I've been having an interesting private conversation with Shaun Horrigan, who agrees with me that Umbrella Man took the throat shot. And we both think that there must have been a homing device that sent the dart exactly where it needed to go.

As you know, the projectile struck JFK in the lower throat, and not for one second do I think it was an accident; a miss. That was the target, and no one has any basis to assume otherwise.

So, not only did it hit the target, but it hit it right in the center. The throat wound was described by several Parkland doctors as being "in the midline." And that includes Malcolm Perry. There's no way anyone could have accomplished that by sighting down an umbrella. Sprague and Cutler said that the dart was like a guided missile. It did not involve any great marksmanship by Umbrella Man.

So, what guided it? It must have been a homing device. But, where was the homing device?

Shaun Horrigan suggested that perhaps his tie was the homing device. And that makes sense because we know that the tie got nicked.

So, I have looked into it, and what I found out is that JFK changed his tie shortly before the motorcade began. He was wearing one tie in Ft. Worth, at his address outside the hotel and at the breakfast they had for him, and also on the plane. But, either on the plane, or after he deboarded, he changed his tie. And that is NOT subject to debate. The White House Historical Association says that he did that. And the two ties had very different outcomes. The first tie, which he put in his jacket pocket, was later give to a family friend, Preston Bruce, by Jackie. The second tie got nicked in the shooting, and it went to the National Archives, which still has it. And they have never displayed it publicly.

But, here is where it gets even weirder: the two ties look about the same. I can't see any visual difference between them. SO, WHY WOULD HE CHANGE FROM ONE TIE TO ANOTHER TIE THAT WAS IDENTICAL OR NEARLY SO?

I don't think that his mind would have been on his tie at all. So, I don't think it was his idea. I think that someone on his staff must have given him a reason why he really should change his tie. And when I say his staff, I mean his Secret Service agents.

So, I am very open to the posssibility that the second tie had the homing device that would guide the dart to his throat. So, I think Shaun Horrigan got it right, that it was the tie.

And to the naysayers, I ask: Why then did he change his tie? You think he got some egg on it at the Ft. Worth breakfast? It's not part of the record, and you can't make it up.

And I find it very strange that he would have two such identical ties. If you look at men's tie racks, no two ties are the same, and that's true of me too, although I hardly ever wear ties any more.

I think we uncovered history today. How many JFKers knew before today that JFK changed his tie between Ft. Worth to Dallas? But, now you know, and you know that the ties were very similar, which makes the whole thing even more suspicious. And remember how it started, with Shaun Horrigan wondering if JFK's tie was the homing device that guided the dart from the umbrella gun to his throat. Good thinking, Shaun.

 I am having trouble buying this. I'm one of those people who thinks that aging only goes in one direction. You've heard of the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons? Well, this is the curious case of Benjamin Netanyahu.

 They swiftly covered James Bookhout's head when his hat fell off during melee' because he was maquerading as Jack Ruby. 

 Someone wrote to me saying that JIm Leavelle, his "look of horror" was so sincere. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that is delusional. The whole thing was faked. How could anyone be so obtuse? Leavelle lied through his teeth. You wanna talk about Leavelle? Let's do.

It's true that Leavelle made a cottage industry out of the whole thing. He became the face, the voice, and the curator of the Oswald shooting. His lies about it started immediately, but because he was so long-lived, his lies became so entrenched that he may have started believing them himself.

He said he was looking directly at the shooterr, Jack Ruby, as he rushed in, and that was a lie. Leavelle deliberately looked away from the shooter as he rushed in because he had no intention of stopping him. And, Leavelle came to start embellishing the story over the years,claiming that upon seeing Ruby, he said out loud, "Jack, you son of a bitch." He never said that. Remember, the films are video and audio.

He said that upon seeing Ruby rush in, he pulled on Oswald to jerk him behind him. He never did that. Leavelle did not react in any way to the shooter until after the shot went off.

And from the very berginning, Leavelle said that he thumped Ruby on his left shoulder with the heel of his right hand. He did not do that either. Didn't he know that there are films? He even demonstrated how he slapped the shooter, which he never did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxKEzFH_OHY&t=188

So, on the left is Leavelle tellling his tall tale and showing what he did, and on the right is the very moment of the shot, and you can see that he was nowhere near trhe shooter and didn't even have his eyes on him, let alone his hand.

Leavelle was oblivious to the shooter until after the shot, and so were Oswald and Graves. The shooter had to pass right in front of Graves to get to Oswald, but somehow, Graves didn't see him. Like Leavelle, Graves did not begin to react until after the shot.

Another lie Leavelle told was that, after the shot, the shooter tried to shoot again, aiming at him, and that his partner LC Graves saved his life by grabbing Ruby's wrist and gun. Total lie. The shooter did not try to shoot again. What he did was dive into the waiting arms of the Police.

Then, the next lie was that he, Leavele, and "another officer" picked up the stricken Oswald and carried him into the Jail Office. Bill Lord asked Leavelle who the other officer was, and Leavelle stumbled and stuttered and then said he couldn't remember. It was the same day. The reason he didn't want to cite anyone is because it never happened. Oswald wasn't shot, and he moved into the Jail Office on his own power nrhind a curtain of men. Supposedly, he was shot AND HIS AORTA AND VENA CAVA WERE RUPTURED. And they were. The Parkland doctors said that happened. But, it didn't happen in the garage. Those are the largest blood vessels in the body, and the aorta, being an artery under pressure, would have been spurting blood like a hose with the water turned full on spurts water. And yet there wasn't a single drop of blood in the basement?

But, I'll leave you with this: Leavelle said that he was handcuffed to Oswald, and he didn't remove the handcuffs until he put him down on the floor inside. But, how did he pick him up if they were handcuffed? If they were handcuffed, then Leavelle's left hand was tied to Oswald's right hand. So, how did he get his arms underneath Oswald to carry him if Oswald's right hand had to go wherever Leavelle's left hand went?

Not only did Leavelle claim to be handcuffed to Oswald, he also said that he put his hand in his pants as they were walking along. Why did he have to do that? Wasn't the handcuff enough? That whole claim deserves a post in itself.

Leavelle lied like a dog, and I apologize to all dogs. And he wore his Easter suit the day after his friend JD Tippit and the President of the United States were killed. That's right. He wore it on Saturday as well as Sunday. That's because the purpose of the Easter suit was to help the shooter distinguish Oswald (who was in black) from him. And it was possible they were going to do the jail transfer on Saturday, so he wore the Easter suit. It was a very light beige suit. The one on display at the Sixth Floor Museum is brown, and it's not the one he wore. His was truly an Easter suit.

I'm telling you: the whole thing was staged. It was all theater. The Dallas Police shot Oswald afterwards, and I have no doubt that Leavelle was part of that too.

 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.