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

This is a commentary on the new anti-conspiracy movie from No Magic Bullets.org called Conspiracy Theorists Lie. It begins with a graphic of the Kennedy family at the funeral and a quote from John F. Kennedy Jr. (and note that they put "John Kennedy, Jr." which is a misnomer) saying:

"I just couldn't sit across from that man (Oliver Stone) for two hours. I just couldn't."

Did JFK Jr. really say that? It's been circulated like currency by Lambert, Bugliosi, and many others, but we don't have it on tape, and they don't name the source. What we know is that JFK Jr. published an article by Oliver Stone in his magazine George. 

But, they don't just cite that dubious quote, but they interpret it to mean that JFK Jr. was anti-conspiracy. The truth is that JFK Jr. was pro-conspiracy, and he, JFK Jr., was killed because he was pro-conspiracy.

This new film, No Magic Bullets, was made by James Lambert, whom I have sparred with on forums. He is ex-military, and he has a background in documentary film making, so he decided to combine his two passions.

I have not seen the film yet, but the trailer starts by recalling the far-right, Bircher diatribe castigating Kennedy that appeared in Dallas papers on the very day of the assassination. Lambert says that JFK's purpose in going to Dallas was to oppose the "hyperbolic, conspiratorial" thinking of the time. And of course, that "hyperbolic, conspiratorial" thinking has only grown since JFK's death and concerning his death. Therefore, in one deft move, Lambert recruits JFK himself to be the figurehead of the anti-conspiracy movement about his own death.

Note: there is no connection whatsoever between those who were accusing Kennedy of high crimes including treason prior to his death and those who cried conspiracy and cover-up after his death. In fact, there was and is a complete antithesis between the two. What Lambert said is both irrational and wrong. It is highly manipulative propaganda. And that was it: the whole trailer. 

The second trailer was set at the 50th anniversary commemoration in Dealey Plaza where Lambert was vying with detractors. He defends the Single Bullet Theory, telling one rabble-rouser that the bullet traveled in a straight line, just as the Warren Commission said and unlike what Oliver Stone said. But, that is not true. As I showed mathematically, there wasn't even a straight line from the 6th floor to Kennedy that continued on into Connally. Look at this image:

Why would you assume that if you shot the guy in the back seat in his back that it would also go through the back of the guy in front of him? There isn't as steep an angle between the two of them as there is between you and the guy in back. You're up on the 6th floor at the top of the hill, remember? Do you think there is as much incline between the two of them as there is between you and Kennedy? For it to be a straight line, it has to continue on the exact same incline.  

But worse than that is: how could Kennedy have a tunnel bored through his neck from back to front, where he is now a human doughnut, and go on sitting there? He couldn't possibly do that after being affected with such a perilous, devastating, life-threatening trauma. It is ignorant and stupid to think that his body would still work as well, coordinate as well, and function as well as it did after that shot, as seen in the Zapruder film.

I have not watched Lambert's new film yet, and it's partly because you have to pay to watch it, and I would hate to financially support it. 

But, I have seen Lambert's other work before, and what he does is seek out the least effective, least eloquent, least prepared conspiracy advocates to speak for the movement, and then it's him against them. He doesn't interview Doug Horne or John Armstrong. And if he wants to discuss the Single Bullet Theory, how about interviewing Dr. Cyril Wecht? And with Lambert, it's not just about depicting CTs as being wrong and misinformed but about being wild, disheveled, and uncivilized; one step shy of losing control. 

I've seen Lambert's previous film, and I doubt there is anything new in this one. He has never made one single cogent, substantial, meaningful point to support the official story of the JFK assassination. It's like a basketball game in which he never sinks the ball in the bucket a single time. He scores zero points.

Here is a link to the film and the two trailers. I suggest you just watch the trailers. Don't even think about forking over $3 to watch the film. He says he's going to put up parts of it for free on Youtube, so let's wait for that. In fact, mark my words: eventually, he'll put the whole damn thing up for free just to get people to see it.

You can watch the preview for free, and in it Lambert takes on Dick Gregory. Lambert says that Oswald was on a bus heading for Mexico City and ultimately Cuba when JFK's visit to Dallas was announced. False. Oswald never went to Mexico City, and he said so himself. Tijuana was the only place in Mexico he ever went. And did you see the images of Oswald in Mexico City? I said: DID YOU SEE THE IMAGES OF OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY???? I'm asking you, Lambert. 

Then, Lambert says that Oswald was hired at the Book Depository on October 15 but he failed to mention that it was supposedly because of Ruth Paine having tea and crumpets with the neighbor ladies in Irving, but lo and behold, the building, as it turned out, was owned by industrialist David Byrd, the founder and mentor of the Civil Air Patrol, to which Oswald belonged as a teen. What's that? A coincidence? Well, you are not even told about it by Lambert. 

And then concerning the motorcade route, Lambert fails to point out that there is no evidence that Oswald even knew about it. Just because he sometimes read the newspaper during his lunch break at work does not amount to evidence that he thereby learned the motorcade route that way. There is no evidence that he specifically read a newspaper which had the motorcade route, and even if he had, there would still be no basis to presume he saw it. We are talking about a newspaper here, and people don't read newspapers like they do books: cover to cover. And even if he had, what kind of psychopath would one have to be to come across such a thing in a newspaper two days before and decide on the spot, "You know what? I'm going to kill Kennedy." 

People don't go from 0 to 60 that fast in the psychology of murder. You would really have to be extraordinarily deranged to flip-out over the sight of a motorcade route, for that to trigger a murder impulse. What evidence is there that the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame was ever so deranged? What evidence is there that he had anything whatsoever against Kennedy?  

I say watch the parts that are free, but don't give this moron a red cent.   

https://nomagicbullets.pivotshare.com/