Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Just in time for the 51st anniversary, leading shill Max Holland has come out with a retelling of his program, The Lost Bullet, which was made for the 48th anniversary.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/truth-behind-jfks-assassination-285653.html

It is a very long article, but he advances only one argument in it: that the first shot was fired when the limo was still in the intersection of Elm and Houston, where it bounced off the metal mast arm of the traffic light, shed it's jacket, and then sailed down the length of Dealey Plaza before succumbing to gravity and hitting the curb, with a fragment of it bouncing up and grazing James Tague on the cheek. 

First, it should be noted that Holland first went public with this theory about the bullet that bounced off the traffic light at the intersection in his 2011 documentary, and since then, nobody else has backed him on it. Has Vincent Bugliosi? Has Gerald Posner? Has John McAdams? Did Holland's theory become the standard doctrine in the official world of JFK? 

Not at all. I haven't seen that. Have you? And it means something: that even among his cohorts of Warren Report devotees that few, if any, have embraced it. Apparently, even among these people, the credibility of Holland's theory isn't that good. 

"Nah, we don't think so, Max" seems to be the refrain, even among his friends. 

And actually, it is just a re-tweaking of Gerald Posner's ridiculous theory that the first bullet hit the branch of the oak tree and bounced off it, shedding its jacket, and sailing down Dealey Plaza. Might as well say a little birdie flew it down. 

Holland makes a big deal about the location of the shells found on the floor in the Sniper's Nest, that they can reveal the bullet trajectories, but he never considers the possibility that they were placed there. Why would a shooter have left such glaring evidence? Was he trying to help investigators? Leaving a trail for them? How much time would it have taken to scoop up those shells? If the shooter was bent on hiding the rifle, and climbing over a mountain of boxes to do it. why would he leave the shells?

Holland admits that when testing his theory under experimental conditions, 3 out of 4 times, the bullet shattered completely leaving a deep indentation. It didn't bounce at all. But 1 out of 4 times, it did ricochet off, therefore, bingo, it must have happened that way on 11/22/63. And then "calculations" determined that a bullet so ricocheting could have reached the exact spot on the curb and hit Tague. 

Great. Fabulous. I love it when things work out. 

However, despite that, "definitive evidence of a bullet impact could not be obtained."

Damn. I hate it when things don't work out.

"DeRonja did find a shallow surface disturbance and rusted area approximately 22 inches from the signal end of the mast, but rust corrosion resulting from the mast’s long exposure to the elements obliterated the possibility of a telltale bullet footprint."

So, there was no bullet footprint on the traffic housing. However, that didn't stop Holland from declaring it all a fact. So, according to Holland, this is what happened:

 "Oswald fired his rifle within milliseconds of getting a bead on his target. But instead of striking the president’s upper body, the bullet glanced off the mast arm. The impact stripped the copper jacket from the bullet and redirected the lead core, which struck the ground in the vicinity of the concrete skirt on the south side of Elm and then ricocheted toward the south side of Main Street. The strike to the concrete curb left a metallic smear and caused the injury to James Tague."

Sounds absolutely certain, doesn't he? I'm sure he's Biblical about it at this point. 

Here is some more Hollandaise sauce. Max says that if you look at Zapruder 153 you can see agents Ready, Hickey, and Bennett "reacting." Well, here is Z-153 by Costella. See what you think.

I think it's a stretch to claim that the men in the follow-up car are reacting to a gun shot. Clint Hill isn't reacting. Kennedy isn't reacting. Just because someone's head is turned, you're willing to make assumptions? I think Max is reading a lot into it. And no matter what his impression is, this isn't near solid enough to consider it evidence of what he is claiming.  

And that's it! Though the article is very long, there is nothing else in it except this. Holland had nothing in 2011, and he's got nothing now in 2014.  

Max Holland is just a professional shill and an aid and abettor of the killers of President Kennedy. He is covering for them 51 years after the crime. His ridiculous theory is as stupid as any that have come down the pike in half a century, and it's no wonder that it has never been endorsed by JFK officialdom or even gotten traction.  

But, now that the 51st anniversary is at hand, the mainstream media has to provide some coverage of it, and so Newsweek settled on this piece of crap.  

It is feeble. It is pathetic. And it is nakedly empty of anything redeeming or remotely credible. 

Here is my original article responding to Max Holland's National Geographic Special in 2011, and I am proud to say it has a very visible presence throughout the web. It's called: Lies, Damn Lies, and National Geographic:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/11/ralph-cinque/lies-damn-lies-and-national-geographic/

Now, do me a favor and spread this blogpost around. Send it to everyone you know. Here is a specific link to it:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/11/just-in-time-for-51st-anniversary.html


Max Holland has got Newsweek magazine giving him a mic, but they're not giving me one, and they never will. We need to respond aggressively to his propaganda. I'm asking you to help me. If you like what you've read here, send it around.