From: U54778@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: NEW BREED OF RESEARCHER - PART THREE
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:43:23 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago


  After I posted my first attack on McAdams, a reader of this newsgroup
emailed me to tell me that he had found the WC work convincing after
being persuaded by finding untruths in several anti-WC authors
and reading Moore's Conspiracy Of One.  Well, I won't quibble with
finding errors and stretchings of the truth in those authors.
I found the same thing and it lead me to do the same thing which
was to go back and reread the WC account.
I was still not impressed.  I then tracked down particular items found
in different authors and discovered that not all authors are equal in
presenting us with a full version of what can be found.  I never had a
problem with Sylvia Meagher.  Whenever I traced something down that she
had written about, it checked out fine.  Weisberg, though filled with
venom, generally can be relied upon to give the facts straight.
   As for Moore, I have his book.  I have only perused it and found it
puzzling in several places but did not take the time to either read it
entirely or investigate it's enigmatic judgements.  Obviously, M. Duke
Lane has.  Again, I have found that this Lane generally can be relied
upon to write about facts that he has fully studied.
  Even if you don't agree with all that he says, those of you
who may have been influenced by Moore, should be exposed to
some criticism of Moore from someone who has studied the problems.


                       Conspiracy of Errors
                       ====================
                Copyright (c) 1992-93, M. Duke Lane

                     -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

     This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that
     it is not sold or published in any fee- or subscription-based
     publication.|

                     -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

CONSPIRACY OF ONE: The Definitive Book on the Kennedy Assassination
Jim Moore (The Summit Group, Ft Worth TX, 1991) Revised Edition,
220pp (Includes Introduction by Carl A. Henry; Bibliography; Index;
Chapter End-notes)

 Overview
 --------
     CONSPIRACY OF ONE by Texan Jim Moore supports the
lone-assassin position put forth by the Warren Commission but adds
a surprising new explanation of how the events of November 22, 1963
unfolded. If you've never read anything else about the
assassination, this book may convince you that the Warren
Commission gave the truth to the American public; however to anyone
who has followed the controversy in any detail, the errors,
omissions, and distortions of CONSPIRACY OF ONE are of the same
sort employed in the Warren Commission Report.

                              * * *

     Jim Moore's CONSPIRACY OF ONE is perhaps the most paradoxical
of all the research books, regardless of which side of the official
theories they may fall upon. Moore claims once to have been a
"conspiracy buff" (and indeed provides a reproduction of an article
from the July 26, 1976 Arkansas Democrat wherein he states--at age
17--that he intends to solve the JFK case before going on to become
President himself. The article asks, perhaps quite rightly, "What
kind of nut is this?"), but he has made a wholesale conversion to
a somewhat more "orthodox" viewpoint... albeit with a new twist.

     CONSPIRACY OF ONE reads very much like one might expect from
someone who'd spent their entire life refuting the Bible and who
does a sudden turn-around claiming that every word of it ought to
be taken literally. The exception is that Moore adds a new wrinkle
by asserting something new, akin to such a revelation that Jesus
was Black. As might be considered typical for such a convert,
Conspiracy Of One seeks to repudiate the author's past life, and
derides all those who have not "seen the light" as has Moore.

     Moore complains that all of the criticisms he's received have
taken the form of personal attacks, whether what he terms
"personality failures," his physical stature (apparently someone
called him a "small man"), or his "tendency toward twitism." He
confidently takes this to mean that nobody can refute his evidence
without realizing (or refusing to) that it is possible if not
likely that many people are not able to get by his insulting
innuendo attacks upon other authors who don't share his new-found
views.

     Moore's denunciations of other authors reads very much like
the familiar CIA dispatch directing its agents how to respond to
these authors' assertions: that they are out solely for personal
enrichment, are somehow furthering their own political goals, or
that they must somehow find some political significance in the
assassination even while there is none. One almost expects him to
say that he's read the Warren Report and finds it "far superior"
than any of these other works!(1)

     (Even while Moore decries that others have made money through
     publication of their books, in his "Postscript" (in the
     Revised Edition) he admits that he is likely to receive
     royalties from the sale of his own book. However, in Moore's
     case, it is okay because he considers this to be "payment for
     years upon years of research, effort and his| desire to set
     the record straight." Apparently, the other authors are not
     to be allowed the same consideration; they're "greedy;" Moore
     is merely being "justly compensated.")

     Robert Groden is without a doubt the most prominent target
that Moore goes after(2); one could almost conclude that Moore is
exercising a personal vendetta against Groden, he derides him so
frequently (61 references to Groden in the Index, only one of which
is even vaguely complimentary) and with a single-minded vengeance.

     Moore almost explicitly calls Groden a liar, and states that
he isn't even qualified to judge the contents of the autopsy
photos. Groden, of course, played a major role on the HSCA
photographic evidence panel, which Moore implies was merely as its
"lone dissenter." In fact, while Moore credits the HSCA panel with
"excellent enhancement work," he conveniently neglects to mention
that much of this work was Groden's own.

     Why stop with denouncing just one "critic?" While Moore is
busy establishing his own credentials ("I've spent more time in
Dealey Plaza than any other critic or researcher who has ever
written about this case"), he casts aspersions upon Mary Ferrell
by saying that "she had never been to the sixth floor until Project
Director Conover Hunt took her there in 1988.(3)" Of course, he does
mention that it had been closed to the public for years, but that
doesn't keep him from implying to his readers that Mrs Ferrell is
somehow "unqualified" as a researcher.

     And what about Dr Cyril Wecht? Moore includes a footnote
quoting an unspecified source as saying that Wecht "couldn't even
read x-rays." Of course, Moore doesn't say this himself, but he
plainly raises doubts in readers' minds about Dr Wecht's
credentials. At the same time, he holds up Dr Michael Baden(4) as
"one of the world's foremost pathologists," and cites Baden's
service as Chief Medical Examiner of  "one of the world's largest
cities." Again, while Moore doesn't comment directly on Wecht's
similarly-impressive credentials(5), his omission of them coupled
with the above-mentioned footnote and classification of Wecht as
"differing with the panel at almost every point," it must leave the
reader wondering who this Wecht character was and what business he
had on the panel if he couldn't even read x-rays!

     Moore even derides G. Robert Blakey by claiming that Blakey
"misguided" the committee and ignored their evidence (or pressured
them to change it) so that he could write a book about how the Mob
killed Kennedy.

     Aspersions by innuendo. Nobody is safe, except of course Moore
himself. While he rails against Groden's "new-found ability to read
and interpret x-rays," he admits that he cannot either, but at
least had the presence of mind to do "what any clear-thinking
historian would do in this kind of situation:" he "asked those who
were qualified to interpret what they had seen to do so," implying
of course that nobody else conferred with experts but merely drew
their own inexpert conclusions.

     These are, of course, only a few examples of the vitriol which
Moore spews forth in Conspiracy Of One. Is it any wonder that
someone called him a "small man," and most likely not referring to
his stature? Is it surprising that many people are not able to get
beyond Moore's attacks on other authors with whom he disagrees to
discuss the evidence he puts forth in his book? To both questions,
I'd respond "probably not."

     Since I don't know any of these authors personally and don't
feel any need to defend them against Moore's attacks (their
reputations and efforts are defense enough, in my opinion), let's
get on to discussing the book and Moore's "evidence."

     The basic premise of CONSPIRACY OF ONE is that of Oswald's
guilt; there is little doubt of it in Moore's mind, and it is
central to his thesis. How does he arrive at this conclusion? Quite
simply: using a "singular bit of logic," that "once the hypothesis
is admitted that Oswald killed Tippit, there can be little doubt
that he killed the President as well." The critics, he says, "face
an impossible task: to prove Oswald innocent of the assassination,
they must prove him innocent of the Tippit murder as well." I have
never understood this "logic" outside the context of the Warren
Report, and beg of anyone who does to please explain it to me. It
would seem that anyone else who died that day in Dallas must be
Oswald's fault too.

     In his presentation of "evidence," Moore attempts to discredit
witnesses wherever possible. He says that J.C.  Price(6) couldn't
possibly have seen anyone run behind the fence, not only because
he was "three city blocks away" (it's nowhere near as far as this
description makes it sound), but also because a shooter would "by
necessity have to begin his flight in full view of the spectators
lining the south side of Elm Street." I don't know how he arrives
at that conclusion: this does not appear to be so in Mark Lane's
rooftop interview with Price in his film "The Plot to Kill JFK,"
based on his best-selling book, RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

     He states that Jean Hill couldn't have seen anyone behind the
fence from her vantage point on the Plaza; she'd have had to have
been watching "from a helicopter" in order to do so. While
certainly Mrs Hill couldn't have seen anyone behind the pergola,
I think it very likely she could've seen a man of average height
if he were only behind the picket fence, which is just over 5 feet
tall.

     (Moore does not dispute, however, Mrs Hill's claim regarding
     the "Secret Service agent" behind the fence--no doubt because
     such a man was also reported by police and sheriff's deputies
     on the scene--but he nevertheless quickly dismisses the
     presence of the man and any less-than-legitimate reason for
     him to have been there(7).)

     The "puff of smoke" seen by S.M. Holland and others on the
overpass is explained away by stating that Moore has "on several
different occasions, noticed identical smoke there myself." He
attributes it to automobile exhaust "when a car parked near the
fence is started or idled."

     I'm unsure of what he means by "identical" since he didn't see
the smoke Holland et al saw, and there's no way to determine just
what that might've looked like. That he's seen smoke there cannot
be discounted, but identical smoke? How would he know?

     Moreover, there is no evidence that a car had, in fact, been
started there that day; indeed, the only car mentioned at that
location is one which someone had paced back and forth behind,
leaving cigarette butts on the ground and mud on its bumper (which
Moore wisely does not attempt to explain away so easily or dismiss
out of hand as he does so many other things).

     While Moore challenges the "critics" to prove that the smoke
came from a weapon, I think it is fairly safe to say that we can
prove that the smoke didn't come from a car. While there may be no
way to prove conclusively that the puff of smoke came from a gun,
it can be said with certainty that it could have. Those familiar
with the case will remember that members of the Warren Commission
"concluded" that "modern firearms don't emit smoke when fired,"
tests made of the Mannlicher-Carcano showed that that rifle, at
least, did in fact emit smoke when fired.

     If a number of witnesses detail seeing a puff of smoke and
hearing a report somewhere in that vicinity--enough to convince
them that something "out of the ordinary" was going on along the
knoll--it would seem to me that the burden of proof is upon Moore
to prove that the smoke did not come from a gun. His expostulation
that it came from a car being started or idled is hardly
conclusive.

     CONSPIRACY OF ONE also disclaims that Lee Bowers saw anything
"out of the ordinary" behind the fence from his position in the
railroad tower. Moore points out that Bowers merely recalled having
noticed "some commotion" there. I guess in Moore's view, "some
commotion" is "perfectly ordinary." He goes on to say that Bowers
had to have left his control panel, "somewhat removed" from the
south window of the tower, in order to even see the area behind the
picket fence at all.

     That Bowers may indeed have left his control panel to view the
passing motorcade is "disproved" by Moore, who states that in order
for Bowers to have been able to throw the red-on-red signal to
block all trains from leaving the yard, Bowers "had to be sitting
at his control panel to take this action." Apparently Moore
considers it impossible for Bowers--who is now dead and cannot
confirm either supposition--to have run across the small room and
flipped the necessary switches while still standing.

     It's all so simple it's a wonder none of us had ever noticed
before. What's wrong with us anyway?

     Moore also attempts to cast doubt on Bowers' testimony by
quoting his testimony that he wasn't sure where the shots came
from, disregarding the fact that the tower is fully enclosed, and
that the reports would've been unlikely to have reached Bowers
unfiltered or unmuffled, even through an open window. Again,
nothing new or earth-shattering here, but it does raise doubts in
the mind of readers (or confirm them), and helps to establish
Moore's "credibility and sobriety" in their minds.

     CONSPIRACY OF ONE examines the physical evidence at the
Depository. Regarding the rifle (according to Moore), Police Lt
J.C. Day  "allowed no other officers to handle the rifle;" this is
in direct contrast to what Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig wrote
concerning this episode(8), that at least two other people handled
the rifle besides Day. Since Craig's manuscript is not widely
circulated, Moore can perhaps be forgiven for this oversight.

     CONSPIRACY OF ONE makes much of the "sniper's nest," which
Moore helped to re-create for the Sixth Floor exhibit(9). Moore
claims to have re-created the "sniper's nest" placing the boxes
"within one-half inch of their original positions" using a photo
taken "immediately after the assassination," and "marks on the old
wooden floor, covered by plywood a few days after the
assassination."

     Moore never explains why, considering the number of
photographers who were rearranging the boxes in the so-called
sniper's nest during the course of the afternoon, he had settled
upon one and only one configuration as being "original." Perhaps
even more amazingly he doesn't explain why "marks" would have been
left on the wooden floor only in the "original" positions, and not
in any other positions where the boxes were presumably moved to
during the course of the day. They had been there, at most, only
a few hours; why would they leave indelible marks still visible
many years later? Apparently, they must have had some special
properties because of what they were supposedly used for; there's
an awful lot of things that happened that day that would be quite
remarkable at any other time.

     (It is also noteworthy that no photographs of the outside of
the Depository show boxes in the window at this location, further
straining the credibility of an "original" positioning.)

     When Conspiracy Of One discusses the paper bag, he takes on
the tone of the Warren Report, dismissing evidence and labeling
witnesses "genuinely mistaken" (at least he's more forgiving than
the Warren Report!). To his credit, he admits that the bag had not
been photographed in place(10), nor were there any fibers or oil
on it to connect it conclusively with the gun. He also states that
both Wesley Buell Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, the
only two witnesses to have seen the bag at all, disagreed with the
length of the bag placed in evidence for the Warren Commission (a
facsimile, since the FBI labs had ruined the original in their
testing), and agrees that it would have had to have been at least
35 inches long to have carried the rifle(11).

     Nevertheless, after "disproving" Robert Groden once again(12),
he goes on to state his belief that the bag was used to bring the
rifle into the building, even despite a complete lack of evidence
or eyewitness testimony to support this.

     Moore correctly asserts that the bag material was proven to
have come from a roll at the Depository, but ignores the testimony
of Troy West, the Depository's wrapping clerk, who stated that
Oswald had no access to the roll of wrapping paper.

     Moore says that he believes "that Oswald manufactured the
bag... at the Depository prior to leaving for the Paine residence
in Irving on the afternoon prior to the assassination.", ignoring
Buell Frazier's testimony that Oswald did not have any such paper
with him on their ride to Irving the previous evening(13). In
short, there is absolutely no evidence to support these contentions
on Moore's part; he is, in effect, misleading his readers to
presume Oswald's guilt without any basis in fact.

     If this is the kind of "research" Moore has done, speculating
and ignoring what people have to say to build a case--and bear in
mind, I've only examined what he's said in the first four chapters
of Conspiracy Of One; there are eight more to go!--then it
shouldn't be any wonder that people haven't taken the time to
respond to him. Let's take a look at another of his speculations,
as if it were really necessary to prove that Moore's work
represents anything other than shoddy research and misinformation:

     Conspiracy Of One defends the dented cartridge case found near
the corner window by stating that the dent "is typical of a mark
made when the empty brass casing is reinserted into the rifle
breech," which he claims to have done many times with his own
Carcano. To Moore, this "suggests that a curious police
investigator wanted to make sure the cartridge fit into Oswald's
rifle," again without any evidence that such an action was
warranted or actually took place. A neat explanation, to be sure,
but without any basis in fact. Pure speculation. It appears that
Moore is afflicted with the same trait he attributes to Robert
Groden: an active imagination!

     Moore takes up the Warren Report once again in his discussion
of the Tippit killing: Moore has Oswald arriving at 10th and Patton
at 1:15pm, knowing full well that a "citizen" radioed the report
of his shooting at 1:16pm, barely a minute later. This ignores the
testimony of Domingo Benevides, who said that he waited "a few
minutes" before attempting to call in to the dispatcher. Benevides,
of course, could not operate the police radio, a task which fell
to T.F. Bowley, who had been driving by with his wife and daughter.
It also ignores the schedule of the bus that Helen Markham was
trying to catch when she saw Tippit shot.

     Have researchers, including the FBI, done all of this work for
naught, so that Moore can pretend it never happened? And here I
thought he at least used to be a "critic:" has he forgotten
everything he'd learned in those heady days?

     Two other interesting pronouncements of Conspiracy Of One:

     Moore states that "as one might expect, since Jefferson
Boulevard, approximately one block away from 10th| is a major
thoroughfare, police sirens sounded there just after Tippit was
found dead." To the uninitiated, this is an innocuous statement,
well within the realm of likelihood... except that anyone familiar
with November 22, 1963 in Dallas knows full well that Tippit was
alone in the Oak Cliff area, and all remaining units had been
called to Dealey Plaza! To read CONSPIRACY OF ONE, the reader would
imagine that it was an otherwise normal day in this section of
town, with all units in their regular patrol areas (except, of
course, Tippit, but this too goes unmentioned). It also ignores
another lesser-known fact that Tippit's body had been removed from
the scene by the ambulance drivers before the first police unit
arrived, which would indicate that at least ten minutes had elapsed
before the first sirens were heard.

     Another wonderful example (unrelated to Tippit) is Moore's
contention that "Dr Perry did not communicate with the doctors who
performed the autopsy on the President's body until the day after
the assassination. Thus, the doctors at Bethesda did not know, and
could only surmise, that the site of the tracheotomy also marked
the site of a bullet wound."

     The problems with this simple statement are quickly apparent.
First, it ignores the fact that the Bethesda doctors did not track
the back bullet, and had absolutely no idea that the tracheotomy
incision had anything at all to do with a bullet wound until they
surmised that following Dr Humes' call to Parkland the following
morning. Second, Moore presumes to put the onus on Dr Perry to have
called Humes when in fact there is no reason to imagine that Perry
would have any idea of whom to call to pass on any information at
all... unless, of course, Moore is prepared to introduce new
evidence that someone did, in fact, call Parkland to inform the
doctors where JFK's autopsy was being held and by whom. I'm not
holding my breath.

     Moore, as we have already seen, accuses Robert Groden and
others of "newfound abilities," yet is not above displaying his
own. An example of this is found in his discussion of the famous
backyard photos. Here he dismisses the line across Oswald's chin,
stating that "with each successive copy, disconnected lines in the
original will eventually give the impression of a continuous line."
I wonder whether maybe Moore consulted another of his famous
"experts" or deduced this on his own? He doesn't say.

     Moore goes on to accuse Groden with fraud: "The original
photos, which Groden has had the opportunity to work with, do not
show any kind of line extending all the way across Oswald's chin.
The only thing shown in the region is the cleft beneath his lower
lip. In High Treason, the line becomes quite apparent, and has
obviously been added to the photograph."

     And how's this for a new twist? Moore asserts that the
backyard photos were proven to have been taken with Oswald's camera
"to the exclusion of all others in the world." Sound like a
ballistics test to you? Certainly it can be determined that a
bullet has been fired through one gun to the exclusion of all
others, a photograph? It fairly boggles the mind.

     CONSPIRACY OF ONE's treatment of HSCA is equally misleading.
Moore blithely notes that Richard Sprague "resigned at the end of
March" from his position as the commission's chief counsel, being
replaced by G. Robert Blakey. None of the politics and arguments
ever happened, Sprague merely resigned of his own volition.
Absolutely normal, but a fair representation of history? Methinks
not.

     He also indicates that "if an honest, fact-finding panel
composed of elected members of the United States Congress can't
locate a conspiracy, that probably means there wasn't one to begin
with."

     Couldn't locate a conspiracy?!? That the final report did, in
fact, find evidence that Kennedy "was probably killed as a result
of a conspiracy" is, in Moore's opinion, wholly the result of "the
discovery of the Dictabelt evidence and Chief Counsel Blakey's
gerrymandering of the related expert opinion and testimony...."
Moore attempts to discount and disprove the validity of the
Dictabelt (not very successfully to someone familiar with it, but
very successfully, I would think, to someone not familiar with it).
And of course, we can't forget that Blakey is already suspect since
he (gasp!) wrote a book!

     To be fair, Moore does not disparage everyone in CONSPIRACY
OF ONE: he relies heavily upon and credits the writings of Warren
Commission counsel David Belin, and the quasi-medical "evidence"
uncovered by none other than the urologist cum
pathologist/ballistics expert Dr John Lattimer and his two sons.
Belin is almost a godsend to Moore, although he does indicate that
Lattimer has erred somewhat in his final conclusions because of
something that "can't be seen in the Zapruder film," which brings
us full circle back to Moore's "final solution."

     What is this "final solution?" Simply that when JFK emerged
from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, he was not reacting to a
bullet, but merely a noise; he was covering his face either in
reaction to a noise, or on an outside chance, to bits of road
hitting him in the back of the head or neck. According to Moore,
Kennedy wasn't hit until at least Z-236; it is evidenced by two
things: that his hands began to drop at about this point, and that
Connally was hit only fractions of a second later.

     All that you have learned or read, all that common sense
dictates aside, the key to this "final solution" can be found in
a statement made by Moore and quoted above: simply that it "can't
be seen in the Zapruder film!" Moore doesn't expound on how, if in
fact it "can't be seen," he ever arrived at this conclusion. At
this point, then, we must consider a new "Moore's Corollary" to
Meier's Law(14): "If there are no facts upon which to build a
theory, they must be manufactured." Surely this is what Jim Moore
has done in Conspiracy Of One.

     The sole purpose of Moore's "final solution" is to bolster the
single-bullet theory by attempting to put the two men in positions
where it is at least conceivable that they could have been in
sufficient alignment to receive wounds from the one bullet. How
convenient to claim that, no matter what people with more expertise
than Moore's have said, Kennedy was not in fact hit when everybody
(mistakenly) thinks he was, but rather that it happens at another
point equally as indiscernible as when he was behind the Stemmons
Freeway sign.

     This is where he departs from Lattimer's hypothesis: Lattimer
felt that JFK's spine was grazed by a bullet and that his arms rose
at the elbows in a classic "Thorburn motion(15)," caused by the
severe disruptive stimulation of the sixth cervical vertebra.
However tentative Lattimer's hypothesis may be, Moore discounts it
completely, saying that this motion is instead Kennedy seeking to
"protect" himself from the sound of a blast. Now, I don't know
about you, but I picture someone reacting in surprise from such a
noise by raising the arm and elbow laterally, almost as if he were
trying to shield his eyes from harsh sunlight or warding off a
blow, leaning away from the sound, eyes squinting and looking
about, and ducking somewhat. This motion of Kennedy's does not
strike me as a "protective" measure at all, effective or otherwise,
but that in any case is supposition on my part.

     Instead, Moore has JFK being hit a number of frames later, and
showing no other reaction than to lower his hands somewhat. At this
point, of course, Kennedy is leaning slightly forward, which
accounts for the lower trajectory presumed to go through his back
and throat; Connally is also leaning backward slightly and rotating
to his left, presumably putting his position more in line with
JFK's throat and accounting for a higher trajectory. It is
beautiful in its simplicity; it is only unfortunate that it is not
supported by any of the photographic record, and "cannot be seen"
on the Z-film. It also puts critics of Moore's hypothesis in the
unenviable position of proving a negative, which cannot be done,
ergo Moore is vindicated; he cannot be refuted.

     In concluding summation, Moore's book CONSPIRACY OF ONE is a
true classic of disinformation which relies upon slandering those
whose views do not coincide with his own, ignoring witnesses'
testimony, speculation and manufacturing "new evidence" that cannot
be disproved. Speculation must arise that Moore produced this work
for the sole purpose of exploiting a market that yearns for an
explanation of the events of November 22, 1963 that does not
involve a conspiracy. By doing so, Moore has not only "brought
himself down" to the level of the critics and researchers he so
shamelessly disparages, but taken himself one step lower by
postulating a theory that cannot be proved. My greatest regrets
about CONSPIRACY OF ONE are that it reads entirely credibly to
someone unfamiliar with the myriad details of that day, that it
will be used to cite the "errors" of researchers' ways, and bog
down otherwise constructive discussions about and investigations
into the events of Dealey Plaza (perhaps I am being overly kind by
ascribing it so much influence?). My only other regret is that I
bought it.



     1.   For the complete text of this dispatch, see Jim
          DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Appendix B.

     2.   Other objects of Moore's derision include Mark Lane (39
          mentions), Sylvia Meagher (38), David Lifton (27), Harold
          Weisberg (22), Anthony Summers (7), Gary Shaw (4), and
          Dr Cyril Wecht (3).

     3.   Footnote, p144.

     4.   Chairman of the HSCA forensic evidence panel.

     5.   Chief Medical Examiner for the City of Pittsburgh PA and
          former president of the American Institute of Forensic
          Pathology.

     6.   Price witnessed the assassination from across Dealey
          Plaza atop the Terminal Annex Building at the southwest
          corner of Houston and Commerce Streets.

     7.   Moore states regarding the Secret Service man "if he|
          were an assassin, he was either poorly trained or poorly
          equipped for the task. He would have failed to hit the
          Presidential limousine or any of its occupants from a
          distance of just more than one hundred feet." There,
          Moore's inquiry into the presence of this man behind the
          fence ends. He never even mentions that the Secret
          Service itself says that no men were assigned to the
          knoll! What discussion of the appearance of this "agent"
          can be complete without it?

     8.   Craig's unpublished manuscript, "When They Kill A
          President," relates that the rifle was first discovered
          by Deputy Eugene Boone, and not Deputy Mooney. The rifle
          was retrieved from its position between the boxes by Lt
          Day "who activated the bolt, ejecting one live round of
          ammunition which fell to the floor." Craig goes on to
          state that "Lt Day inspected the rifle briefly, then
          handed it to Capt Fritz.... Capt Fritz asked if anyone
          knew what kind of rifle it was. Deputy Constable
          Seymour| Weitzman asked to see it. After a close
          examination..." which would indicate that, according to
          an eyewitness to the discovery of the rifle, it was
          indeed handled by other than Lt Day, including both Fritz
          and Weitzman.

     9.   Moore overstates his role in the re-creation of The Sixth
          Floor exhibit, perhaps in an effort to substantiate his
          expertise regarding the assassination. In fact, officials
          at The Sixth Floor indicate that Moore's sole
          contributions to the exhibit were re-creating the
          "sniper's nest" and arguing against the use of the term
          "pristine" in describing CE399. They have voiced their
          displeasure in no uncertain terms at what they view as
          Moore's attempt to make it appear as if he played a major
          role in that effort or to imply The Sixth Floor's
          endorsement of his book.

     10.  Nor is it mentioned in Craig's manuscript.

     11.  Both Frazier (whom Moore calls "Buell Wesley Frazier" and
          "Wes" in CONSPIRACY OF ONE) and Randle stated that the
          bag Oswald carried that morning was "about two feet" or
          "27 inches" long.

     12.  Robert speculated that it could've come from a "junk
          pile" on the sixth floor. Moore asked Roy Truly about
          this, and Truly vehemently stated that there was
          "absolutely not" a junk pile anywhere in his building.
          "Truly ran a clean ship," Moore asserts, thus ending the
          discussion.

     13.  Oswald had not, in fact, been to visit his wife in nearly
          two weeks prior to the assassination. He would therefore
          have had to brought it out to wrap the rifle in well in
          advance of the time it is postulated that he did.

     14.  Meier's Law: "If the facts don't fit the theory, they
          must be disposed of." Could also be known as "Specter's
          Law."

     15.  First demonstrated by Dr William Thorburn in 1887, severe
          trauma at the level of C6 results in the arms assuming
          a flexed position with the elbows raised, similar to the
          position of JFK after he emerges from behind the sign.
          For further discussion of this phenomenon as relates to
          Kennedy, see John K. Lattimer, MD, et al, "President
          Kennedy's Spine Hit by First Bullet," The Bulletin of the
          New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 53, No 3, April 1977.