Review written by Mike Sylwester 710-B Caroline Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401-5904 (703) 373-9807, Written 9 July 1993 (pre-Posner) Book Review Jim Moore, "Conspiracy of One: The Definitive Book on the Kennedy Assassination" (Fort Worth, Texas: The Summit Group, 1990), 217 pages, illustrated, bibliography but no index. Books providing evidence that President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy clearly and increasingly dominate the selection of books available on the subject. Even people who don't read books about the assassination have to notice this dominance when they browse through the non-fiction shelves of book stores and libraries. However, because many citizens reflexively reject conspiracy explanations, there will always be a market for at least one book that basically defends the official explanation of the assassination. Some publisher will always fill that niche, and Jim Moore's Conspiracy of One is currently that one book. Simply by being for sale, it reassures the remaining true believers that there is still a serious argument against conspiracy. Most serious students of the assassination have just as reflexively rejected Conspiracy of One, but I think it should be formally rebutted in at least one major review in an assassination journal, so here it is . Moore writes in his preface that the reader should believe his book for five reasons: 1. He has a history degree and has spent 23 years researching the assassination. This is true. He is obviously well informed about the assassination. He has read the most prominent books and correctly explains their main arguments, and he has accomplished his own serious and original analysis of the evidence. I also add that he writes about the subject very clearly. 2. He writes: "I have no axe to grind. I began as a critic, and I have progressed through their ranks. .... I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the arguments the critics use and the methods they employ in their quest for public attention and personal gain." He is half true on this point. The fact that he prevously believed in a conspiracy and now rejects it does indicate a mind that was at least previously open to many possibilities. On the other hand, he obviously does have "an axe to grind." His book is saturated with hostility toward the critics who failed to simultaneously experience his conversion of opinion. He relentlessly characterizes them as wicked, deceptive people on a "quest for public attention and personal gain." You can open the book to practically any page at random and see Moore's fierce, insulting invective. 3. He writes: "My book deals with nothing but evidence, while most others on the subject deal with nothing but innuendo. This is a universal truth; the evidence in this case does nothing but strengthen the lone-assassin theory. Critics are hard-pressed to ignore it, but ignore it they do." This statement illustrates what I said in the above point. Here Moore claims that only he uses evidence, and the critics use only innuendo. This is a universal truth! It's also an indication of a mind that is completely closed and out of touch with common sense. Here's an example of the innuendo-free evidence that makes his book unique: I have watched Robert Groden, Josiah Thompson, G. Robert Blakey and others come to Dealey Plaza. The first thing these writers and researchers alway do is look up at that sixth-floor window. If they truly believe Oswald innocent of the assassination, why do they crane their heads to stare upward at the sniper's perch? The answer is that, deep in the secret recesses of their minds and hearts, nearly all these people accept what will ultimately be history's verdict: Lee harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed the President. [page 208] 4. He says the reader should believe him because he does not accept the government-sponsored version of the assassination and proposes his own, independent explanation. This is true; he is indeed an independent and critical thinker. He severely criticizes Robert Blakey's House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) for its selection and interpretation of the evidence. In fact, I enjoyed reading his devastating criticisms of the HSCA and Warren Commission explanations. 5. He writes: "Most importantly, this book names names and produces evidence -- something no Warren Commission critic has ever done. ... I have taken pains to prove each point I've made herein, while most critics substantiate their questions with more questions." This breath-taking lie about the critics is another illustration of what I wrote about his first and third points, above. Since Moore relentlessly denounces the critics for their quest for public attention and personal gain, his own personal ambitions are fair game. How modest are Moore's ambitions? The book's illustrations include an article about him from the Arkansas Democrat published on July 26, 1976, when he was a 17-year-old boy. Here are some excerpts: Moore plans to be president of the United States someday. Moore's timetable is so definite that he must skip his senior year in high school and graduate from college in an election year. .... "I want to go as high as I can go. .... People think you are an egotist if you say you want to be president. I want to start in local politics and gradually work up. ... I can't see any use of waiting around for my senior year in high school ... I want to get started." According to the dust jacket, Moore is now "an executive director for Success Motivation Institute," where he instructs less successful, less motivated people on how they can rise up to his own exemplary achievements. Moore claims that his explanation of the assassination will bring salvation to American society: I have chosen to offer a way out of madness. To believe that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy ... is a path to personal doubt and disaster. Only when you and I come to grips with the fact that this mammoth tragedy can, in fact, be blamed on one man, can the personal growth and healing process begin. .... The critics have done enough damage to our society. Indeed, it's my belief that they've succeeded in doing something no one should have the right or means to do -- they've made us doubt ourselves. Something has to be done. .... The time has come to stop doubting ourselves, our government, and the institu tions we have abided for so long. .... A quarter century is too long to be duped, fooled, and mislead by a handful of greedy individuals intent on destroying the credibility of a system many obviously detest. The harm the critics have done to us is reparable, but we must start now. [pp 207-208, 211-212] Here's how he describes the feelings of most ordinary people about the assassination: The problem now is that no one cares. Mention the assassination at a dinner party, a business function, or a social gathering, and see how many people roll their eyes. Each has his or her own preconceived idea of what happened or who was responsible, but all are tired of the subject. They would be content to let it rest. They would be content to let it rest. These are the people who are, quite simply tired of it all. .... They are not the people who will buy or read this book. .... And yet, these are the very people my message must somehow reach, for they are the ones who most desperately need to hear what I have to say. The time has come to stop doubting ourselves, our government, and institutions.... [pp 208-209] However, those concerned citizens who do buy books and videos to inform themselves about the assassination are denounced by Moore as follows: "There is no reason for the speculation [about conspiracy] to remain rapant, except the public's willingness to support the most outlandish critics and to believe virtually anything displayed as evidence. .... Had David Lifton's Best Evidence video tape presentation contained the truth, it would not have sold faster than book store employees could put it on the shelves. Had Fort Worth journalist Jim Marrs been interested in the truth, his best-seller Crossfire would never have been written." [pp 191, 189] In his epilogue, he writes: "I am not a rich man. I'm confident that I will be someday, with or without the royalites from this book. ... The simple truth is that the critics need to be bashed, by someone who knows what he's talking about. I am that someone." These ludicrously arrogant statements lampoon Moore's own attacks on other people's quest for public attention and personal gain. I think Moore himself suffers from a colossal ambition, an inability to cooperate with other intellectuals as equals, and a messianic fantasy of leading the apathetic, ignorant masses. Let me now address the substance of the book. Moore mostly writes about how President Kennedy was shot -- the number of bullets, their tracectories, the wounds, etc. He obviously believes that a satisfactory explanation of these questions should be enough to prove there was no conspiracy. He treats the other indications of conspiracy only intermittently, superficially, and often hilariously. For example, he resolves all questions about Jack Ruby on page 145. According to Moore, the essential evidence is as follows: 1) After the Warren Commission's investigation, Rabbi Hillel Silverman, who frequently visited Ruby in jail, told staff lawyer David Belin that Ruby was not in a conspiracy, and Belin then documented this by mentioning it in a book. 2) "I [Moore] met a man who retired from the Marcello organization in New Orleans. During several conversations, this individual told me that the assassination and killing of Oswald were acts independent of organized crime. This person told me several times that real mafia hits don't occur in a crowded plaza or in the police department basement." Having thus presented this preponderance of evidence about Ruby, Moore concludes: "My research leads me to believe that only in Professor Blakey's mind did Ruby kill Oswald to silence him." This is a very typical example of Moore's almost total lack of interest and seriousness in addressing other issues. He writes as if his successful explanation of the bullet trajectories will trump all other considerations, which are therefore easily dismissed in the meantime. As a basis for his bullet theory, Moore accepts the authenticity of all the official material evidence (the rifle, bullet and fragments, films, autopsy materials, etc.). He accepts that one bullet could go through both Kennedy and Connally and remain in such good condition. He also accepts the HSCA determinations of the wound locations and descriptions. In general, he is intellectually responsible in establishing these assumptions. He acknowledges that these points are controversial, states why they are controversial, and identifies major researchers or works that challenge the authenticity of this evidence. He then provides some reasons for accepting this evidence as authentic, although he practically always also throws in a personal attack on the motives, intelligence, and integrity of the other researchers. Although I myself believe that much of this evidence is faked, I do acknowledge that he lays his logical groundwork well enough to deserve a respectful hearing of his main theme. I would paraphrase his main theme as follows. Having accepted the government's evidence as authentic, Moore raises two major and essential objections to the official explanations of the shooting: 1) When Kennedy was sitting upright, a bullet from above and behind could not have entered Kennedy's back shoulder and exited the middle front of his neck, because the bullet is supposed to be going downwards, but this bullet track is going upwards. 2) When Connally was sitting upright with his right arm on the car door, this same bullet could not have entered behind his right armpit, through his right wrist, and ended up in his left thigh. These objections are not novel or complicated. These objections have been demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly by many critics, and they are obvious to even pedestrian observers of the film frames. The only reason the official explanations have even the slightest theoretical possibility was that the limousine passed behind a sign for a split second, when Kennedy and Connally in theory might have very quickly and improbably contorted their bodies into alignment. Moore develops his own explanation of the bullets in the last fourth of his book. Briefly, he argues that one bullet did go through both Kennedy and Connally, but significantly later than the official explanations claim (the Warren Commission said it was somewhere in frames 210-225, and the HSCA said as early as frame 190.). Moore argues that Connally was hit at around frames 237-238 of the Zapruder film, which agrees with the opinion of many major critics (e.g. Josiah Thompson, Robert Groden). At that moment, Connally had twisted his right shoulder down and far to the right, into a position through which a bullet could indeed obviously travel from the back of the right armpit to the left thigh. In addition, Connally obviously reacted with pain at that moment. Moore then deduces that this bullet must have passed through Kennedy a split second earlier, at about frames 235-236. Indeed, at that moment, Kennedy has leaned forward, hunched his back up, and lowered his chin, putting him into a position where it seems plausible that a bullet from above and behind could hit his upper back and exit the middle front of his neck. The major novelty of Moore's explanation is that he says Kennedy had still not been hit by any bullet before frames 235-236, when Kennedy was very obviously grabbing toward his neck and puffing his cheeks. The reason for those movements, Moore asserts, is that Kennedy had heard a shot that missed, so he ducked his head and raised his arms in a reflexive, defensive motion. I know from my own research that a few nearby eyewitnesses did report their opinions that Kennedy did not seem to be hit by the first shot, but just seemed to be ducking, so this explanation of Kennedy's initial movements has some plausibility. The official explanations claim that Kennedy started these movements because he was hit by the bullet in the back, as early as frame 190, which was more than two seconds earlier than frame 235. In those earlier frames, however, the bodies were not aligned for any one bullet from alleged "sniper's nest" on the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) sixth-floor east window to cause the alleged wounds in Kennedy and Connally. Moore agrees with the critics that this official bullet path is blatantly preposterous and simply impossible. Also, the official explanations required Connally to delay his visible physical reaction for a couple seconds. Moore's book includes copies of several Zapruder frames, including frame 235. Moore instructs us to examine this frame and agree with him that Kennedy and Connally are aligned and positioned for the single bullet. Just looking at the picture, I suppose it's possible to imagine one bullet doing the trick. However, the picture does not show the direction of the sniper's nest, and Moore does not illustrate his proposed bullet trajectory with any drawings. Fortunately, R. B. Cutler has published -- in his very useful book The Umbrella Man: Evidence of a Conspiracy -- a carefully calculated drawing of these spatial relationships for frame 234 (which is not significantly different from Moore's frame 235). As you can see yourself from Cutler's drawing, Moore's proposed single bullet path is just as impossible as the official explanations. People trying to understand the possible bullet paths need to keep in mind that the sniper's nest was not directly behind the limousine, but was instead was behind and somewhat to the right. Therefore, the alleged bullet was angling to the left, in relation to the limousine's travel-line (see Cutler's drawing of frame 234). This makes simply impossible all single-bullet explanations that hypothesize a bullet from the sniper's nest passing through Kennedy's neck and into Connally's right back. Likewise, no bullet from the sniper's nest could have entered the back of Kennedy's head and exited out the right side of his head. We know that Kennedy's head was practically parallel to the limousine's travel-line, so no such path is possible. In sum, Jim Moore's book Conspiracy of One does not provide an argument that should convince any serious students of the assassination about the bullets shot at Dealey Plaza. More generally, the book does not usefully address any other aspects of the assassination outside the bullets issue. The book is only for people desparate for some reason to deny a conspiracy.