Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

on 9 July 2014
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 November 2013
I enjoyed this book immensely. It details a quantity of issues that clearly steers the reader towards the involvement of more than one person in the killing of John Fitzgerald Kennedy 50 years ago. Broken down into fifty parts, some of which are inter-linked, each part is written descriptively opening up many facets of the events of 22 November 1963, and afterwards; and provides arguments to a number of components of the anomalies of the Warren Commission report and writers who support the claims of the WC report. Having read this and a few other books on the subject, looking from both sides of the argument, I have joined those who express doubts about the events of that fateful day.
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 17 June 2016
If like me you are new to the subject of the JFK assassination ( I have only read Jim Garrison's On the Trail if the Assassins a must read) then this book will start you thinking. If the books does no more than gets the reader to question the facts as presented from either side of the debate then the author as succeed in opening the readers mind which surely what good reference book should do
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 April 2014
On page 259 of this inane book we learn that Dr Lance Moore is an ordained United Methodist minister. He was also once a preacher.

Moore's `doctorate' is in `Theology'. Theology is laughingly defined as, `reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity' and/or `the science of things divine'. Oh dear! This does not auger well for the reader who is looking for some solid thinking and crisp logic. Dr Moore is a man who believes absurd things which have no evidential support. He's not really the `go-to-dude' when it comes to analysing evidence.

Given these things, Lance Moore can be considered as living in a `glass-house' and he would be well advised not to throw stones. But he does throw stones; fifty big ones and countless, tiresome, little pebbles. He accuses his intellectual and professional betters of lying.

To have any chance of being taken seriously, the former preacher needs to ensure that he, himself, is squeaky-clean. If we catch him lying, he's out of the game. One strike and Moore brands himself as a rank hypocrite.

So, does Lance Moore throw the fateful stone through his own glass ceiling?

Yes, he does. He actually launches a great many untruths which fly high for a few fleeting moments before their force is spent and the irresistible pull of gravitational truth brings them crashing down onto the consecrated buffoon's empty head.

Here's the one, fallen rock that I need to charge Moore with hypocrisy:

On page 97 he offers `several reasons' why the Warren Commission allowed medical discrepancies to get into the record. His `item 1' asserts that one of these reasons was, "..explaining away the contrarian witnesses who saw a Grassy Knoll shooter,.."

That's a lie. Moore's house comes crashing down.

Absolutely nobody reported seeing a `grassy-knoll shooter'. No witness claimed to have seen anybody discharging a weapon. No reports to the police, the FBI or the Secret Service. None. zero, zip, nada, niente and squat. The WC had no `explaining' to do.

Lance More does have some explaining to do.

Whilst he applies himself to the task, he might also include explanations for the following lies that also appear in his fetid book.

Lance Moore's, lie No: 2
Page 10: `She [Jean Hill] told the WC of a suspicious man running from the TSBD parking lot,..'

THIS IS A LIE: Hill did not say that the man was `running from the TSBD parking lot'. Her testimony to Specter makes it quite clear where the man was - he was in front of the TSBD. (See 6 H 206 and exhibit `Hill 5', 10 H 158)

Lance Moore's lie No: 3
Page 12: `Hosty also destroyed a note from Oswald days before the shooting,..'

THIS IS A LIE: Hosty did not destroy anything from Oswald before the shooting.

Lance Moore's lie no: 4
Page 144: `..,Doctor Ligdori [sic] declared him [Tippit] dead at 1:15 pm..'

THIS IS A LIE: Dr Liguori declared Tippit `Dead on arrival', which was at 1:25 pm (logged on the homicide report at 1:30.)

Lance Moore's lie no: 5
Page 242: `E. Howard Hunt, proven in a court of law to have been involved in killing Kennedy,..'

THIS IS A LIE: Hunt was never even charged with such an offence much less `proven in a court of law to have been involved' in one.
Lance Moore's lie no: 6
Page 121: `Lee Harvey Oswald was shot in the Dallas Police Station before he ever spoke to a lawyer.'

THIS IS A LIE: At 5:30 pm on Saturday, 23 November, Oswald was visited by, and spoke with, H. Louis Nichols. Nichols was an attorney; he was also (at that time) President of the Dallas Bar Association. Nicholls offered to help Oswald engage a local lawyer. Oswald refused the offer. (See 7 H pp 325-332.)

Lance Moore's lie no: 7
Page 61: `Thanks to an anonymous tip, they [the DPD] arrested the assassin within an hour of the shooting,..'

THIS IS A LIE: The call to the police was not anonymous. Julia Postal testified to making it. See (7 H pp. 8-14.)

Moore's lie no: 8
Page 45: `Within hours of Oswald's arrest, Captain Will Fritz, head of the police investigation (and the only law enforcement agency to have immediate jurisdiction in the case), received a call from the White House. The new President instructed him to stop the investigation and turn the evidence over to the FBI.'

THIS IS A LIE: Neither `The White House' nor Johnson called or spoke to Fritz, much less `instructed' him to do anything.

Moore's lie no:9
Page 32: `These [S. M. Holland and Richard C. Dodd] and others saw as well as heard a second gunman (of literally, the smoking gun)',

THIS IS A LIE: Neither Holland nor Dodd ever said that they'd seen a gunman.
Moore's lie no: 10
Page 240: `In 1952, Mac Wallace was involved in a "love triangle" with LBJ's sister and a man named John Kinser, the owner of a golf-putting course in Austin. Wallace shot Kinser in cold blood'.

THIS IS A LIE: The woman was not LBJ's sister; she was Wallace's estranged wife - Mary Barton.

Moore's lie no:11
Page 258: `..and his [Oswald's] interrogation notes were destroyed by the police.'

THIS IS A LIE: The original, hand-written notes that Fritz made whilst questioning Oswald still exist.

Moore's lie no: 12
Page 202: `In a series of interviews with writer-historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., kept private by the Kennedy family for decades, she [Mrs J. B. Kennedy] revealed how much they [the Kennedy inner-circle] hated and feared LBJ. She shared on tape her belief that LBJ was part of the conspiracy.'

THIS IS A LIE: Nowhere within the audio or manuscript does Mrs Kennedy state that she `hated or `feared' LBJ. Nowhere does she expound a belief that there was `a conspiracy' and hence, nowhere does she speculate that LBJ was part of it.

Moore's lie no:13
Page 151: `FBI Agent James Hosty stated that FBI agent Robert Barrett showed him a wallet, picked-up at the Tippitt murder scene, that contained both an Oswald ID and an Alek Hidell ID card.'

THIS IS A LIE: Hosty never stated, wrote or testified at any time that Barrett had shown him a wallet.
Moore's lie no: 14
Page 153: `Andrew Armstrong, an employee of the Carousel, testified that Ruby knew J. D. Tippit.'

THIS IS A LIE: On page 116 the hypocritical Moore berates `conspiracy-deniers' who, he asserts, "..fail to tell the whole truth." He accuses them (which includes me) of having "..intentionally ignored or covered-up a part of the story in order to blur the full picture.". Lance Moore is, thus, hoist on his own petard. Here's how:

Armstrong's full and unedited answer is now given (below) in order to show that, (a) Ruby did not know J. D. Tippit and (b), that Moore has one rule for himself and another rule for everybody else. Armstrong's reply to Hubert comprises 80 words, not merely the first SEVEN that Moore uses in order to dupe his reader.

Mr. Hubert: Do you know whether Jack Ruby knew him [Tippit]?
Mr. Armstrong: He said that he knew Officer Tippit, but from what I gather later on--Mrs. Grant told me it was a different Officer Tippit that he knew. In other words, there was two officers that had the name of Tippit, from what I gather, and Jack said when the news was coming over the radio about the policeman being shot, that it was Officer Tippit; Jack jumped straight up and said, "I know him--I know him." Just like that. (See 13 H p353)
Moore's lie no: 15
Page 193: `Lee never received legal counsel, nor was read his rights. This author had dinner with the son of Oswald's public defender. He said his father was never given a chance to meet with Oswald, and was given the runaround of delays by the Dallas Police Department. When it became known that the New York attorney Oswald had requested would not show, they appointed a public defender, but before he received any information about his client, Oswald was shot.'

THIS IS A LIE: Actually, this is a series of seven lies. (1) Oswald did receive legal counsel - see lie no: 6 (above), (2) Oswald was read his rights repeatedly - see WCR pp. 200-1, 4 H 216, 7 H 314, 316-317, (3) No `public defender' was ever appointed for Oswald, (4) Oswald never contacted Abt and, therefore, (5) he never asked him to represent him. Because Abt was never asked it never, (6) '..became known..' that he (7) '..would not show..' See 10 H 116-7 (Abt's WC testimony) to appreciate the sheer scope and depth of Lance Moore's duplicity, here.
Moore's lie no: 16
Page 196: `William B. Pitzer, Navy Commander who filmed the autopsy..'

THIS IS A LIE: Pitzer was not even present at the autopsy and, therefore, he took no film of it.
Moore's lie no: 17
Page 50: `Mary Woodward, reporter for the Dallas Morning News, was standing on Elm Street, fifty feet from the triple underpass.'

THIS IS A LIE: Woodward described her position in the following words, " So we walked across to Elm and stationed ourselves just down from the School Book Depository Building and waited for the parade to come by." (See `Reporting The Kennedy Assassination, p. 42.). Woodward is visible in the Z-film, in the vicinity of the Stemmons road-sign. (See frames 20-180) This places her 113 YARDS from the triple underpass. That's 339 feet, not 50.
Moore's lie no: 18
Page 139: `J. D. Tippit had begun the last day of his life by hugging his son, Allan [sic], while saying, "No matter what happens today, I want you to know that I love you."

THIS IS A LIE: Allen Tippit has emphatically denied that his father said these words (or anything like them) to him on the morning of the 22nd.
Moore's fatuous footnote (n117 p.270) states that, `In 2004, "debunker" Dale Meyers [sic] claimed to have interviewed Allan [sic] and that Allan [sic] denied the last words by his father. However, to my knowledge, there is no tape or affidavit to prove Meyers [sic] claim.'
More importantly,there is no tape recording or affidavit held by anybody proving Moore's claim that J. D. Tippit did make the remark, either!!

Moore's lie No: 19
Page 228: `The Muchmore film does indeed show a brake-light light up on the limo,..'

THIS IS A LIE: The film does not show any brake-light lighting-up.
Moore's lie no: 20
Page 153: `Eva Grant, Ruby's sister, said, "Jack knew him, and I knew him (Tippit)".

THIS IS A LIE: Although Moore offers no citation for this alleged statement, serious readers of the assassination will know that it has its genesis in Mark Lane's `Rush To Judgement' (p. 253). Even Lane is compelled to admit that Eva Grant denied ever making such a statement. But Moore does not. He's utterly dishonest.

So; twenty provable lies peddled by Lance Moore. He can claim no defence of `context', `interpretation' or anything else. Every one of the statements noted is an outright falsehood. There are actually many, many more but, twenty are ample for the purpose of exposing him.
I have chosen not to spend any time discrediting the `lies' that this distasteful writer accuses others of because I don't have to. When a man is caught, in print, peddling twenty lies of his own, he discredits himself.

As Moore is `religious' he might wish to read his `holy book' again but, with a little more care, this time. His own saviour admonishes:

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Amen and pass the collection dish.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 11 May 2014
Despite the number of books now available on this famous subject, this has the virtue of sequencing various important and
relevant matters that, in the singular are eye-opening, but taken together are eye-widening! It is never less than entertaining
while it pushes forward things which still demand proper and rational explanation yet have received little or none. A good value
addition to any library or collection on the public killing of a famous public figure.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 9 March 2014
Firstly the print size is wrong -- too big. Not a good read and there are so many more of the same ilk.
The redeeming feature is that the guy leaves a strong case and it may be worth a read, (from a library)
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 21 September 2015
Great condition, good book
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 31 March 2014
An excellent book which clearly exposes the lies of the WC and its advocates. It's unbelievable that there are still people who keep on believing that no conspiracy existed in the Kennedy assassination.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 14 January 2015
A good read
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 2 July 2014
For my Dad's 56th or 57th. I'm a bad son.

He read it in a day and loved it,

0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)