, as printed in Cases of Injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord (Fig 1-a), with what purports to be the same illustration as published both in Lattimer's Kennedy and Lincoln (26) and his 1993 article in JAMA.(27)

(Fig 1-b) The picture is reversed in Lattimer's writings, but this is apparently simply a persisting publishing error. The captions tell the story:


a. Thorburn's original captioning contains the information that this case involved "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord" and that this destruction was "immediately below the level of the origin of the fifth cervical nerve." Both these facts are harmful to Lattimer's theory.

b. Consequently, neither of these facts is included in his caption. Erroneous material is substituted. The picture is said to show the "peculiar position assumed by the elbows immediately after an injury to the spinal cord..." [emphasis added]. As we have seen, the arms were only partially paralyzed after the accident and Thorburn's drawing is based on the position of the arms 4 days after the accident. There is no way that the engraving could show the "peculiar position assumed by the elbows immediately after" the injury. Instead of reporting Thorburn's precise location of the injury ("immediately below the level of the origin of the fifth cervical nerve"), Lattimer substitutes the vague phrase "in the lower neck region." To complete his handiwork, Lattimer says that the spinal cord injury was "confirmed at autopsy the following day." Had this been true, it would certainly have met with vigorous protest from the victim, since he was quite alive the day after his injury and lived for twenty-five more days!

c. In references at the end of his 1993 JAMA article, Dr. Lattimer offers still another variation on the alteration theme: this time he provides Thorburn with an unsolicited subtitle (Fig 2).

"Cases of Injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord" has been enhanced to now include this subtitle: "position of the elbows after injury to C-6 (level confirmed at autopsy)." [emphasis added] Lattimer's motives here are obvious.


Summary

Lattimer's attempts to explain President Kennedy's behavior by using Dr. Thorburn's findings is a hoax. A study of Thorburn's "Case I" reveals numerous and significant differences. Either Dr. Lattimer never read Thorburn's report or he chose to ignore those portions which did not suit his purposes. In either case, the results have been both sad and comical:


*Other "researchers," with their own agendas, borrowed and perpetuated his "facts," apparently without bothering to check the source material either.

*A national gathering of forensic scientists viewed a videotape which offers the Thorburn position as a factual explanation for Kennedy's behavior and most were favorably impressed.

*The most proclaimed Kennedy assassination book of the 30th anniversary, Posner's Case Closed, presented Thorburn as gospel, and the prosecution in an ABA mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald offered it as evidence in court.

*Posner appeared in telecasts by both CBS and PBS, telling national audiences of Kennedy's "Thorburn reaction."


All of this because of Dr. Schlesinger's offhand suggestion in 1976 that Dr. Lattimer might want to "look into the Thorburn business"!

[Steve Barber]

So you said it, and I don't believe it Ralph, but you can't grasp that
point.

His hands never go anywhere near his tie or his neck. You are silly
enough to take a singular frame from a movie film and insult everyone of
us who knows that this frame is only part of a steady motion, and we all
know exactly where that hand and arm finally ended up, and it wasn't on
his neck or tie, it was in front of his mouth/chin! In order to loosen
his tie, he would have to put his fingers on the tie and he doesn't, yet
you have the audacity to insult people by posting this nonsense. I have
never known anyone who *sees* imaginary things the way you do! But you go
on ahead, Ralph, and live in that fantasy world of yours,and make believe
that you see President Kennedy loosen his tie. Just don't try to pawn it
off on me!

[Steve Barber]

No Kidding, Ralph! I am one of the first people to ever point this out
over the years since from the first time I saw the Zapruder frames in
1963! I knew he was never "clutching his throat", and had his right hand
open in the mouth area, but unlike you and the silly Gil Jesus, I don't
believe he is "coughing up a bullet", I believe him to be gagging! The
unusual sudden action, then position his arms from the shoulders down are
in, is definitely unnatural and a reflex reaction due to spinal injury
from the bullet that entered his back. If you don't believe it, then
frankly, that's your problem.

[Ralph Cinque]

You are no freaking doctor, Barber. You have no educated opinion about it.
To say that all that action we see JFK doing is a "reflex" is absurd.
Never once in the history of Man or Medicine has anybody exhibited that
much muscular activity as a "reflex" response to anything. You don't know
what you're talking about. But, that doesn't stop you. I know your
mindset. I know your reasons. And I, unlike you, know where this is
headed.

A knee jerk is a reflex. This is not:

http://tinypic.com/r/2m3jyg7/8

[tims...@gmail.com]

A busy, knowledgeable guy like Steve Barber doesn't have time to waste
viewing a ridiculous Gil Jesus junk-science video, Ralph.

In fact NOBODY in their right mind has time to do that.

That task is better left to the Jim DiEugenios of this world.

Informative Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/21/2014 8:14 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> That is total nonsense, Marsh. JFK got hit at the top of the back at the
> level of T3, which was confirmed by several physicians, including his own

False. His own doctor was not a forensic pathologist and merely guessd
by looking.

> doctor. But even if you were right, which you're not, why would it have
> "excited" the nerves on both sides? It wasn't grazed on both sides was it?
> There is a separate nerve that emerges from the intervertebral foramen on
> each side, and you can't have the "tip" of T1 pushing into both of them.
> There wasn't two separate bullets grazing each side, was there? And what
> exactly do you mean by the "tip" of T1? Point to it in this drawing:
>

You don't know what the Hell you are talking about. I never said the
bullet excited both sides. The signal goes up through the spinal cord from
the right side, but is also sent to the left tricep.

WIKI:
Triceps reflex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The triceps reflex, a deep tendon reflex, is a reflex as it elicits
involuntary contraction of the triceps brachii muscle. It is initiated
by the Cervical (of the neck region) spinal nerve 7 nerve root (the
small segment of the nerve that emerges from the spinal cord).[1] The
reflex is tested as part of the neurological examination to assess the
sensory and motor pathways within the C6, C7, and C8 spinal
nerves.[citation needed]

Contents

1 Testing
2 Reflex arc
3 Test indicators
4 Absence of reflex
5 Notes
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Testing

The test can be performed by tapping the triceps tendon[2][note 1] with
the sharp end of a reflex hammer while the forearm is hanging loose at a
right angle to the arm. A sudden contraction of the triceps muscle
causes extension,[note 2] and indicates a normal reflex.[3][4]
Reflex arc

The arc involves the stretch receptors in the triceps tendon, from where
the information travels through the C7 nerve root to the spinal cord,
and the motor signal for contraction returns through the radial
nerve.[note 3]
Test indicators

Absence of a reflex (areflexia): If no reflex is elicited then it
is essential to try again with reinforcement, with the patient clenching
his or her teeth just as the reflex hammer strikes.
Hyper-reflexia (a response far larger than considered normal):
Indicates a potential upper motor neuron lesion.

Absence of reflex

An absence of reflex can be an indicator of several medical conditions:
Myopathy, neuropathy, spondylosis, sensory nerve disease, neuritis,
potential lower motor neuron lesion, or poliomyelitis.[5]

Other medical problems that may cause irregular reflexes include
Hyperthyroidism.
Notes

^ A tendon is a strip or sheet of connective tissue that transmits
the force generated by the contraction of muscle to the bone by
attaching with it. Thus, in simple words, a tendon attaches a muscle to
a bone
^ A straightening at the elbow joint) of the forearm
^ A reflex arc is the path in the nervous system through which the
sensory information (stimulation?sudden stretching of the triceps tendon
in this case) travels to the spinal cord in form of an action potential
through a sensory neuron, and comes in contact with a motor neuron at a
synapse, which also carries an action potential back to the muscle of
origin and results in its (triceps's) contraction. Note that the contact
between the sensory and motor neurons does not require immediate
involvement of the brain making it involuntary, though the sensation of
stretch (as the hammer hits the skin and tendon beneath) and contraction
of the muscle are both sent to the brain making the subject aware of the
entire testing procedure.

See also

Reflex arc
Reflex
Golgi tendon organ

References

^ General Practice Notebook - UK. "Triceps (anatomy)". General
Practice Notebook - UK. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
^ Jane M. Orient (2009). Sapira's Art and Science of Bedside
Diagnosis. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 570?. ISBN
978-1-60547-411-3. Retrieved 4 July 2011.
^ H. K. Walker, W. D. Hall, J. W. Hurst (1990). "Clinical Methods:
The History, Physical and Laboratory Examinations - The triceps reflex".
3rd Edition. Butterworth Publishers. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
^ General Practice Notebook - UK. "Triceps reflex". General
Practice Notebook - UK. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
^ General Practice Notebook - UK. "Absent reflexes". General
Practice Notebook - UK. Retrieved September 18, 2007.

External links

Illustration of reflex testing


v
t
e

Nervous system physiology: neurophysiology - reflex
Cranial nerve

midbrain: Pupillary light reflex
Accommodation reflex
pons/medulla: Jaw jerk reflex
Corneal reflex
Caloric reflex test/Vestibulo-ocular reflex/Oculocephalic reflex
Pharyngeal (gag) reflex

Stretch reflexes

upper limb: Biceps reflex C5/C6
Brachioradialis reflex C6
Triceps reflex C7/C8
lower limb: Patellar reflex L2-L4
Ankle jerk reflex S1/S2
Plantar reflex L5-S2

Primitive reflexes

Galant
Gastrocolic
Grasp
Moro
Rooting
Stepping
Sucking
Tonic neck
Parachute

Superficial reflexes

Abdominal reflex
Cremasteric reflex

Lists

general
alphabetical
by organ

Cardiovascular

Bainbridge reflex
Bezold-Jarisch reflex
Coronary reflex
Mammalian diving reflex
Oculocardiac reflex

Baroreflex


Reflex bradycardia
Reflex tachycardia

Respiratory


Churchill-Cope reflex

Other

Acoustic reflex
H-reflex
Golgi tendon reflex
Optokinetic
Startle reaction
Withdrawal reflex (Crossed extensor reflex)

M: PNS


anat (h/r/t/c/b/l/s/a)/phys (r)/devp/prot/nttr/nttm/ntrp


noco/auto/cong/tumr, sysi/epon, injr


proc, drug (N1B)
Categories:

Reflexes

Navigation menu

Create account
Log in

Article
Talk

Read
Edit
View history

Navigation

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools

What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Data item
Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links

This page was last modified on 9 February 2014 at 23:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia? is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.


Pinched nerve at C8. This can cause hand dysfunction (this nerve
supplies innervation to the small muscles of the hand). Pain/numbness
can run to the outside of the hand (little finger) and impair its reflex.

> http://tinypic.com/r/2r3ysk9/8
>
> Marsh, you're not a doctor. You're not an expert. You're just the guy who
> says that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy but did shoot Tippit.

I don't have to be. You're not either. I rely on the expert doctors who
have studied this.

>

[Ralph Cinque]

This one's for you, Barber.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/02/over-on-mcadams-forum-steve-berber-said.html

[Jason Burke]

On 2/22/2014 4:08 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You are no freaking doctor, Barber.

Neither are you, Ralph. Nor have you ever been a real doctor.

[Steve Barber]

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, so stuff a sock in
it, Ralph!

I know your mindset. I know your reasons. And too bad for you, you fail
largely at pawning your crap off on me!

[Ralph Cinque]

Marsh, I have been testing triceps reflexes my whole adult life, along
with biceps, patellar, and achilles. But, I'm afraid all that cutting and
pasting you did was a complete waste of time because Kennedy definitely
doesn't have a triceps reflex spasm going on. The triceps muscle extends
the forearm from the elbow, but Kennedy has just the opposite going on.

http://tinypic.com/r/2m3jyg7/8

From Wikipedia, explaining that Dr. Burkley's estimate of T3 happened to
match where the holes were located in JFK's clothes. You're not buying
that bunched jacket BS, are you Marsh?

"The death certificate, signed by the President's personal physician Dr.
George Burkley, then a Rear Admiral in the Medical Corps of the U.S. Navy,
gave a location for the back wound lower than found by the autopsy (either
its photographs or measurements). Dr. Burkley believed a bullet to have
hit Kennedy at "about" the level of the third thoracic vertebra (T3).[2]
Supporting the location of Dr. Burkley is a diagram from the autopsy
report of Kennedy,[3] which shows a bullet hole in the upper back.
However, this diagram is freehand, and not drawn with any attention to
landmarks -- a criticism made of it by the later House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) analysis."

"Burkley's location at T3 (the third thoracic vertebra) is also about the
same location of the bullet hole in the President's shirt[4] and the
bullet hole in the suit jacket worn by Kennedy[5] which show bullet holes
between 5 in (13 cm) and 6 in (15 cm) below the top of Kennedy's
collar.[6] However, again there has been controversy on the matter of
whether or not the holes in the president's clothing should be expected to
correspond to the location of his back wound, since he was sitting with a
raised arm at the time of the assassination, and multiple photographs
taken of the motorcade show his suit jacket bunched at the back of his
neck and shoulder, so that it did not lie closely against his skin."

As I look at it, if it wasn't T3, maybe it was the level of T2, but
definitely no higher than that.

http://tinypic.com/r/34h6vtd/8

And remember that the bullet went DOWNWARD from there, as it was shot from
a high elevation. The angle was steep and downward, and the bullet was not
deflected.

[tims...@gmail.com]

You could do worse than pony up with the $38 and buy a copy of the
article, Ralph.

That way you'd be able to work out how many errors you've got on your blog
re The Thorburn Postion JFK assumed after he was shot by Oswald.

You might even blunder over some of the shortcomings in that flawed
Wallace Milam article you're quoting as gospel as well.

Helpful Regards,

[Ralph Cinque]

And in the end, you just refuse to look at the evidence. Game. Set. Match.

[Steve Barber]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 10:30:23 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> This one's for you, Barber.
>
>
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/02/over-on-mcadams-forum-steve-berber-said.html

Ralph, Ralph, Ralph...

When trying to prove your point, it's always best to seek and find the
best quality you can possibly find, as well as allowing everyone to
view--IN MOTION-- the entire sequence( not a still frame) from movie film
you took a very subjective frame from. This allows others to see what
President Kennedy was and was not doing with his left hand. According to
your pathetic attempt to convince others that in frame 230, his hand is at
his neck. IT IS NOT.

The still frame from the film gives that appearance because his hand is
level with his neck, but at no time does his left hand go under the chin
to touch the area of the tie. What is *does* do is meet the top of the
right hand, which is in a cupping position in front of the President's
mouth at this point.

Face it, Ralph. You are very desperately trying to prove that President
Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front, and you will go to any and
all measures that you can to do so. Posting stills(purposely blurry, poor
quality at that)from a motion picture film isn't convincing, nor is it
proof, no matter how hard you may try.
http://s424.photobucket.com/user/eric81175/media
/moore_z222250smallns5.gif.html

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hey Cinque! Coupla problems with that rather estimable paper by Wallace
Milam you're quoting as gospel.

First, Milam makes a BIG deal that Thorburn's Case # 1 (L.F.) was rendered
immediately unconscious, whereas Kennedy was not.

Hardly surprising, since the unfortunate L.F. fell off a ladder, banged
his neck against a wall some two-and-a-half feet above the ground before
his head then struck the ground!

Secondly, Milam claims that it took L.F. four days to assume the Thorburn
position. This is nonsense! If you read Thorburn's paper PROPERLY he makes
clear that the patient was admitted in this condition and had already been
in this condition for four days.

Milam simply hasn't read the paper correctly in his haste to find fault
with Lattimer. What the paper ACTUALLY says is that four days after
admission the patient's arms had lost all sensation, in contrast to when
he was admitted when he still had partial feeling.

Having established that Milam couldn't read and understand Thorburn's
paper in his haste to find fault with the conclusions of Lattimer, let's
now move on to where Milam starts deliberately LYING and DISTORTING in his
eagerness to smear Lattimer, shall we, Cinque?

OK, Milam makes a big deal about Lattimer supposedly altering the caption
of the Thorbun Position illustration in both his book and his 1993 JAMA
article and then makes the quite deceitful statement that:

QUOTE ON:

Dr. Lattimer has never once, in all his writings, quoted directly from

Thorburn's *Case I.* And, when he reproduced the Thorburn engraving, he

altered the captions, adding untrue statements and deleting information
which was harmful to his thesis.

QUOTE OFF

What Milam DOESN'T tell his audience is that when Lattimer FIRST
reproduced the Thorburn engraving in his 1977 article for the Bulletin of
the New York Academy of Medicine, an article that Milam extensively cites
in his smear piece, Lattimer quoted the original caption WORD FOR WORD,
after first giving his own interpretation of it. He makes a CLEAR
definition between the two captions, showing what is his and what is
Thorburn's.

So much for Lattimer never quoting Thorburn directly! So much for Lattimer
DISHONESTLY altering captions!

Milam appears to have set out to write a smear piece on Lattimer because
Lattimer has uncovered the truth. A C5/C6 spinal injury like the one
suffered by Kennedy and the unfortunate L. F. WILL result in a position
known as a Thorburn Position.

As for Millicent Cranor's supposedly incendiary findings re Lattimer's
co-athors on the 1997 New York article, all it does is add yet ANOTHER
name to the physicians who say it was a Thorburn Position, Ralph, since
Edward Schlesinger, a neurosurgeon, quite CLEARLY read Lattimer's paper
and made suggestions towards it.

So the number of doctors NOW reads Schlesinger, Lattimer, West and Micozzi
who have made a contribution to the literature re JFK and a Thorburn
Position, Ralph. So much for your original claim. So much for the
distorted NONSENSE of Milam. Do a bit of proper reading next time Cinque,
before you blow your mouth off, would be my advice.

Informative Regards,

[John Fiorentino]

Cinque writes.............

"And remember that the bullet went DOWNWARD from there, as it was shot

from a high elevation. The angle was steep and downward,........."

I say..............

Not according to Baden and his "anatomic position" crapola.

John F.




"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:993771a6-a645-48c0...@googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

I was waiting for someone to respond, but no one did.

In any event, my posted description (from a medical dictionary) re:
Thorburn's position is simply not accurate.

Lattimer and I locked horns on this issue on several occasions as I told
him, I didn't agree that JFK's reactions had anything to do with a
Thorburn response.

We disagreed on a few things, and he was gracious enough to let it go and
write the intro to my book anyway.

It's frightening to me that I *may* agree with Cinque on something, but
truth is what I'm after.

In the scheme of things Thorburn is a non-issue anyway. But in the
interest of historical accuracy, I believe Lattimer got this wrong.

This is the first time I've voiced this btw.

John F.



"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:52eaf3c7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Cinque, along with his Oswald in the doorway fantasy, doesn't have any
> medical knowledge either.
>
> How *odd* for someone who was licensed as a Chiropractor..........right
> Cinque??
>
> The Thorburn position is well known in medicine.
>
> Thorburn position
>
> Thorburn position: A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately
> after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region.

>
> John F.
>
>
> "Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:78576650-2770-44e5...@googlegroups.com...
>>I have no idea what you mean by a McAdams reaction.
>>
>> If you go to PubMed, the largest medical database in the world, you don't
>> find any references to the "Thorburn position".
>>
>> Try it yourself. Type it in:
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
>>
>>
>> And if you look for a definition of "Thorburn position" online, all you
>> find are references to Thorburn's one paper and the JFK assassination.
>>
>> Apparently, no one else in the history of Medicine experienced the
>> reaction that one doctor, Dr. Thorburn, wrote about concerning just one
>> patient in 1886.
>>
>> The totality of the "Thorburn position" has been Thornton then Lattimer
>> and nothing else. In 128 years of trauma and medicine? That is bull.
>> Total
>> bull.
>>
>>
>
>

[bpete1969]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:15:02 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> And in the end, you just refuse to look at the evidence. Game. Set. Match.

You have no evidence...you're not even in the parking lot of the stadium
let alone in the game.

You got no game.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/23/2014 4:16 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Marsh, I have been testing triceps reflexes my whole adult life, along
> with biceps, patellar, and achilles. But, I'm afraid all that cutting and
> pasting you did was a complete waste of time because Kennedy definitely
> doesn't have a triceps reflex spasm going on. The triceps muscle extends
> the forearm from the elbow, but Kennedy has just the opposite going on.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/2m3jyg7/8
>
> From Wikipedia, explaining that Dr. Burkley's estimate of T3 happened to
> match where the holes were located in JFK's clothes. You're not buying
> that bunched jacket BS, are you Marsh?
>

Oh course not. I always argue against it. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You are so conceited that you waltz in here and pretend to show us NEW
evidence which we've never seen before, but we've seen it and discussed it
thousands of times over the past 50 years. The certificate is garbage.
Burkely was barely a doctor. More of a bureaucrat. He was not a forensic
pathologist. He didn't do anything in the autopsy. He merely looked and
guessed. And he guessed wrong. The autopsy photos show us the back wound
and it is not as low at T-3. That is wrong. It was up around T-1.

> "The death certificate, signed by the President's personal physician Dr.
> George Burkley, then a Rear Admiral in the Medical Corps of the U.S. Navy,
> gave a location for the back wound lower than found by the autopsy (either
> its photographs or measurements). Dr. Burkley believed a bullet to have
> hit Kennedy at "about" the level of the third thoracic vertebra (T3).[2]
> Supporting the location of Dr. Burkley is a diagram from the autopsy
> report of Kennedy,[3] which shows a bullet hole in the upper back.
> However, this diagram is freehand, and not drawn with any attention to
> landmarks -- a criticism made of it by the later House Select Committee on
> Assassinations (HSCA) analysis."
>

It is also not intended to be to scale.

> "Burkley's location at T3 (the third thoracic vertebra) is also about the
> same location of the bullet hole in the President's shirt[4] and the
> bullet hole in the suit jacket worn by Kennedy[5] which show bullet holes
> between 5 in (13 cm) and 6 in (15 cm) below the top of Kennedy's
> collar.[6] However, again there has been controversy on the matter of
> whether or not the holes in the president's clothing should be expected to
> correspond to the location of his back wound, since he was sitting with a
> raised arm at the time of the assassination, and multiple photographs
> taken of the motorcade show his suit jacket bunched at the back of his
> neck and shoulder, so that it did not lie closely against his skin."
>
> As I look at it, if it wasn't T3, maybe it was the level of T2, but
> definitely no higher than that.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/34h6vtd/8
>
> And remember that the bullet went DOWNWARD from there, as it was shot from
> a high elevation. The angle was steep and downward, and the bullet was not
> deflected.
>

The bullet hit the TOP of T-1 and was deflected up and out.

>

[Ralph Cinque]

You are preaching the choir, JF. Lattimer should have been striped of his
medical license for ever suggesting that JFK's actions were all part of
his assuming a "Thorburn position". It is laughable. In trying so hard to
defend the official story at any price, Lattimer lost his head.

[John McAdams]

On 23 Feb 2014 23:19:42 -0500, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You are preaching the choir, JF. Lattimer should have been striped of his
>medical license for ever suggesting that JFK's actions were all part of
>his assuming a "Thorburn position".

Oh boy, are you asking for it with that statement.

Fortunately for you, the moderators will protect you.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

That's a load of manure Cinque.

Lattimer was simply in error. There was no ulterior motive.

Fact is nothing postulated changes the facts as presented by the Warren
Commission. Thorburn or no Thorburn.

John F.


"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:149172ed-1e46-4f22...@googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

I will post a description of what most likely happened shortly.

John F.


"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message

news:530a6dff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

Watsmatta you? Aren't you impressed by his phony outrage?

[Ralph Cinque]

Not true. If Kennedy is acting deliberately and decisively, as opposed to
as a result of stretch reflexes (which was a ridiculous idea if you know
anything about stretch reflexes) then his actions have to be viewed in
terms of his thought and purpose. And the guy who has done that the best
is Gil Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFHYwot6bk

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 20 February 2014 07:49:02 UTC+11, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 31 January 2014 08:46:53 UTC+11, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Steve Andis, I have taken up the issue of JFK's muscular
>
> >
>
> > response after emerging from behind the Stemmons freeway sign in the
>
> >
>
> > Zapruder film. I can tell you that it was not a "Thorburn reaction" as
>
> >
>
> > proposed by urologist John Lattimer, a leading medical apologist for the
>
> >
>
> > official story. And I found a fascinating video about it created by Gil
>
> >
>
> > Jesus, whom I never heard before but whom I now have immense respect for.
>
> >
>
> > We have got get Gil Jesus to join us in the OIC! I'm on a mission to do
>
> >
>
> > that. Check out my latest blog:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/01/steve-andis-has-spurred-me-to-look.html
>
>
>
> Ralph are you sure that Thorburn based his findings on only one case?
>
>
>
> I thought that it was more than that.
>
>
>
> If memory serves me well, that is.
>
>
>
> Concerned Regards,

>
>
>
> Tim Brennan
>
> Sydney, Australia
>
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
>
>
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
>
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

BUMP! YOO HOO! RALPH!

I said are you SURE that Thorburn based his conclusions on only ONE case
like you claimed on your blog?

I think you're dead wrong there, Ralph.

Have you even bothered to read Thorburn's paper as published in the
journal Brain yet Ralph?

You wouldn't start a debate vis-a-vis a Thorburn Position when you've
never even read the relevant paper would you, Ralph?

Concerned Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

No one Said STRETCH reflex. The hot stove reflex is not a STRETCH
reflex. We are talking about CONTRACTION reflexes.
Maybe you don't know the difference because you are not a doctor.
Was it Gil Jesus who said that Oswald was trying to cough up a bullet?

[Ralph Cinque]

Marsh: No one Said STRETCH reflex. The hot stove reflex is not a STRETCH

reflex. We are talking about CONTRACTION reflexes.

A stretch reflex IS a contraction reflex. It's where the muscle contracts
in response to the stretch that's applied to tendon, and it works to
oppose the action of the stretch. The hot stove reflex is in response to
afferent pain signals. Marsh: of the two of us, YOU are not a doctor.

[Steve Haydon]

On Thursday, 27 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC, Ralph Cinque wrote:
Marsh: of the two of us, YOU are not a doctor.

More accurately Ralph, of the two of you NEITHER are doctors....

[Ralph Cinque]

At least I don't think that a "stretch reflex" causes something to
stretch.

[tims...@gmail.com]

BUMP! YOO HOO! CINQUE!

If you read Thorburn's paper, which of course you haven't, you would see
that you have at least THREE GRIEVOUS errors on that blog you kicked this
thread off with.

ONE: It was NOT a *single case* that Lattimer based his findings on. The
case of at least TWO patients, L. F. and W. H., was used by Thorburn in
reaching his conclusions.

TWO: It was NOT *only 4 days after the trauma* that the man, L. F., went
into Thorburn Position; it happened at the time of his accident.

THREE: The man was NOT in a coma when he assumed the position. If you read
Thorburn's paper you would realize that the man was NEVER in a coma at any
time during his ordeal.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, Ralph, but that doesn't
appear to stop you posting complete NONSENSE on your blog.

Informative Regards,