JFK'S ARM-RAISING: WHAT CAUSED IT? DOES IT MATTER?

In my opinion, the whole "Was JFK Exhibiting The Thorburn's Position?"
debate is completely immaterial and makes no difference at all in the
broader scheme of things regarding when JFK was hit by gunfire in Dealey
Plaza on November 22, 1963.

We know that the spinal cord of JFK was not physically severed, nor was
it damaged in any way at all. And we know that JFK is certainly reacting
to a gunshot wound to his body at the time when he exhibits the
"Thorburn" type of arm-raising.

So who really CARES if it was "Thorburn's" or merely an involuntary (or
voluntarily) raising of the arms that we're seeing in the Zapruder Film?
Either way, he's obviously been hit by a bullet by frames 225 and 226
of the Z-Film.*



* = Except in the minds of certain authors like Jim Bishop and Jim Moore,
who want the masses to believe that JFK was struck in the face by
concrete or bullet fragments, even though the missed shot that they
say caused those fragments to hit the President struck to the REAR
of the limousine. That particular theory doesn't add up or make any
sense to me.

And another thing that doesn't add up in that regard is how ONLY
Kennedy -- THE INTENDED VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THE FIRST
PLACE -- was hit by shards of concrete (or whatever) via such a missed
shot? Not a single other person (who were all very close to JFK in the
limo) reported feeling any spray of concrete during the time of the
shooting.

Per that theory, ONLY Kennedy supposedly felt this spray...and then
apparently he WAITED two-plus seconds to jerk those arms up, even
though he must have been struck by such fragments of concrete well
before Z225. Makes no (logical) sense to me at all.

But what does make TOTAL sense (given the totality of all of the
evidence) is the Single-Bullet Theory. Every single thing is fully
explained by the SBT. Everything. ANY anti-SBT speculation is filled
with many, many more "unexplainables" than is the single-bullet
scenario. It's not even close in that regard.



David Von Pein
December 2006

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 23, 2006)