Replies

You said — “Neither since he did not know there WAS an undead student to “go for”. “A” is of the opinion that Waleeds action kept the shooter from realizing he was still alive, thereby keeping the shooter from “going for” him.”

The article relates to us that the killer came back two times looking for signs of life. And we have a “belief” by the uninjured student that Waleed (who was wounded, maybe dying) that some movement by Waleed was meant to distract the killer from the uninjured student, and therefore “save” him.

Well, that is presuming that there is something to “save”. In other words — what the uninjured student is trying to tell us in “his belief” — is that *if* Waleed had not made a movement, then the killer would have killed the uninjured student.

Thus, the uninjured student is presenting us with his “belief” like this —

(1) Waleed makes no movement; I will be killed.
(2) Waleed makes movement; my life is saved.

Well, here we can see by the actual facts, that the student has let his emotional state of the moment has clouded his thinking. And since he has been in such a life and death traumatic situation, he is like others who feel guilty for surving and is in need of counseling. And his thinking has been affected to the point where his “beliefs” don’t reflect reality.

The following shows how it works out — if — as the uninjured student “thinks” — that if Waleed had done nothing, this student’s life would have been ended.

The only eyewitness was playing dead. He couldn’t be seen by the killer as being alive, so he wouldn’t be looking at the killer (see the “one of three scenarios repoeated above). Playing dead is what kept him alive.

And then, finally, the only eyewitness says that he ony “believed” that a “move” protected him. Of all the facts of the situation that we’ve been given — this one (the “move”) is the *only one* in which the eyewitness himself says “believed”. He thus admits that he does not know if Waleed was “flopping” or distracting the killer.

The clear point which is being made — was that the uninjured student was “saved” by Waleed’s actions.

Of course, one can’t be saved if the killer was never going to kill the uninjured student in the first place. The assumption made by the uninjured student (and his “belief”) is that he would have been killed otherwise.

To that the following is clear. If the killer was going to kill the uninjured student and he saw Waleed move — then it’s bang! to Waleed (since he moved) and then bang! bang! bang! (three shots) to the uninjured student who is now dead. That’s *if* he was going to kill the uninjured student and Waleed gave his “famous flop”...

But, on the other hand, with the uninjured student playing dead so effectively (which his present breathing proves) — then the killer did not see that the uninjured student was alive — however — he saw Waleed was alive by his “now famous” flop... So, it was bang! to Waleed. Now Waleed is dead and the uninjured student is alive.

So, either the killer was going for the uninjured student or the killer was not going for the uninjured student.

(1) He was going for the uninjured student, but Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then bang! bang! bang! (three times) to the uninjured student (now dead).

(2) He was not going for the uninjured student, Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then perceiving the uninjured student as dead (since he was a good actor), killer leaves once again.

One way — dead “uninjured student” — the other way live “uninjured student”. And, “either way” — flops make no difference.

And we’re examining this under the same “assumption” that the student is making. The student is making his “belief” known that Waleed’s “movement” saved his life. The corollary to that is — “If Waleed had not moved, my life would have been ended.”

We now see that it would have made no difference — whether Waleed moved or not — the student convinced the killer he was dead and the killer left him alone.

Regrards,
Star Traveler