Jim Fetzer, the claims of Bob Livingston do not amount to evidence. That was just him flexing his imagination. No one but you takes his claims seriously.  And you, of all people, should know that it does not rise to the level of bankable knowledge. And it's not about explaining just the throat wound; it's about explaining Kennedy's whole patho-physiological presentation, which neither a bullet nor a piece of glass can do. 

That you can hold fast to a casual conversation with someone from 1993 and consider it unassailable in 2023 is incredible. Imagine if it happened in medical research that someone posited a conversation with someone decades before as proof of something. You would be laughed at and considered insane.  

Since no bone was struck, there is no basis to conclude that a metal bullet fragmented. And you can't claim a bone fragmented because the only fracture found was a hairline fracture of the transverse process of a vertebra- I forget which one.  

Something is wrong with you that you keep saying that fragments were found, when they only exist in your imagination. And an appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy, in case you don't know it. 

The fact is: we don't have definitive evidence about a hole in the windshield. There were two different locations cited by witnesses. And even the photographic evidence for it is conflicting. I have told you repeatedly that the hole in the windshield in the Altgens photo cannot possibly be real because it was taken when the limo was high on the hill, long before the throat shot happened. I know the Altgens photo shows JFK and Jackie reacting similar to how they did in Z-255, but it's only a crude semblance of it. 

In the Altgens photo, JFK's fist is too large, and Jackie has both hands on his forearm, which goes on forever like a vacuum wand.

In the Z-film, she had one hand on his forearm, and her other hand was on his upper arm. And between her two hands was his extremely flexed elbow. 

It is very different from what we see in the Altgens photo, which is nothing but a crude paint-job.  

And if you just look above at 255, you'll see that no one in his right mind would take such a shot: having to hit a tiny spot at the bottom of his throat, while shooting through glass, and at a great distance. There are limitations to everything, Jim, including marksmanship, and nobody would take such a shot.  

The fatal head shot involved the use of a frangible (explosive) bullet. That's the bullet that fragmented, as it was designed to do. So, with a bullet exploding inside Kennedy's head, it could go in any direction. 

Your attempt to connect Kennedy's later brain damage to the throat shot is completely unfounded, unwarranted, and forensically unsound. 

And nobody agrees with you, Jim. Nobody but you claims that some of Kennedy's brain damage came from the throat shot.

I am posting this on my blog, Jim. I've had it with your stubbornness. It's all about you not wanting to revise your books and videos. Well, they are wrong, and that's tough. 

Dr. Alen Salerian is right that there could have been no bullet with the throat shot because if there were, Dr. Perry would have found it. Remember that it was just a few minutes after the shot that he was in Kennedy's throat, and he could find no bullet. The trauma he found was the entrance wound, the damage to the left side of the trachea, and a slight contusion at the top of the right lung. He didn't find a bullet, and he didn't find any sign that the bullet had traveled anywhere.  

And let's remember that Kennedy was in a panic when he emerged from behind the phony freeway sign. HIs airway was obstructed. He put his right hand over his mouth and coughed, and with his left hand, he yanked on his tie. And that did it. It cleared the obstruction. It would not have been so easy to clear had it been a metal bullet causing it. The reason it got resolved so quickly is because it wasn't a bullet but rather a dissolvable flechette. 

This is undeniable. To claim that he was shot in the throat with a metal bullet is untenable. To claim that he was shot in the back with a metal bullet is untenable. To claim that the bullet fell out is ridiculous. These were preparatory shots, and the effects they had on Kennedy were due to the toxins introduced, rather than physical trauma. Kennedy didn't speak, and he couldn't speak. The claim that he yelled "I'm hit!" is a total, utter lie. If he were capable of saying that, he would have been capable of saying more than that. 

I know that not everyone is a doctor, but you have to look at Kennedy as a doctor would. You have to assess him as a patient, and the impairment that he exhibited, both physically and mentally, was extreme. And when I say physically, I mean functionally. He really was having a seizure in that limo. And as I watch it in the Zapruder film, it looks very much like what happened to Jane Stanford, where her muscles started seizing up from the strychnine. 

And, as with Jane Stanford, it was a progressive thing. This is a comparison of z-262 and z-268, so all this progression supposedly took place in a third of a second.

You can see the progression in his shoulder hunching, and even the gripping of his masseter muscle in his face is more pronounced on the right. He is a wreck there, and don't assume he wasn't in pain. THERE IS NO WAY HIS PHYSICAL TRAUMA CAN ACCOUNT FOR THIS. It was chemical. And there is no excuse for the medical profession not recognizing this for what it is. If this had happened in any other context but the JFK assassination, they would have. 

Jim Fetzer has brought to my attention an FBI memo from 1964 about a radical right-wing activist named Oren Potito who organized a public meeting in which he made certain claims about Jack Ruby. 

  

So, let's review the ridiculous claims of this con-man. First, he claimed that Ruby and Oswald knew each other, as Communists, and that Ruby got Oswald the job at the "state school building" so that he could kill Kennedy. There is no evidence that Ruby knew Oswald or ever heard of him before 11/22/63. And you should realize that a lip-flap is NOT evidence. Anyone can flap their lips and say anything. And in this case, there was a devious campaign to create a phony, fabricated identity and past for Ruby. And in a way, it was genius because officially, Ruby was going to be another lone assassin, but they also composed the alternate story, in advance, that he was deep in the Mafia and involved in killing not just Oswald, but JFK. The reality was that Ruby didn't kill either one. He wasn't even in the garage during the televised spectacle; he was already tucked away on the 5th floor. 

But, the FBI knew that there were going to be people were going to doubt the official story of HOW Ruby did it, but they didn't want them doubting THAT he did it. So, they wove this alternate story that made Ruby a Mafioso, a Communist (in this case, although in other versions, he was a rabid anti-Communist, running guns to anti-Castro Cubans, infiltrating Communist organizations, working for Richard Nixon, etc.) The reason they made him out to be a Communist in this case was to tie him to Oswald. Ruby did not know Oswald. He never met him and never heard of him. And the idea that the JFK conspirators relied on Ruby to get anything done to kill Kennedy is a joke. Ruby was a mental case and a blabbermouth. Nobody in his right mind would trust him to do anything, let alone kill the President of the United States. 

Emphatically and repeatedly, Ruby denied knowing Oswald. He denied it on a polygraph test, which he technically passed. And remember that it was he who adamantly requested the polygraph test. He also offered to swallow truth serum. So, you know he had no intention of lying. He didn't ask for it because he thought he could "beat the machine." On what basis would he have thought that?

He also denied being in the Mafia and being a gunrunner. He said that the closest he ever got to doing business in Cuba was that he considered selling Army surplus supplies to Cuba, including jeeps, but his lawyer talked him out of it. 

The more astute researchers know that Oswald never went to Mexico City. Yet, there were witnesses who claimed to see him there, and a woman, Sylvia Duran, the secretary of the Cuban Consulate, who claimed to have an affair with him. But obviously, since Oswald did not go to Mexico City, he did not have an affair with her. 

Drumming up phony witnesses to tell their lies is something that the U.S. intelligence agencies (FBI and CIA) have always done. And they did it lavishly, both for Oswald and Ruby.  

Now, the first bullet was NOT the one that entered JFK's throat. The first bullet was the one that entered his back, high on the hill, when the limo was still adjacent the TSBD and before the Altgens photo was taken. And it wasn't really a bullet. It was an ice flechette that contained what has been called a "paralyzing nerve agent," but the more accurate description is a spasmodic nerve agent. 

So, JFK rode down the hill having only been shot in the back. And it was a very shallow and trivial wound. In itself, the trauma was neither physically nor mentally disabling. So, why didn't he do something? Why didn't he take evasive action to protect himself and the others in the car? And keep in mind: there is no doubt that the physical damage from the shot was very minor; it was just a shallow puncture wound in the muscle and fascia.  The reason he didn't do anything is because the drug or drugs in the flechette were mentally incapacitating, and they acted fast. 

As for the throat shot, it was actually pretty minor as well. It damaged the lower rings of the trachea on the left side and caused a very slight contusion of the lung. These were reported by Dr. Malcolm Perry. But, he fished around looking for a missile, and he even cut the right strap muscles in order to facilitate the search, but of course, he found nothing. And remember that this was before any alleged and supposed "pre-autopsy." So, there really was no missile. So, that was a flechette shot too, although a different kind. It's very likely that the throat shot was taken by Umbrella Man, who used another kind of flechette that also dissolved but was not made of ice. 

The claim that the throat shot was taken from the Triple Underpass Bridge is complete nonsense. There were 18 railway workers up there, 14 of whom were vetted personally by S.M. Holland, the railway supervisor. The other hare-brained idea is that the throat shot was taken at an angle from a storage unit at the divider island between Main and Commerce streets. That is absurd because it would have been hard enough to hit Kennedy in the head from that distance, but the idea of hitting a tiny spot at the bottom of his throat is a wild fantasy. Such accuracy from that distance is impossible. That shot had to be taken from up close, and the claim that Umbrella Man did it is well supported by photographic malfeasance in Betzner, Willis, and more.  This is what we know about the development of the umbrella gun: 

Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.

Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.

Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.

Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.

Considering that the throat shot entered JFK's neck in the center but damaged the left side of his trachea, that tells you that it must have been taken from the right. And again, it had to be taken from close up to hit such a tiny spot in his throat. All that points to Umbrella Man as the shooter. 

 

The claims of Oren Potito were nothing but engineered noise, designed to mislead and deceive. Not a word he said was true. He was just another intelligence mole planting disinfo so that present and future reseachers would be preoccupied with diversionary nonsense. It's a pity that, to this day, some still fall for it. 

We can see in the Zapruder film when Kennedy got hit in the back. Here he is in frame 188, and he's fine. He's looking at the spectators and waving. Note how sharp the image is. And it's really not all that sharp, but compared to the ones that follow, it is. 

What's phony about this frame is the sign, which is completely bogus. And anyone who hasn't seen the video of my experiment in Dealey Plaza proving that the sign is fake, really should:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJMrM_QKyc&t=1s

But, notice how high he is on the hill. That's the corner right behind him. It starts blurring up right after this. Let's jump to frame 196, which is less than half a second later. 

Now, it's blurry and distorted, and his hand seems to be over his face. I'm sure that was done by the alterers. Kennedy was shot between those two frames, and he reacted to it. 

Now, if you just compare the two frames, you know that that much forward progress could not have been made in half a second. They removed frames- a lot of them- but, they tried to keep the jumps small, whatever they could get away with. But, the goal was to get him to that sign fast to obscure the fact that he rode down the hill having been shot only in the back. And I don't believe he put his hand over his face. That's something they did to cover up what was surely a distressed look on his face. 

And it continues with his hand covering his face until he disappears behind the sign. Here he is in 206

This is another half-second later, and obviously, that much change could not have occurred in a half-second either.  Notice that Jackie is turned and looking at him. Why isn't she working her side of the street like a good political wife? It's because she knows that something is wrong with him. She said he had a "quizzical look." She did not say that he put his hand over his face.

So, the Zapruder film tells us when JFK was shot in the back and his location when he was shot in the back. 

Here is Zapruder 230:

So, this is post-sign, and JFK is reacting to having been shot in the throat. And at the center-bottom of the frame, we see Umbrella Man's friend. That throat shot was such a tiny target, requiring perfect accuracy, it had to have been taken up close. There is no way it was taken from hundreds of feet away. I agree with Dr. Alen Salerien and researcher Karen Clift that the most likely person who took that shot was Umbrella Man using his weaponized umbrella, which we know existed.  

 The Betzner and Willis photos are practically identical, which gives us the opportunity to do something: compare the spectators on north side of Elm and make sure they are the same.

First, note that the humongous figure in Betzner is probably bogus. Remember that people look through viewfinders before they snap the shudder. And if that's what Betzner saw, he would have stepped a little to his right. Wouldn't you? So apparently, there was something they didn't want us to see. But now, let's compare the spectators. 

Let's start with Betzner, which is the lower one. Right at the point of Godzilla's shoulder, you see the umbrella of Umbrella Man peaking out. Now, isn't that convenient? That umbrella establishes that he was there, but look how easy it would have been to paint that in. And I'm not disputing that he was there. What I'm starting to think is that the reason they needed Godzilla there was to cover up what Umbrella Man was doing. 

Note that the detail of the spectators is completely lacking, with no facial details at all. Why would a camera do that? But, if they took to painting, which is how they photoshopped in those days, it's pretty hard to draw details of a face at that distance. It was better to go with nothing. 

So, in Willis, you see Umbrella Man, and he's just standing under his umbrella, as if it were raining. When Louis Steven Witt testified to the HSCA that he was the Umbrella Man, he said he was making like Neville Chamberlain to debase Joseph Kennedy Sr. for being a Nazi sympathizer. And to this day, Joseph Kennedy Sr. is debased for that reason. But, Neville Chamberlain was famous for standing or walking with his umbrella, not actually standing under it. 

I say Louis Steven Witt was a phony, an impostor. I don't believe he was the Umbrella Man, and I don't believe the real Umbrella Man was there to make a statement about World War 2. I'll add that every single person who has tried to insert himself or herself into the JFK assassination years later is a fake and phony. That includes Judyth Baker, Beverly Oliver, Louis Steven Witt, and you name it. 

But, getting back to Willis and Betzner:

So, in Willia, we have the dubious Umbrella Man standing under his umbrella. Let's compare the people under the sign in the two photos. In Willis, we see several people who look young. The young man who stands out the most in Willis- is he wearing a tuxedo? Is there a boutennier pinned to it? That's what it looks like to me. Next to him is a space before it gets to a lady in a hat. But, in Betzner, there is no space. The space is filled with a short person. Glance at both and see for yourself. Next, we have to look to the right of the SS men. In Willis, there is a lady in a hood or a hat next to a man in a fedora hat. In Betzner, the hood or the hat is more prominent, and there is another person to her right. We can't discern the man in the fedora hat at all. And then past the next group of SS men, there is complete divergence. They seem to be different people. A big difference is that in Betzner, there are a lot of arms waving, but not in Willis. Also, in Willis, there is a man in a hard hat. But again, the biggest difference is that in Betzner, the group looks very enthusiastic and rambunctious, while in Willis, they look staid and reserved.

That's enough to establish that there is no accord between the spectators in Betzner and the ones in Willis, and that makes both images very suspect. It's very possible that some of those spectators are fake. We know that was the Kill Zone, and we know that they actively sought to keep people out of it. And I can understand why the abrupt change in population density is something they would want to hide. 

But regardless, it is very compelling to conclude that all the spectator images are suspicious and untrustworthy. 

And let's review what we have of Umbrella Man. In Betzner, it's just an umbrella peaking out above Godzilla's shoulder, for the sake of the roll call. And in Willis, he's standing there like it was really raining, but the image is so crude, so lacking in detail, that it could easily have been accomplished with paint. 

So, what if Umbrella Man was pointing his umbrella at Kennedy and delivering the throat shot? There really was a functioning umbrella gun. The CIA contracted with a man to create it, although I forget his name. Some have speculated that the throat shot was taken either from the TU bridge or from way over by Main/Commerce, but that is ridiculous. NOBODY could have accomplished that shot from that distance.  There is this thing that happens in marksmanship that people forget when they analyze this stuff: people miss! And then, these boneheads want to claim that from hundreds of feet away and shooting through the glass of the windshield, someone placed a bullet at the bottom of JFK's throat, right above his suprasternal notch- as if anyone could do that. Huh. Not even Annie Oakley could have done it.  

The throat shot had to be taken from a lot closer than that. So, maybe Dr. Alen Salerian is right that it was Umbrella Man who took the throat shot- from a very close, manageable distance.  And if so, maybe that's why Godzilla got put into the Betzner photo, and the convenient umbrella peaking out is just a decoy. 

 

From when it was first shown to the public in 1975, people should have realized that the sign was fake. Just from driving all their adult lives, they should have realized that it couldn't be a real road sign. 

And in this case, not only is the angle of the sign wrong (it should be 90 degrees to the road) but the size of it is wrong (it is way too large) and the location of it is wrong (it was lower on the hill). So, why didn't people scream bloody murder the first time they saw this?

I mentioned in my first report that the sign became a curtain, like a magician's curtain, blocking the view and fostering the desired illusion. You've heard of the Magic Bullet? Well, like at a magic show, the magic had to happen behind something. The magician at least has to turn around to get the magic done. And in this case, the magic was that a single bullet traversed the bodies of two men, causing 7 wounds between them. 

But, it wasn't just that. The other purpose of the phony side was to hide the fact that Kennedy was wounded long before he reached the sign, that he rode down the hill having been shot in the back, long before he was shot in the throat. It meant that they had to cut out a large swath of the film, which undoubtedly showed Kennedy in an altered state-in which he was not smiling, not waving, and obviously in distress. That's the reason he had to get to the sign right away. They couldn't show how he really looked as he approached it. 

The fact  is that the Stemmons freeway sign in the Zapruder film is the centerpiece of the whole film. It is like the bull in the proverbial china shop. 

It is also clear and unmistakable evidence of a crime: tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. The Zapruder film is evidence of the murder of President Kennedy, and it is also evidence of the cover-up of his murder. So, who committed that crime? Essentially, it was the same people who committed the first crime; the people who killed him. The film was in the possession of TIME/LIFE, but just think CIA. Henry Luce was another ultra-right-wing magnate, like David Harold Byrd, the Hunt Brothers, Clint Murchison Sr., Prescott Bush, etc. Luce did not make the decisions about what would be done to the Zapruder film. He wasn't going to take that responsibility. So, who did? I suspect it was Dino Brugioni, the head of the CIA's "National Photographic Interpretation Center" (a euphemism if there ever was one). It comes down to the undeniable fact that if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill Kennedy (and he didn't) then the U.S. government did. And I don't mean "rogue elements" of the U.S. government. I mean the very institutions of the U.S. government, including top officials within Kennedy's own National Security Council. As Vincent Salandria told us, it was the National Security State that killed Kennedy; not Oswald, not the Mafia, and not just a few rogue elements within the CIA. It was a coup d'etat. 

I don't say that everyone high in government knew. But, those that didn't quickly figured out that they needed to go along with the official story in order to survive. And when I say survive, I mean survive in government and survive in life, because, as you know, accidents happen. 

We are in the year of the 60th anniversary, so what should happen this November? I think there should be a march on Washington, and I can think of two shouts for the maching activists. One is: "Stop the Lies! Oswald outside!" The second is: "The sign's a phony! Blame Brugioni!" 

 

 I get it that when people hear that JFK was shot in the back with a nerve agent, it triggers their most critical reaction, as if it is as harebrained as the Flat Earth Society. And often, they will shut their minds completely and refuse to give it further thought. 

But, do they not realize how totally deranged Kennedy is in the Zapruder film? He completely lost his ability to speak and to communicate in any way. He can't express himself with words, nor with a look, nor with his hands, nor with a head gesture. He is completely devoid of the cognitive ability to do it. Remember that in order to communicate, you need to have something to communicate. You need to be conscious; you need to be aware; you need to be able to understand the situation you're in; and you need to be able to form cogent thoughts and express them. Kennedy couldn't do any of that. So, what happened to completely devastate his mind? 

It's not just that he couldn't speak because of his throat wound, because if that were the case, he would have communicated with his hands and by pointing and gesturing with his head. He would have tried to do something. It wasn't just that his voice was gone; rather, his mind was gone. 

And then, there was the extreme muscular dyskinesia, in which his muscles seized up and solidified him. He became like a statue. So, what caused that? He had suffered no damage to his brain or spinal cord, so what caused such extreme cerebral and neuological manifestations to take place?

The JFK assassination was a once in a lifetime event. It was a once in a century event. There were other assassinations in the 20th century, including other political assassinations, including another Presidential assassination: William McKinley. But, nothing compares to JFK's assassination in the way it registers on us. We've become accostumed to looking at the Zapruder film with a JFK mindset- which is a mental realm in which the story of the Zapruder film- that JFK rode down the hill smiling and waving, and then disappeared behind the sign, and then re-emerged from behind it a different man- not just in the fact that he was wounded, but a different person- different as day and night. We accept his weird muscle contractions and his vacant mental state as normal for the JFK assassination, even though there is no way that his physical trauma could have caused it.

It is a clinical presentation crying for a diagnosis. Dr. John Lattimer tried slapping the term "Thorburn position" on it, but either Lattimer was a very stupid man or he was evil. I read Thorburn's paper about his patient who whose spinal cord was crushed, and I mean flattened, at the level of C5. What does that have to do with Kennedy? Nothing. Kennedy suffered no spinal cord damage. There are no parallels whatsoever between Kennedy and Thorburn's patient. 

I can very easily explain to you what happened to Thorburn's patient. He was paralyzed from C5 down. Most of his muscles were completely paralyzed, as in denervated. Now, you understand that there is such a thing as "muscle tone," right? And you understand that there are opposing muscles, such as the biceps and the triceps, which oppose each other. So, what do you think happens when your triceps are paralyzed and your biceps aren't? What happens is that the tone in your biceps is eventually going to contract it all the way to closure. Every time you twitch, it closes a little more, until it closes all the way, and there's no reversing it. 

So, the position of the arms of Thorburn's recumbent, unconscious patient was the result of muscle tone working unopposed. That is the most succinct way to put it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Kennedy.

So, we have a man, JFK, who has experienced a complete mental collapse, where he is incapable of comprehending his reality, and incapable of communicating from lacking the ability to form coherent thoughts, and at the same time, he is experiencing tetanic spasms throughout his muscles in a spreading fashion. 

That is a hell of a lot of pathology to occur instantly, so what could have caused it? Let's review his injuries. He had a shallow puncture wound in his upper back on the right side at the level of T3. Only the skin, fascia and muscle were affected. It had no clinical importance or significance. He also had a wound in his throat from a small missile that damaged his lower trachea on the left side. Dr. Perry also saw a slight contusion over the right lung, and because there was free blood there, he requested and got a suction tube for it. 

Now, that's it. That is the totality of the physical trauma that Kennedy had to that point. How could that have caused the clinical situation that Kennedy is in, where his mind is completely gone, and his muscles are completely out of control? It couldn't.   

Something happened to Kennedy that caused that bizarre clinical picture, and we are obliged to find out what it was. The idea that it was a poison-laced ice bullet is very reasonable because:

1) only an ice bullet could have gone from flight velocity to zero velocity in a distance of one inch. A metal bullet couldn't do it. It might stop within a person's body but not in an inch. It takes more tissue resistance than that to stop a metal bullet. 

2) we know that the ice gun which could deliver a nerve agent did exist in 1963. CIA Director William Colby told us so in 1975 with the gun on display.  

3) no bullet was found in Kennedy's back, and the claim that it fell out or was dug out is entirely speculative and unbankable. 

This comes down to what is called in Medicine "differential diagnosis." And there is no doubt that Kennedy's pathophysiology can be explained by the introduction of toxins into his sytem, and nothing else comes close to explaining it in a credible, plausible, and rational way. 

The toxin-lain ice bullet isn't the harebrained theory; it is the alternatives to it that are. And the truth is that there are no alternatives to it that are even remotely plausible. It stands alone as the only cogent deduction that you can make. 

So, the automatic rejection of people when they first hear this is a misfiring. It is much more emotional than it is cognitive. And they don't think about the fact that what they have instead is absolutely nothing. All they have is JFK going berserk and losing his mind for no reason at all. It just happened because it happened in JFK-land where such things happened. That is the best way I can articulate their sub-conscious thought process, and it is pitiful.