BOOK REVIEW -- "Conspiracy Of One" By Jim Moore
David Von Pein
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 actually
occurred 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
eca...@comcast.net
and completely impressed
with your superior JFK
assassination knowledge!
I saved the website and
will post it so others can
appreciate the full depth
of conviction and profound
JFK research you have
done! (And Anthony Marsh
said us LNers "refused"
to do research")
Keep up the good work
and for God's sake STAY
in this NG! One post by
you wipes out a dozen
of the cHucKLE :-) heAd
variety...
Regards, Ed Cage 1153Dec906
John Canal
Good post, and, IMO, you've gotten fairly close to accurately reconciling
the statements of the Parkland witnesses (and Clint Hill's), re. the
right-rear defect, with the autopsy x-rays and photos.
Try this explanation though. As the bullet penetrated the skull about one
inch to the right of the EOP, the nose deformed. There is no way the
bullet could continue on a straight path with the nose (CE-567) smashed as
it was. The bullet deflected upwards about 20 deg. re. true horizontal on
a course towards the exit defect along the coronal suture.
After it taveled an inch or so through the brain, it came apart. The two
largest pieces, after exiting that beveled out defect along the coronal
suture continued to the windshield, with one piece cracking the glass and
the other denting the trim.
Let's stop here to mention a few facts that support an entry near the EOP,
vs. one in the cowlick. (1) The three pathologists and other
eye-witnesses, including Chester Boyers, whom I personally interviewed,
placed the entry to the right of the EOP. (2) There was a longitudinal
laceration that started one inch right of midline at the tip of the
occipital lobe and ended at the tip of the frontal lobe. (3) There is a
trail of opacities extending anteriorly from the area of the EOP seen on
the original lateral x-ray. (4) F8 has been replicated five times using
five different model skulls, independently by four individuals....with all
the replications showing that that photo shows the entry to be near the
EOP.
I won'r bore you with all the ev. that precludes the entry from being in
the cowlick...but there's a great deal of it.
Anyway, as the bullet deflected upwards it created a large transverse
fracture extending around to JFK's right from the area of the EOP...that
fracture is easily seen on the copies of the lateral. IMO, that fracture
represented the lower margin of a piece of right rear skull that moved out
of position (held attached to his head by his scalp) when the pressure of
the temporary cavity pushed out on skull...also causing at least four
large pieces from the top-right-forward part of his head to blow out into
DP and the limo....these included the Harper fragment.
The key statements that help show how high the right rear opening was
include ones from 10 eye-witnesses, including two neurosurgeons, who said
they saw cerebellum tissue. IOW, the cerebellum could have been seen if
that right-rear skull piece had been moved out of its natural position.
Ok, so what about the autopsy x-rays and photos? Boswell finally
enlightened us re. this issue when he testified to the ARRB (around pg.
95, as I recall) that he did replace skull pieces from the rear BEFORE the
x-rays were taken. Also, the BOH photos, IMO, show the rear scalp
"smoothed" back into near its proper position, but, of course, do not show
the skull damage under that scalp. You might insist that the BOH photos
are proof the entry was closer to the cowlick, but, IMO, the scalp in
those photos is not being properly held...case in point is that there is a
distinct difference in the texture of his hair near the hairline.
John Canal
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>** = 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. ;)
Excellent example of your major weakness when analyzing other
arguments. Here you claim Jim Moore believes the act of hearing a shot
caused the lapel to move. Of course that is nonsense, and Jim Moore
obviously does not believe any such thing.
It is clear Jim is referring to Connally's physical reactions to
hearing a loud sound. It has been noted by many researchers that
Zapruder "jiggles" the camera when he hears a loud sound. A camera is
much heavier than a "piece of fabric" yet the camera "did" move when
Zapruder heard a loud sound.
You are the only person in the world, it appears, who believes people
do not react to loud noises. I have obviously been seeing an illusion
when friends "jump" at the loud sound caused when I blow air into a
brown paper bag, crumple the opening and then slam my hand against the
inflated brown paper bag thus causing a "loud noise". I'd swear the
people I was trying to startle did indeed jump or twist their heads
around or go "Gee, you scared me."
David VP believes such reactions are impossible.
Good luck to you if you agree with him.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>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.
Strangely, you are using a Robert Harris argument to defend your
position here.
Do you agree with Robert that it is possible to see the back of the
head at the moment of the explosive head shot?
PF
Anthony Marsh
There was no exit defect along the coronal suture. That is fiction. In
fact there was no one sole exit point. The bullet broke up inside the
head and took several paths out.
> After it taveled an inch or so through the brain, it came apart. The two
> largest pieces, after exiting that beveled out defect along the coronal
> suture continued to the windshield, with one piece cracking the glass and
> the other denting the trim.
>
I doubt that either piece was what hit the windshield. Consider instead
that it was the lead core extruded from the base fragment which hit the
windshield and left some lead slivers.
> Let's stop here to mention a few facts that support an entry near the EOP,
> vs. one in the cowlick. (1) The three pathologists and other
> eye-witnesses, including Chester Boyers, whom I personally interviewed,
> placed the entry to the right of the EOP. (2) There was a longitudinal
Show me this wound on the autopsy photos.
David Von Pein
Thanks John. And thanks for your detailed head-wound analysis as well.
I'll probably be made to suffer (by certain CTers) for saying what I'm
going to say next; but I'll say it anyway. (And, actually, I think I've
probably said it previously to this aggregation at one time or
another.).....
But I really don't care very much where on the back of the head the
entry wound was located. (To the EXACT inch or millimeter, that is.)
And the reason I say that is fairly simple. I wrote about this very
topic in a post over in the unmoderated forum just minutes ago. I'll
repeat some of it here. .....
As anyone SHOULD know....it really doesn't matter where ANY witness
places the large wound on JFK's head....because the following fact will
never EVER change.....
THERE WAS JUST ONE ENTRY WOUND ON JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD! JUST ONE! AND IT
WAS IN THE REAR OF THE SKULL.
Hence, JFK was shot just ONE time in the head, FROM BEHIND. And this is
an irrefutable, ironclad, proof-positive fact that will never change.
It's been proven via the autopsy report, which says that very thing
(i.e., JFK was hit one time in the head and one time only); and it's
proven via the autopsy doctors, who have never ever wavered from their
stance (whenever they've talked about the NUMBER OF ENTRY HOLES IN
KENNEDY'S HEAD) -- it's always been ONE...and that entry hole was IN
THE REAR of the head.
And it's also proven via this photo.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
There's never, ever been a single grain of medical evidence that proves
John Kennedy was shot in the head from the front.
But will that irreversible fact deter the WC critics? Probably
not...because I think it's fairly obvious that many, many CTers have a
vested interest in WANTING to keep the JFK case "unsolved" and (more
importantly for them) "unsolvable" as well.
>>> "IMO, the scalp in those photos is not being properly held..." <<<
I tend to agree with you on this point. The massiveness of the
(overall) head wound has probably loosened that scalp to an extent, and
with JFK being "propped up" for the photo-taking session of the back of
the head, I'm guessing it was probably a bit difficult to "line up" the
severely-damaged and weakened scalp with the hole that was just
underneath it in the skull. Makes sense to me anyway, even though I'm
certainly no pathologist.
The "BOH" matter, as I've repeated numerous times on various forums
since 2003, is and has always been the #1 item on my short list of
"Things I'm Most Anxious To Have Vincent Bugliosi Reconcile In His
Upcoming JFK Book".
And I'm fully confident that VB has, indeed, reconciled those many BOH
witnesses to his own "LN" satisfaction. Otherwise, there's no way Vince
would have uttered these strong words in 2001.....
"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
alone." -- Vince Bugliosi
Now, I suppose, it's possible that VB's position re. the many BOH
witnesses is similar to what I wrote in my first post in this thread
(i.e., the witnesses saw the blood pooling to the BOH area and thought
the major wound was back there); and it's possible, as I said before,
that the loose "flap" that can be seen in some of the autopsy pictures
was not in that "outward" posture when JFK arrived at Parkland, with
the flap, in effect, hiding a goodly portion of the parietal/temporal
blowout to the eyes of the Parkland witnesses.*
* = I certainly favor this explanation over Jim Moore's in his 1990
book....wherein he is basically saying that every Parkland witness
couldn't tell SIDE from REAR simply because the patient was lying flat
on his back! And that's just plain goofy, IMO.
Or, maybe Vince B. will have something different to offer from his
unique POV. I don't know. But I do know the following.....
No matter how many "BOH witnesses" exist, the medical/autopsy evidence
is not going to change....and that evidence CONFIRMS FOR ETERNITY that
President Kennedy was shot just once in the head....from the rear.
And to believe that ALL THREE autopsists are rotten crooks who would
deliberately falsify the AR of a POTUS is just outright nutty thinking,
in my view. And, of course, all of the photos and X-rays (per CT
beliefs) would have to have been faked a great deal too, to align with
the 3 doctors' "lies".
How likely is it that BOTH of those things actually occurred in 1963 --
i.e., three rotten, no-good autopsists AND some kind of underhanded
plot to falsify all of the President's autopsy pictures and X-rays
(which, somehow, were verified as genuine and "unaltered in any manner"
by the HSCA in '78)?**
** = So now we're up to at least two dozen lying SOBs, including the
several people on the HSCA who said those photos were not forgeries.
There surely must have been a FEW people in Officialdom who told the
truth re. the investigation of JFK's death....weren't there? But to
hear the CTers tell it, there sure must not have been very many
truth-tellers in the whole of Washington (or Dallas).
David Von Pein
And I never once claimed Moore, himself, believed that silly theory, or
placed such a thing in his book, did I? What I said was: "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".
"Anyone" does not automatically equal "Jim Moore" and I never said it
did. I was merely showing how untenable Moore's theory is of believing
Connally was hit as late as Z235. He must ignore the lapel movement
entirely via such an argument...and he must attribute ALL of the other
stuff (hat flip; grimace; shoulder drop @ 224; and shoulder "flinch" at
226) to Connally's merely HEARING the sound of a shot (because JM
doesn't have JBC reacting to "concrete fragments" as he does JFK).*
* = And keep in mind this is a shot that occurred at Z186, per Moore!
MORE THAN TWO SECONDS EARLIER! Ridiculous. Who WAITS two seconds to get
scared out of their skin by a loud, sudden, sharp noise?! Do you? I
sure don't.
Of course, the "concrete" theory is pretty preposterous too, since the
shot, per Moore and a few witnesses, struck to the REAR of the limo. I
guess the concrete flew up in the air, paused a few moments (like CTers
think happened with CE399) and then allowed JFK to move into them.
Moore doesn't explain this oddity...and neither did Mr. Bishop in 1968,
via the exact same theory that Moore undoubtedly copied practically
verbatim, right down to the additional absurdity of having the first
missed shot rocket at grass level over to Tague and chip yet some more
concrete before becoming spent.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "Here you claim Jim Moore believes the act of hearing a shot caused the lapel to move.
>>>>Of course that is nonsense, and Jim Moore obviously does not believe any such thing." <<<
>And I never once claimed Moore, himself, believed that silly theory, or
>placed such a thing in his book, did I?
Yes, you did. The paragraph before the one quoted below reads:
"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. ;)"
>What I said was: "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".
Yes, you did ... right after writing that "Jim Moore thinks that all
of these things going on with Connally were merely due to the Governor
reacting to the SOUND ..."
>
>"Anyone" does not automatically equal "Jim Moore"
True ... but you did refer to JIM MOORE and did write that
"Jim Moore thinks that all of these things going on with Connally were
merely due to the Governor reacting to the SOUND ..."
.. immediately prior to writing the next paragraph. You certainly did
leave the clear impression that your "anyone" referred to Jim Moore.
>and I never said it
>did. I was merely showing how untenable Moore's theory is of believing
>Connally was hit as late as Z235. He must ignore the lapel movement
>entirely via such an argument...and he must attribute ALL of the other
>stuff (hat flip; grimace; shoulder drop @ 224; and shoulder "flinch" at
>226) to Connally's merely HEARING the sound of a shot (because JM
>doesn't have JBC reacting to "concrete fragments" as he does JFK).*
You are contradicting yourself. You tell us that you were not
referring to Jim Moore when you write, "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".
But earlier you wrote:
<quote on>
"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".)**
<quote off>
You used the word "ALL" to refer to your description of "Connolly's
suit jacket" bulging out...
So, in fact, you did indeed refer to Jim Moore believing that it was
the mere SOUND of a shot that caused "ALL of these things" to occur.
Case closed
PF
David Von Pein
After looking at my "lapel" comments in my review, I will humbly
apologize to Mr. Fokes. He was correct. I did imply that Mr. Moore
believed the lapel flip was due only to JBC "hearing" the shot...which,
of course, is nonsense of the first order.
The "lapel" passage should have read as follows (a revised version):
"Jim Moore thinks that all of these things going on with Connally
(except the lapel movement, which is totally 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".)**
** = Good luck to anyone who thinks a piece of fabric (such as a coat
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
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.
***It seems to me, that the truth is what is important, not whether one is
a an advocate of a genreally agreed point of view.
Jim Moore's book was the first one i read after the movie JFK was
releassed. It was the only non conspiracy book i saw at the bookstore,
such that i could compare the LN POV with the conspiracy POV.
Just reading through the book, Moore's SBT hypothosis seemed plausable.
After viewing the Zapruder film several times, i changed my opinion about
his hypothosis. From the look of shock on JFK's face and the rapid
movement of his arms, it was obvious he was reacting to having been shot,
as opposed to reacting to debris kicked up from a ricochetting bullet.
Then i noticed that Connally was making rapid movements in unison with
JFK. At first, i did not notice the lapel flip, but had spotted it before
Posner had published his book. I am not aware of Moore talking about the
lapel flip in his book.
The SBT critics had placed a shot at Z237, when Connally's shoulder
suddenly dropped. It seemed as if Moore simply turned their argument back
on them and incorporated the shoulder drop into his own SBT.
***Ron Judge
>
> 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 actually
> occurred 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.
>
SNIP
Peter Fokes
>>David VP wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>***It seems to me, that the truth is what is important, not whether one is
> an advocate of a generally agreed point of view.
Amen.
> Jim Moore's book was the first one I read after the movie JFK was
>released. It was the only non conspiracy book I saw at the bookstore,
>such that I could compare the LN POV with the conspiracy POV.
>
>Just reading through the book, Moore's SBT hypothosis seemed plausible.
You have hit on an important point. Analysis of the Zapruder film is a
subjective exercise. Opinions vary wildly even among the LN crowd.
Admittedly they are in broad agreement with the WC findings though.
>After viewing the Zapruder film several times, I changed my opinion about
>his hypothosis.
Moore is quite certain of his opinion:
"Quite plainly, there are very few individuals on the face of the
earth who have more knowledge of the Kennedy assassination than I do.
Unless you are one of those three of four, you owe it to yourself to
keep an open mind ....." He asserts there are only a handful of people
who have viewed the Zapruder film more often than him. Yet here we see
the problem .... others see something different.
> From the look of shock on JFK's face and the rapid
>movement of his arms, it was obvious he was reacting to having been shot,
>as opposed to reacting to debris kicked up from a ricochetting bullet.
>Then I noticed that Connally was making rapid movements in unison with
>JFK. At first,Ii did not notice the lapel flip, but had spotted it before
>Posner had published his book. I am not aware of Moore talking about the
>lapel flip in his book.
>
>The SBT critics had placed a shot at Z237, when Connally's shoulder
>suddenly dropped. It seemed as if Moore simply turned their argument back
>on them and incorporated the shoulder drop into his own SBT.
>
>***Ron Judge
PF
Peter Fokes
>David I am both amazed
>and completely impressed
....
Happy to hear you are bowled over again, Ed Cage.
Tell me, who do YOU think Oswald assisted when he was leaving the TSDB
to catch a bus?
Pierce Allman or Robert McNeil?
Also ... in your opinion what IS the "definitive" LN book on the
assassination?
Is it "Case Closed"
Is it "Conspiracy of One: The Definitive Book of the Kennedy
Assassination:
Is it Fuhrman's "Simple Act of Murder"?
Or are you bowled over by 'em all?
regards pfokes 129833734647dec1206
David Von Pein
Which, of course, is EXACTLY what I said within my review of Mr. Moore's
book. Maybe you missed these remarks:
"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.
.... 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." -- DVP
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "It seems to me, that the truth is what is important, not whether one
>is an advocate of a generally agreed point of view." <<<
>
>Which, of course, is EXACTLY what I said within my review of Mr. Moore's
>book. Maybe you missed these remarks:
I believe you have missed Mr. Judge's rejoinder to a specific comment
you made. It seems clear he was replying to one particular sentence
in your remarks that directly preceded his reply.
David VP wrote:
"I really hate to bash a Lone-Assassin believer, but sometimes it
becomes necessary, IMO......"
Mr. Judge replied:
"It seems to me, that the truth is what is important, not whether one
is a an advocate of a generally agreed point of view."
To which I replied:
"Amen"
Mr. Judge, I must point out, unfailingly follows his own decree by
discussing the evidence presented by posters of all persuasions
WITHOUT feeling he must "bash" anyone. He sets a good example for
other posters.
"Bashing" has nothing to do with our debates.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Addendum to a previous post........
>
>After looking at my "lapel" comments in my review, I will humbly
>apologize to Mr. Fokes. He was correct.
Thank you, David.
Too bad Mr. Moore's book does not contain an index. I read his book
this week for the first time.
>I did imply that Mr. Moore
>believed the lapel flip was due only to JBC "hearing" the shot...which,
>of course, is nonsense of the first order.
>
>The "lapel" passage should have read as follows (a revised version):
>
>"Jim Moore thinks that all of these things going on with Connally
>(except the lapel movement, which is totally 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".)**
Now that I think of it, you appear to be correct re: Moore's
inattention to the lapel flip.
>
>** = 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."
>
PF