ANALYSIS OF A SHOOTING: A BOOK EXONERATING THE INNOCENT MAN LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Here's a book the media will ignore. Why? Because the trajecory analysis and other detail;s in this book exonerate the innocent accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. And possibly because the book supposedly contains typos and other flaws that occur when a book is published by certain companies. I have posted a review of these flaws at the end of the book's description. Thanks to Edgar Tatro for drawing our attention to this book. Its Amazon.com description follows:
“JFK. Analysis of a Shooting,” is an expert, detailed and comprehensive analysis of the assassination of President Kennedy. The work takes into account all the elemental factors that lead to a complete understanding of the shooting, and which will eventually serve to establish the undisclosed facts behind the tragic event. In its process of discovery the writing scrutinizes each shot taken at the motorcade. Additionally, it considers the caliber of the rifle used in the shooting. It takes into account the relative speed (in feet per second), and the inherent power of the bullets fired at the President. It analyzes the position of the alleged gunman and its relationship to his target. It also explorers the extent of every bullet wound, as it relates to the shot that caused it. In addition, the work probes the Zapruder film, as a visual record of the event, to denote the crucial frames that expose previously unrevealed facts of the shooting. And finally, the work reviews the trajectory of every single shot taken at the motorcade, from point of impact back towards the suspected point of origin, and their angles of entry into their targets. The book denotes, through conclusive interpretation of the evidence gathered, logical reasoning, and concrete ballistic principles that a total of five shots were fired at President Kennedy. Additionally, it also explains why it can be concluded that none of the shots fired at the President actually originated from the Texas School Book Depository Building, Oswald’s alleged sniper position.
Like all the other elements of our world bullets are also bound by the proven laws of physics. For instance, they are directly affected by gravity and wind deflection. Bullets also possess an inherent amount of momentum once fired, denote a tangible trajectory, and are ultimately stopped by resistance. Though the assassination of President Kennedy has been previously debated in a variety of forums, no one has ever rendered a complete analysis of the technical and ballistics aspect of the shooting. “JFK. Analysis of a Shooting,” fills in that void in an expert, detailed, and thorough fashion.
By taking into account the ballistics, medical and film evidence gathered the writing answers the questions that needed to be asked regarding the event. What do the bullets fired tell us regarding their impact points and trajectories? What do the injuries incurred by President Kennedy and Governor Connally reveal regarding the bullets that caused them? What conclusive physical laws were violated in the official account of the shooting?
The biggest and most consequential truth that the book exposes is the fact that in lieu of the compound evidence gathered, from a logical and ballistics perspective, it can be construed and ultimately proven that Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire a single shot upon the Presidential motorcade. Mr. Martin feels that for the ultimate benefit of us all it is without question, and undeniably so, morally forthright to exonerate an innocent man.
This diagram shows that "the best shot" wasn't fired.
Here is the negative review on the book:
This review is from: JFK. Analysis of a Shooting: The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed (Paperback)
This book is billed by the publisher as a comprehensive analysis of the ballistics of the JFK assassination, but it falls woefully short. The author spends a great deal of time demolishing the single-bullet theory, but substitutes an equally implausible theory that the neck/back wound bullet exited Kennedy's chest -- an assertion that has no evidence at all.
Next, the author demonstrates a slavish belief in the Zapruder film, when there is growing evidence (see Assassination Science) that it was doctored.
Occasionally, the non-ballistic content descends into buffoonery, as when the author finds sinister motives in the failure of the Parkland doctors to preserve evidence.The author apparently does not realize that they were trying to save Kennedy's life.
Finally, the editing of this book is the most amateurish I have seen in years. There is on average one major error per page.
For example, we are twice told that JFK was "the dully-elected
President." The editor or author consistently uses "in lieu of"
when apparently he means "in view of." Other howlers include "decease" for "disease" and "seize" for "cease."
In short, don't waste your time or money on this book.
WHO IS MR. DILLON? HE SAYS HE LIVES IN SOUTH POINT, OHIO. THERE IS AN ATTORNEY THERE BY THAT NAME. HE MENTIONS ASSASSINATION SCIENCE BY DR. JAMES FETZER, WHICH SHOWS THAT HE'S READ GOOD, HONEST, DEFINITIVE MATERIAL ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE CUSP OF THE MATTER: THAT HONEST RESEARCHERS IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION RESEARCH COMMUNITY ARE DIVIDED ON MANY SUBJECTS, THOUGH ALL ARE HONEST ENOUGH TO STAND UP AGAINST THE "OFFICIAL VERSION" PUSHED BY OUR GOVERNMENT.
SOME, FOR EXAMPLE, ACCEPT THE ZAPRUDER FILM -- OTHERS DO NOT. SOME ACCEPT WITNESSES THAT OTHERS DO NOT. SOME PLACE THEIR OWN THEORIES OR BOOKS ABOVE EMERGING FACTS THAT REVEAL NEW PERSPECTIVES, OPTING TO FIGHT AGAINST THE EMERGING FACTS AS IF THE FACTS COULD BE ALTERED OR MADE TO VANISH.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR READERS TO FOCUS ON THE BEST BOOKS IN THE CASE. SOME WILL IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT GERALD POSNER'S CASE CLOSED FINISHED OFF THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. THESE PEOPLE HAVE IGNORED THE MANY SCATHINGLY FRANK REVIEWS BY HONEST RESEARCHERS WHO DISCOVERED THAT POSNER CHERRY-PICKED EVIDENCE AND SAID HE INTERVIEWED SOME PEOPLE THAT HE ACTUALLY NEVER INTERVIEWED. THERE ARE SOME FINE, DAMNING REVIEWS OF POSNER'S BOOK, WHERE HIS ERRORS ARE LISTED IN LONG, EMBARRASSING ROWS, WRITEN BY TRUSTED CRITICS WHO ARE HONEST RESEARCHERS.
THEN THERE'S VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S HUGE BOOK, RECLAIMING HISTORY, WHERE LEE H. OSWALD SEEMS TO BE BURIED UNDER SUCH A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE THAT HE COULD NOT EMERGE AS 'INNOCENT.'
LOOK AT THE REVIEWS.
AND ASK WITNESSES HOW THOROUGH BUGLIOSI WAS. FOR EXAMPLE, ASK ME.
FOR BUGLIOSI WROTE ABOUT ME -- DISMISSIVELY. WITH DISPARAGING REMARKS. HE CONTENDED THAT HARRISON E. LIVINGSTONE PUBLISHED THE PRIOR (AND UNAUTHORIZED) BOOK I WROTE ABOUT LEE AND MY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. TO HIM, I WAS JUST A HAMBURGER-FLIPPER SEEKING ATTENTION. HE ADDED THAT I WAS A DELUDED, "POOR PUPPY" FOR WHOM HE FELT SORRY. OTHER STATEMENTS HE PENNED ABOUT ME CAME STRAIGHT FROM LONGTIME ATTACK WEBSITES WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO NEVER MET ME. BUGLIOSI NEVER MET ME, EITHER, AND ALMOST ALL THE INFORMATION HE REPORTS ABOUT ME IS WRONG. JUST PLAIN WRONG.
WHICH GIVES PAUSE.
IF THIS IS WHAT BUGLIOSI DID TO ME, WHAT DID HE DO TO OTHER INCONVENIENT WITNESSES? HE WROTE WITH AUTHORITY, AS IF HE HAD ACTUALLY INVESSTIGATED MY HISTORY. BUT IT WAS JUST AN ACT. HIS 'REVIEW' OF ME WAS A ONE-STAR SNEER THAT BACKFIRES FOR ANYONE WITH AN OPEN MIND WHO READS ME & LEE: HOW I CAME TO KNOW, LOVE AND LOSE LEE HARVEY OSWALD. THE PUBLISHERS OF THAT BOOK TOOK CARE TO INCLUDE MANY HISTORIC PHOTOS AND EVIDENCE. IT WILL SOON BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
ONCE AGAIN, WE CAN RELY ON HONEST RESEARCHERS AND READERS WHO HAVE WRITTEN REVIEWS. THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF REVIEWS THAT SHOULD BE READ CONCERNING EVERY CONTROVERSIAL BOOK: FIVE-STAR REVIEWS AND ONE-STAR REVIEWS. WHEN A REVIEWER GIVES JUST ONE STAR TO A BOOK, IT BEHOOVES US TO READ HIS OR HER OTHER REVIEWS. WHY JUST ONE STAR, ESPECIALLY IF THE BOOK RECEIVES MANY 4 AND 5 STAR REVIEWS?
SUCH WAS THE CASE WITH EDWARD T. HASLAM'S GROUNDBREAKING BOOK, DR. MARY'S MONKEY. HE HAD STARS DELETED BY A HOSTILE REVIEWER FOR PRESENTING ME (JVB) AS THE LONG-SOUGHT WITNESS HE HAD DESPAIRED WOULD BE FOUND ALIVE.
I FINALLY STOOD FORTH. THE RESULT WAS THAT HASLAM REWROTE HIS BOOK, USING THE NEW INFORMATION I WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE HIM. HE ALSO FOUND MUCH NEW EVIDENCE ALL BY HIMSELF.
HASLAM'S BOOK IS A REAL PAGE-TURNER, REPLETE WITH METICULOUS RESEARCH. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GAVE IT BAD REVIEWS WERE ALMOS ALWAYS THE SAME PEOPLE WHO PREVIOUSLY ATTACKED ME ON NEWSGROUPS (LOOKING THEM UP CAN BE A TEDIOUS, BUT EYE-OPENING PROCESS). IN SHORT, NEVER RELY ON JUST ONE REVIEW AS TO THE MERITS OF A BOOK IN SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL FIELD. WAIT FOR A FEW MORE.
ALSO REMEMBER THAT SOME REVIEWS ARE WRITTEN USING FAKE NAMES.
THERE ARE WAYS TO FIND OUT ABOUT SUCH PEOPLE: IF NO OTHER REVIEWS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE REVIEWER, THE FAKE NAME WAS POSSIBLY CREATED JUST TO ATTACK THE BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE REVIEWER HAS WRITTEN A NUMBER OF REVIEWS USING THE FAKE NAME (A CONCLUSION OF MERIT IF NO PROFILE INFORMATION EXISTS FOR THAT REVIEWER), JUST LOOK TO SEE IF THE REVIEWER CONSISTENTLY ATTACKS ANY "OFFICIAL VERSION" BOOKS. IF THE ANSWER IS 'NO,' WHILE THERE ARE CONSISTENT ATTACKS BY THE CRITIC ON 'CONSPIRACY THEORISTS'' BOOKS, THEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE LIKELY READING DISINFO, ESPECIALLY IF THE BOOK IS ONLY AWARDED ONE OR TWO STARS WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE AWARDS THE BOOK 4 OR 5 STARS.
IF YOU SUSPECT SUCH A TACTIC, AND HAVE READ THE BOOK YOURSELF AND KNOW IT'S A GOOD ONE, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU WRITE YOUR OWN REVIEW AND PUT YOUR OPINION OUT THERE. YOU MAY SAVE A GOOD BOOK FROM OBLIVION.
EVEN A FEW LINES, ALONG WITH YOUR 4 OR 5 STARS, CAN GO A LONG WAY TOWARD DILUTING THE NEFARIOUS EFFECT OF A ONE-STAR REVIEW.
I CONCLUDE WITH THIS OBSERVATION: ANALYSIS OF A SHOOTING HAS BEEN SHOT IN THE FOOT BY A SINGLE ONE-STAR REVIEW. DID THE BOOK DESERVE IT? IT MAY WELL DESERVE IT. I HAVE YET TO READ IT. JHE CRITICISM SEEMS WELL-FOUNDED. BUT THE REVIEWER ADVISES US TO FORGET ABOUT BUYING THE BOOK AT ALL. THAT STATEMENT MADE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SAME CRITIC GAVE A HEFTY FIVE STARS TO THE ONLY OTHER BOOK HE HAS SO FAR REVIEWED, WHICH SEEMS TO CRITICIZE RECENT FINANCIAL BAILOUT EFFORTS AND SUPPORTS A "LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY" LAISSEZ-FAIRE STANCE.
THINK ABOUT IT.