9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on March 13, 2010
I have read this book, as well as Dr. Remington's earlier books.
Each book examines the evidence presented by the Warren Commission to support its conclusions and also points out the testimony or exhibits which the Commission omitted because it did not fit the conclusions. You can check it out for yourself in your copy of the Warren Report.
His latest book, Biting the Elephant, focuses on the arguments of Kenneth A. Rahn and Vincent Bugliosi. He details his attempts to have an open-letter discussion of the issues which still need clarification, and the lack of interest of these writers to answer questions about their published statements. A lot of points are made, a lot of questions raised.
If you still have questions about the Warren Commission Report conclusions, you will want to read this book.
1 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on December 24, 2012
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I have long considered the Warren Report as a flawed, rushed, and incomplete analysis of the Kennedy assassination. Dr. Remington does also, and I thought that this book would highlight some fatal flaws in the report. Instead, he has convinced me that he has no rational arguments on any of the major (or minor) conclusions drawn by the Report. After reading this book, I am fairly well convinced now that they did about as well as they could have with available facts.
Dr. Remington admits that this book was difficult to write. I can assure him that it was much more difficult to read. If he would have read it, he might have caught his typos and sentence after sentence repeating a certain thought.
He starts the book out trying to define the meaning of the words "truth"and "fact". I have not the slightest idea what he is talking about, even though he wastes multiple pages giving us his definition. I can guarantee that a fifth grader could give a definition in a couple of sentences, without a dictionary.
Dr. Remington dismisses a major eye-witness because the witness did not see muzzle flash or smoke from Oswald's rifle when he saw Oswald aim and fire (he calls the witness an ear-witness), even though the witness identified Oswald as the shooter. He dismisses another witness who saw muzzle flash and smoke with the gunshots because the 18 year old thought he saw a "pipe like object" instead of realizing it was a gun eventually.
He dismisses witnesses on the floor below Oswald who could hear the gunshots and even the bolt action between shots and reported that they could see daylight between the plywood sheets separating the floors. Apparently, Remington is an expert on plywood installation and believes that there cannot be gaps between the sheets, therefore that eliminates them as qualified witnesses (incredible). He does not know the installer and I can give him a number of reasons for gaps.
Dr. Remington wastes a major part of book trying over and over to get an answer from a chemist that matched the large bullet and fragments as coming from the same ammunition. He keeps asking the same question `can the chemical procedure determine WHEN the bullet was fired?' They gave him long responses about `chain of custody'. He would then go off on really ridiculous tangents about the difference in meanings of words like `substituted, swapped, and planted'. I don't know why they wouldn't just tell him "No, chemistry will not date a bullet being fired; the bullet fragments were removed from Connelly's wrist, who was shot that day" (doesn't that date the bullet as being fired that day?).
The whole last quarter of this book tries to destroy Vincent Bugliosi's book `Reclaiming History'. I have a lot more respect for Mr. Bugliosi after reading excerpts from his book here. All Dr. Remington can say is that Oswald didn't get his day in court and Bugliosi is drawing his own conclusions (not provable, footnoted facts, with multiple witnesses) on some items. I thought Bugliosi made a lot of intelligent, reasonable points and conclusions. Dr. Remington will not even accept the fact that Oswald killed Officer Tippit, even though Bugliosi points out that there were TEN eyewitnesses that identified Oswald as killer.
Dr. Remington taught history at a college for 30 plus years. I think he fancies himself a lawyer, but he should teach a course on nit-picking (not 101, a graduate course).