The deepest, darkest secret of the JFK assassination was that Jack Ruby was innocent. He did not shoot and kill Oswald. The framing of Ruby may be the most successful psy-op of all time. They convinced everybody that he did it, including him.

But, I can prove to you, here and now, that he didn't do it. And it is a very simple process. All you have to do is compare the Garage Shooter to Jack Ruby, and if they don't match, if there are any discrepancies between them, if you can plainly see that they are different men, that settles it; Ruby didn't do it.

And after that, nothing else matters. Not a damn thing. You want to claim that Ruby admitted doing it? It doesn't matter. If the images say he didn't do it, then he didn't, no matter what he said. You want to claim that the Dallas detectives claimed to recognize the Shooter as Ruby? It doesn't matter. If the images say he wasn't the Shooter, then he wasn't. Nobody's lip-flapping matters.

So, here we have an image of the Garage Shooter on the left and one of Jack Ruby on right. It was the same day. It's one of Ruby's mug shots. What do we see? We see that the Shooter had an extremely short neck. That is about the shortest neck I have ever seen. Ruby, on the right had a much longer neck. We see that Shooter was also very thick-necked and jowly. It's hard to distinguish his face from his neck. In comparison, Ruby's neck looks tapered and slender.

The Shooter had thick, matted hair, and it looks like a wig. You don't see any hair growing out of his head. You can see hair growing out of Ruby's head on the right. But, you should realize that Ruby didn't have that much hair. He was practically bald on top, and you do see that in a few of his images. They had to doctor Ruby's hair in his photos for the rest of his life. And the reason is because the Shooter had such thick hair. On the right is a mostly accurate image of Ruby's head. What's fake is the tuft in front. Look how low his hairline is on the side. That is an extreme degree of descent. Most bald men have more hair on the sides than Ruby did. And by the time you get that bald on the sides, you don't have any hair left in front. That image on the right is something you might commonly see today. Do you know why? Think for a a second. It's because today, in the 21st century, we have a procedure known as hair transplants. So, men can look that way today. But, they didn't have hair transplants back then.

The Shooter was clean-shaven on his neck in back. It looks razor-clean. But, Ruby had a lot of stubble on his neck in back. Did I mention it was the same day?

The Shooter also had a round head. He was like Charlie Brown. Ruby did not have a round head. He had a longer head.

And notice how burly the Shooter looks; burlier than Ruby. And one of the reporters, a Frenchman who flew in from Paris, described the Shooter as burly. It's in the KRLD footage.

This isn't close. The Shooter and Ruby don't look anything alike. They don't even look like they could be related. There is no way they can be the same man. And that means that Ruby did not shoot Oswald. So, who shot him? The Dallas Police did. I don't mean in the garage; that was all theater. I mean in the Jail office afterwards. They has silencers for 38s in 1963. And I think I know who they gave the honor to to shoot Oswald. But, I'll get into that another time.

You have to be intellectually mature and intellectually honest. And if you are, you are going to admit that Jack Ruby was not the Garage Shooter of Oswald. Ruby, like Oswald, was innnocent. And there is nothing anyone can say to refute it.

 Please reason with me. You know that the plan was to say that all the shots came from the rear. Yet, you know that JFK was shot in the throat from the front. Dr. Perry stated, emphatically, that it was an entrance wound. So, how could they shoot him from the front and still expect to be able to claim that all the shots came from the rear?

I'll tell you how. They already shot him in the back leaving a very shallow wound that was devoid of a bullet. So, all they had to do was create another shallow wound in his throat that was also devoid of a bullet. Then, they could claim that the back shot went through him. Presto! You don't have a frontal shot any more.

The Single Bullet Theory was planned in advance. It just didn't include Connally.

Now, you think I'm wrong about that? Well, if I'm wrong, then why didn't the Admirals let Humes and his team dissect Kennedy to find out where the back wound went? They wanted to do it, but the Admirals wouldn't let them.

Now, at the time, they didn't even know that there was a throat wound. Humes thought it was just a tracheotomy. He found out the next day about the throat wound from Dr. Perry. But, it's baffling because Dr. George Burkley was at the autopsy, and he was also at the ER at Parkland. So, he had to know about the throat wound. So, why didn't he tell Humes about it at the autopsy? I can't tell you because I don't know.

But, the next day, after Humes talked to Perry, he should have gone to the Admirals and said, "I need to go back and finish the autopsy. I need to determine if the back wound and the throat wound are connected. There is no need to speculate about it. We can find out for sure by cutting him open. I am not going to just say that they are connected without finding out for sure. Now, you need to let me go do that: for the Kennedy family, for the American people, and for history. And if you won't let me, you will be obstructing justice, and I'm going to scream Bloody Murder."

Unfortunately, Humes was not that kind of man. He was a team player, and he did what he was told. But, he really did want to open up Kennedy's back at the autopsy, but they wouldn't let him, and it was because they knew those two wounds were not connected. Can you think of any other reason why they wouldn't let him?

And if you don't agree with me about all this, then tell me: What was the purpose of the throat shot? Do you think they were trying to kill hiim with that shot? If so, why shout him in the throat? Why not shoot him in the heart or in the head? Of course, they couldn't shoot him in the heart or head from the front because that would have destroyed the lone nut thesis.

So again I ask you: What was the purpose of the throat shot? Why shoot him there? I told you why I think they did it, but if you don't agree with me, then you still have to come up with a reason why they shot him there. Please ponder it.

 Brian Burden asked me about Steven Witt. He was not Umbrella

Man. He was a liar, a faker, and an actor. There is nothing credible about anything he said to the HSCA, and he was treated with kid gloves by them. I'll give you some examples.

Witt said he worked for an insurance company and that he had the habit of going for a walk on his lunch break. He said he was not looking for the motorcade; that he just ran into it on his walk. But, why did he bring his umbrella when by that time, it was sunny?

That's when he got into his story about wanting to taunt Kennedy with it. His story was that, in 1963, when the Nazis were long gone, and we had a new enemy the Soviet Union, that the mere sight of an umbrella was going to remind Kennedy of Neville Chamberlain,
who was infamous for appeasing Hitler in the 1930s. And that was supposed to spill over into mocking JFK's father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr, who was considered a Nazi sympathizer and forced to resign as Ambassador to the UK after he met secretly with the German Ambassador to the UK to plot a way to defuse the march
to war in 1939. JFK was supposed to get all that from seeing an umbrella in 1963: "He's making fun of my Dad!"

Remember, Witt started by saying that he wasn't looking for the motorcade, that he just ran into it. So, why did he bring the umbrella if it wasn't threatening to rain, and if he didn't intend to see Kennedy?

So, he ran into the motorcade when he got to Main Street. And then with no direction or guidance whatsoever, he just happened to park himself right in that tiny Kill Zone? That freeway sign in front of the pergola was the start of the Kill Zone, and it was a very small Kill Zone, and Witt, just randomly and mindlessly found it? It was all luck? And then his story got even more bizarre.

He was asked what he saw of the shooting, and he said nothing; that he missed the whole thing; every bit of it. He claimed that when he started opening his umbrella that it blocked his
view of Kennedy, and by the time he could see again, it was all over, that he missed the entire thing. That is impossible because the shooting started high on the hill where Kennedy was shot in the back. Then, the limo slowed tremendously and probably came to a complete stop. All that took time, and it doesn't take that long to open an umbrella. And he didn't have to block his view at all to open it. He could have just opened it to the side and then swung
it over his head and never lost sight of JFK at all. But, his story was that the mere act of opening his umbrella caused him to miss everything. Are you buying that?

In 1939, when JPK Sr. got in trouble for trying to defuse WW2 and was ultimately disgraced for it, Witt was a 15 year old boy growing up in East Texas. How could he have been so focused on it then at such a young age, and why was he still focused on it in 1963 in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviet Union? Talk about being stuck in a time warp. We almost went to war with the Soviet Union in 1962 and would have, if not for Kennedy. Yet, Witt was still obsessed about JFK's father? It isn't credible, and I don't believe it,

And I don't believe Witt was Umbrella Man. I say that the real Umbrella Man used the weapon that Charles Senseney designed for the CIA to fire the dart into JFK's throat. That's what
it was, a dart; a dissolving dart; not a bullet.

Remember that Dr. Malcolm Perry said on 11/22/63 that it was an entrance wound in JFK's throat. and that there was no exit wound for it, and that he looked for, but couldn't find, the
missile. And he was a trauma surgeon who had worked on hundreds of bullet wounds.

The autopsy doctors never opened JFK’s throat, but they did x-ray his whole body, and they said that there was no bullet in him. And to those who think there was a bullet in his throat that was dug out at the pre-autopsy, I say no because if it could be found then, then Dr. Perry would have found it.

So, who was Umbrella Man? I don't know for sure, but I have been told that he was Fred Gibb, a CIA operative. On the left is Umbrella Man, and on the right is Gibb.

Ironically, the image on the right was sent to the HSCA as Oswald in Mexico City. Obviously, it's not Oswald, and Oswald did not go to Mexico City. But, I am open to the possibility that Gibb was both Umbrella Man and an Oswald impostor in Mexico City. But, I am darn sure that Steven Witt was not Umbrella Man.

 People don't realize how short the actual killing of Kennedy was, how concentrated the shots were. The first shot was the shot that hit him in the back, which was not a kill shot. It was a preparatory shot to immobilize him- physically and mentally- so that he would truly be a sitting duck. And it took time to work. The poisons had to seep in and take effect.

 So, as soon it happened, the limo began to slow, and it was already going slow. And it kept slowing until it stopped completely or very nearly did.  

 I know you don't see that in the Zapruder film. The limo zips right along in the Zapruder film. But, that film was massively altered. It was altered like the body of Frankenstein.

 Let's establish the coordinates. JFK was shot in the back about 30 yards from the Houston intersection when the limo was still adjacent to the TSBD building, and I can tell you exactly where it stopped or nearly stopped. It was when JFK was adjacent to Umbrella Man, who is the one who shot the dart into JFK's throat.

 Now, don't recoil from that. It is NOT farfetched. It is what happened, and there is no doubt about it. First, recognize that there was no bullet in JFK's throat. Dr. Perry fished around for one, and explained why. It was because he recognized the throat wound as an entrance wound, and after looking for and not finding an exit wound for it, he started looking for the missile. He even cut the strap muscle so that he could look underneath it, thinking that it might be there. But, it was not there.

Some people claim that it was dug out later, but don't believe it because Perry would have found it. If the later operators could go in there and find it and take it out, then Perry would have found it.

Furthermore, the plotters had to know that the first doctors to lay eyes on Kennedy were not going to be their doctors. They were going to be independent doctors.

 I can make an analogy to Trump. Some people don't believe that his ear was grazed in Butler. They think it was fake. They refer to it as "ketchup ear." They say it wasn't real blood. But, Trump was taken to an independent hospital: Butler Memorial Hospital, where he and his people had no control over the doctors. And those

doctors confirmed that he was shot. Doctors know the difference between blood and ketchup. It's not hard to tell them apart, and I say that facetiously. The fact that he was taken to independent doctors proves that what happened to him was real.

 It's the same with Kennedy, who was taken to independent doctors at Parkland Hospital, who were not involved in the plot. Those doctors included Dr. Perry, and he found no missile in JFK's throat.

 Whatever hit JFK in the throat dissolved, and it was designed to dissolve. It was "blood-soluble" as the great JFK researcher Jack White used to say. And he started saying it long before I did.

So, what was the purpose of that shallow shot in JFK's throat? It was to make a hole, which they needed. That's because they made a shallow hole in his back, which also did not have a missile. That was dissolvable too, but it was different; it was made of ice. I don't assume the throat missile was made of ice. It was made of something else that would dissolve in the heat of the internal body.

So, they were both empty shallow wounds. And what do you have when you have two empty shallow wounds that are lined up? You have the means to claim that they were one shot that traversed him.

 I resisted this narrative for years, probably over a decade. But then, Dr. Alen Salerian informed me that the CIA contracted with military engineer Charles Senseney in the 1950s to make an umbrella gun that would fire dissolvable darts. Then, I read Senseney's 20 pages of testimony to the HSCA. And that did it for me. I became a believer that Umbrella Man took the shot.

 Umbrella Man is the only one who could have taken it because of how small the target area was. This is me demonstrating it.

My index finger is on my Adam's Apple, and my thumb is in the suprasternal notch of the sternum. The hole in his throat had to be within that tiny span, and it had to be in the center. Otherwise, they couldn't tie the back shot and the throat shot together. The only way someone could hit such a tiny target was from up close. The idea that it was taken from the bridge or from Commerce St. and shot through the windshield is preposterous. No one could do that.

I asked Chat GPT if shooting through a windshield would cause a bullet to deviate.

"A windshield is one of the most likely types of glass to alter a bullet's path because it is laminated (two layers of glass with a plastic interlayer) and mounted at a significant angle.

In general terms: A bullet fired from outside the vehicle into the passenger compartment tends to be deflected downward after passing through the windshield.

The amount of deflection varies considerably depending on the angle of the windshield, the type of ammunition, and the impact point, so it isn't something that can be predicted with precision.

For storytelling purposes, if a character aims carefully through a windshield and the shot lands somewhat above or below the intended point because of the glass, that's generally realistic. The exact amount of the shift, however, is not something that can be reliably specify, and real-world outcomes are highly variable."

RC: Do you believe me now that JFK was not shot in the throat through the windshield? And he wasn't shot in the throat from a great distance. That shot was taken from just a few feet away by Umbrella Man.

 All right, so JFK was shot in the throat right when he was reaching the Stemmons Freeway sign across from the pergola. All the kill shots followed that, and the last one, the fatal head shot, was taken when JFK was adjacent to Zapruder. Therefore, the KIll Zone was on Elm Street from the Stemmons Freeway sign to Zapruder. I do think that the Stemmons Freeway sign was a pre-intended marker, but I'm not saying that about Zapruder.

 But, think about how small that distance was. And yet, they couldn't kill Kennedy until they took a shot that they didn't want to take, that was a shot of last resort, which was the fatal head shot taken from the right front. They didn't want to take it because they knew they were going to claim that all the shots came from the rear.

 I know there are people who believe that JFK was shot in the back of the head a split second before the fatal head shot. I don't say that they are right or wrong. I am an agnostic about it. We can't go by what the autopsists said because they denied the presence of the big blow-out wound in the lower right part of his head. They claimed that he had an entrance wound slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance that was 15 mm long and that the big blowout wound was in his parietal bone on top of his head.. But tell me: how does a bullet that was shot from a high elevation strike someone at the bottom of his head and then come out the top of his head? The discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors found and what the Bethesda doctors found needs to be addressed, and I will.

 My purpose in writing this was to show you just how small the Kill Zone really was. It didn’t start until Kennedy reached the sign. There was no attempt to kill him before that.  Yet, in order to get the job done, they had to resort to a fail-safe shot that they really didn't want to take. The killing of John F. Kennedy got botched. Badly botched.

 Marina said that she and Oswald discussed the President's visit on Thursday evening. She said she told him that she wished that she could get to see the President and First Lady. So, Oswald's wife liked the Kennedys. Imagine him hearing that on Thursday evening. What kind of sick, twisted maniac would he have to be to hear his wife say that and then proceed to kill this man she admired so much?

It is VERY important to reckon with the fact that there is no plausible motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy. There was nothing in it for him except total and complete self-destruction. It would mean the destruction of everything he held dear, and frankly, at that point in time, his family was about all he held dear, and it would have meant losing them.

We have often heard it said that he wanted to be remembered for something; to become famous for something. But, if that were true, why did he "emphatically deny these charges," as he said to reporters?

There is NO reason for Oswald to have done it- not even a wild one. It is hard to ascertain how much stock he really put in the Fair Play for Cuba business. I listened to the radio debate he did in New Orleans shortly after his arrest, and to me, he sounded sincere. I did not get the impression he was putting on an act. Still, I don't claim to know how much it mattered to him. But, if it mattered to him at all, it made no sense for him to kill Kennedy. Remember, Kennedy is the one who was pressured to invade Cuba after the Bay of Pigs failed, but he refused to do it. And then, he paid Castro reparations, to the tune of about $53 million. It wasn't in cash. It was in food, medicine, and also baby supplies. But, think about what $53 million in 1962 dollars is equivalent to today in 2026 dollars. It's almost $600 million. So, over half a billion.

Kennedy was called a Castro-lover, and he was hated for it. But, nobody called LBJ that. LBJ was considered a conservative Democrat who was hawkish towards Cuba and the Soviet Union. So, why would Oswald want to kill Kennedy knowing that he would be replaced with Johnson?

I think it's fair to say that for Oswald to kill Kennedy would have been so destructive to Oswald's life, meaning the loss of everything, including his family, that his fate after that would have been worse than death. We have all heard of situations in which someone went on a killing spree and ended it by killing himself. I could cite numerous examples, but I don't need to because you know it as well as I do. And the reason for it is that they know that if they live, they are either going to be executed by the State or imprisoned for life. And not wanting either of those options, they just kill themselves.

WC Attorney David Belin said that Oswald, after killing Kennedy, sought to escape to Mexico. It was based on nothing. Absolute zero. And the very idea of it is absurd. What would Oswald have done in Mexico? What would he have gone there for? How could he have put up with living there, under the circumstances? I mean: even if he could have managed to escape and get there, and even if he could have remained undiscovered, and even if he could have found a way to secure his needs, meaning food, water, and shelter, how could he stand a second of that life? What I mean is that he would have been so tortured, that he probably would have killed himself.

Let's go back to the idea of Oswald getting an impulse to kill Kennedy. There is no basis to think that he could have gotten such an impulse. It is patently absurd. But, let's put that aside a second and talk about it hypothetically. So, let's say that he did get an impulse to kill Kennedy. What I just laid out to you, about how killing Kennedy would have wrought the complete destruction of his life and everything he held dear, all of that would have flashed across his mind after he got the impulse, and that would have extinguished the impulse.

And we are talking about more than an impulse. Because, let's say that he was reading the newspaper in the lunch room earlier that week, and he saw the motorcade route. So, he got the impulse to kill Kennedy. Impulses are very quick, but he would have had days to think it over. And there are 24 hours in every single day.

Remember that the mind is a calculator, and his mind would have been calculating what was going to happen to him after he killed Kennedy, and he would have realized that if he killed Kennedy, he might as well kill himself. And we are talking about enough time for him to come to his senses about this.

And then, of course, he went to Irving on Thursday night. He saw his wife. He saw his kids. He played with his daughter and Ruth Paine's children. Wouldn't that have jarred him back to reason and self-control?

And what was there driving him the other way? People will do bad things because of compelling, irresistible desires, such as for drugs, or even sexual compulsions. But, what was there compelling him to kill Kennedy? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The irony is that it was Kennedy's real killers who were acting on compulsion. They were Cold Warriors, and Kennedy was a threat to the nation, a danger to the republic, etc.

Oswald was not only innocent; he was completely outside the monstrous mindset that Kennedy's real killers had. The criminal derangement that they assigned to him was their own criminal derangement. But, I bet you that even they couldn't do it if they had to do it alone. They couldn't have done it as lone nuts either. It was being part of a group that gave them the gumption to do it. It was a cult in which they all sustained each other.

Oswald killing Kennedy is so utterly impossible on so many different levels that it is bizarre that anyone in the year 2026 actually believes he did it. We have a duty to tear down this lie, if only out of respect for our own rational minds. To the extent that this story of Oswald's guilt is still being heaped upon us, we are living in the Twilight Zone.

 If you realize that Oswald was not on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, then he had to be somewhere else, and the only place he could have been was the doorway. He could not have been in the 2nd floor lunch room. Why? Because he was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room when Officer Baker saw him at 12:31.5. And if he was just getting there, he wasn't there a minute and half before.

One wise guy tried to claim that Oswald could have been there at 12:30, left and come back. But, there is no basis to claim that. We know of no reason why he would have done that. You can't speculate just for the heck of it. It looks like he just got there at 12:31, coming from somewhere else. That's what the evidence points to, and we have no reason to doubt it.

And where did he come from? Can we determine that from the facts of the matter? Yes, we can. Baker saw Oswald passing through the anteroom of the lunch room. There was a glass window in the door on Baker's side, and Baker saw him through that glass. But, the door was not in motion. Do you know what that means? It means that Oswald did not go through it because if he had gone through it, the door would have still been in motion. So, the fact that that door was still tells us that Oswald entered the anteroom through the other door, which was on the office side.

So, Oswald did not come down the stairs from the 6th floor. If he had, he would likely have run into Baker, and he surely would have run into Truly, who was ahead of Baker. That's right; even though they were looking for an armed killer, unarmed Truly led the way. What does that tell you? It tells me that Truly knew very well that there was no danger.

So, Oswald entered the anteroom from the office side, but how did he get to the 2nd floor office area? He didn't take the elevator because the electricity was turned off. That's why Baker and Truly took the stairs because the elevator was out for them too.

So, that means that Oswald must have used the stairs in the southeast corner of the building that went from the first floor to the second floor, and that is all. And those stairs were located right next to the doorway.

So, Oswald went from the doorway to the stairs; then he walked across the great expanse of the second floor from the southeast corner to the northwest corner, and then he entered the anteroom where Baker saw him.

So, Oswald was in the doorway during the motorcade, and there is no place else he could have been.

This plat shows you the exact route he took.

It starts with the doroway in the lower right corner. So, he just went through the double doors and then took the stairs to the second floor. Then he walked from that southeast corner to the northwest corner where the lunch room was. Baker saw him as he was passing through the anteroom into the lunch room, and he followed him in there.

It really is certain that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. However, he may have left for the lunch room before the final shot, which was the fatal head shot. And if so, it was most likely because Bill Shelley ordered him to. There is no other plausible reason.

Oswald would have had to be psychotic to shoot Kennedy. He never said a bad word about Kennedy in his life. Marina said that he liked Kennedy, that he defended Kennedy to her family in Russia. When Oswald heard that Kennedy liked to read James Bond novels, he started reading them too.

The story went that, with no ominous precedents about Kennedy whatsoever, Oswald saw that his motorcade would be passing the building, and he decided, on the spot, to kill him.

Oswald was living his life. He was working there. He was spending his free time with his family in Irving. The top priority in his life was to get his family back under his roof. He also wanted to acquire a better job. And he believed that getting a driver's license would make him more employable; so he was pursuing that too.

So, that was his life. That was where his mind was at. So, why would seeing the motorcade route in the newspaper cause him to go berserk and decide to kill Kennedy? There is no reason to think that it would. If you watch the Midnight Press Conference- and you should watch the whole thing because there are a lot of partial postings of it- you'll see that Oswald comes across as the most lucid, stable, and rational person in the room. He was totally in control of himself and totally sensible.

Now, the truth is that Oswald never did see that the motorcade would be passing the building. When he saw people gathering on the sidewalk on Friday morning, he asked James Jarman why they were doing that, and Jarman told him that the President would be riding by. Appareently, Oswald did not know that prior to that. So, how could he have had any plan to kill Kennedy? He couldn't have.

And the plotters realized that Oswald had to be made to seem insane, and that his insanity couldn't just start on 11/22. And that's why they made up the story about Oswald trying to shoot Walker. Oswald did not do that. He did not order or own a rifle. It is established in the record that he never took a rifle with him to New Orleans. And that means that no rifle of his was brought back from New Orleans and stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

Witnesses said there were two culprits at the Walker shooting, and that they both drove off in separate cars. Oswald had no car, and he had no friends. So, it couldn't have been him. And the bullet that was dug out of Walker's home was not one of the 6.5 x 52 mm bullets connected to the rifle that Oswald didn't even own.

But, that isn't the only wild story they added. They also got Marina to say that Oswald informed her that he was going somewhere in Dallas to kill Nixon. That was in April of '63. Nixon was not in Dallas then, but LBJ was. So, they asked her if she meant LBJ, but she said no, that she was sure it was Nixon. And she said she stopped him by locking him in the bathroom. And when it was pointed out to her that bathrooms only lock from the inside, she said she held the door handle, and he couldn't overcome her great strength.

So, like the alleged Walker shotoing attempt, which was on April 10, that was also in April. I don't know the exact day. And then, Oswald moved to New Orleans on April 24. According to Ruth Paine, Marine was very sad that he was leaving. She cried. And then when he called and said he had rented an apartment for them, Marina was jumping for joy, and she went to June and said to her in Russian, "Papa loves us."

Marina would have had to be insane too. When you find out that your husband is a homicidal maniac, you don't want to follow him anywhere. You want to get away from him. You want to protect yourself and your daughter. You don't follow him down to New Orleans after he does those things.

So what the authorities were telling us was that both Oswald and Marina were insane.

But, neither one of them were insane. It was just storytelling by bad storytellers. And I know about storytelling. I've written 8 movies.

Now, listen to me: The U.S. government killed Kennedy, and they killed Tippit and Oswald too. But, it was a transitional thing. It started as just a cabal, a secret network within the U.S. government, that did it. But, as soon as JFK took his last breath and LBJ became President, at that instant, the entire U.S. federal government got behind the official lone nut story. You might as well say that every federal employee, politician, diplomat, military personnel, etc. got behind it. And if anyone didn't believe it, they kept it to themselves. From that moment on, it was like a tsunami of pressure to go along with the story. And it wasn't much different for those in state governments. And of course, the mainstream media supported it. The tsumami covered everything and everyone. Acceptance of the official story became a litmus death for loyalty, patriotism, and love of country. The tsumani was so powerful, even Robert Kennedy didn't try to resist it.

So, it went from being a secret operation to a government decree that put everyone on the spot to either accept it or be an outcast. So, everyone accepted it, even though the non-seguitors existed, such as the complete lack of credibility of a rifle going to and from New Orleans. It was a roadblock then, as it is now, and people have ignored it all along. The pressure has persisted, and that's why it takes courage to do what we're doing.