But that is just one aspect. Another is the discussion of what happens when humans were found not to be doing the right thing, such as engaging in warfare for the goal of taking and plundering the things available from others and not doing anything to help replenish and rebuild the resources as part of their life's work or more worthwhile goal to reach for.

To express this emotion of the good and bad, positive or negative, of all human decisions and actions, the documents suggest what we do reflects the decisions and actions of this God should it be around to observe what we do. For example, the mysterious entity was likely to show love and guide those people who do the "right thing" in accordance with the principle of love (as well as share ideas encapsulated in interesting stories passed down to humans), or no actions for the people doing the "wrong thing" but let the impending negative consequences occur (such as getting killed in human warfare or some natural disaster that is about to occur) or else do something to make it harder for certain people who are doing the "wrong thing" from reaching a certain destination, such as destroying key stone markers when travelling long distances. For example, the fragments will state the following:

Of God's vengeance and providence:

Now listen, all right-minded men, and take note how God acts: He has a case against all flesh and exacts satisfaction from all who spurn Him.

Whenever Israel broke faith and renounced Him, He hid His face both from it and from His sanctuary and consigned them to the sword. But whenever He called to mind the Covenant which He had made with their forbears, He spared them a remnant and did not consign them to utter extinction.

So, in the Era of Anger, that era of the three hundred and ninety years, when He delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, He took care of them and brought to blossom alike out of the priesthood and out of the laity that root which had been planted of old, allowing it once more to possess the land and to grow fat in the richness of its soil. Then they realised their iniquity and knew that they had been at fault. For twenty years, however, they remained like blind men groping their way, until at last God took note of their deeds, how that they were seeking Him sincerely, and He raised up for them one who would teach the Law correctly, to guide them in the way of His heart and to demonstrate to future ages what He does to a generation that incurs His anger, that is, to the congregation of those that betray Him and turn aside from His way.

Going back to those "sons of God", we see that there is some indication that these sons may have wanted to have "wives" of their own. As mentioned in Genesis 6 of the New American Standard Bible (NASB):

6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Looking further into this Zadokite Document, we can see God expressing unhappiness by the level of interference and behaviour shown by his "sons". Even after dealing with them (it is unclear how), we also noticed how some humans would behave when corrupted, presumably from various temptations. It was enough to see one story get created and past down through the generations to at least one human with an understanding of God's will and use the example of two humans in the garden to emphasise this point to those who were willing to listen and learn.

If one could rely on these early texts for insights into our past, it seems to be that we may have a complicated part of human history that could have taken place in the Middle East, and we need to be prepared for this possibility. Or the stories could simply be a great way for people to introduce concepts that are important to human life, even if the need to mention God in these stories remains a little troubling for scientists in modern times. Whatever was going on thousands of years ago, these concepts would help us even today to solve certain social problems.

- YEARS AGO

Between 218 B.C. and 43 B.C., Roman civilians and military soldiers reported seeing UFOs. Most sightings tended to get ignored, but a number of sightings were spectacular enough and seen by enough people to warrant the Roman authorities to record them for posterity.

The space agency NASA has looked at the more authentic UFO accounts in ancient times, of which those Roman UFO sightings written into history are among the ones that the agency considers to be worthy of consideration and study.

Here is a summary (compiled by Richard Stothers) of the main UFOs observed in Italy at around this time, with possible natural explanations included (Stothers, Richard B. 2007, "Unidentified flying objects in classical antiquity":Classical Journal, pp.82-84):

1. At Rome in the winter of 218 B.C. "a spectacle of ships (navium) gleamed in the sky" (Liv. 21.62.4). Franklin Krauss, for lack of an alternative explanation, speculated that the "ships" were clouds or mirages, although suggestive cloud formations had been long- understood, familiar features.
2. In 217 B.C, "at Arpi round shields (parmas) were seen in the sky" (Liv. 22.1.9; Orosius 4.15). A parma was a small round shield made partly or wholly of iron, bronze or another metal; we do not know whether the luster of these devices (and not just their shape) was intended to be an element of the description. Mock suns are an unlikely explanation, since in the Roman prodigy lists these were routinely described as "double suns" or "triple suns" (i.e. two mock suns on either side of the real one).
3. In 212 B.C. "at Reate a huge stone (saxum) was seen flying about" (Liv. 25.7.8). The implication would seem to be that the object in question was a stony grey color; that it is said to have moved irregularly (volitare) leaves open the possibility that the object Livy describes was a bird or some kind of airborne debris.

Sporadic reports of similar objects continue to appear after this in the Roman prodigy lists. The immediate sources are again Livy and his extractors Pliny, Plutarch, Obsequens and Orosius:

1. In 173 B.C. "at Lanuvium a spectacle of a great fleet was said to have been seen in the sky" (Liv. 42.2.4).
2. In 154 B.C. "at Compsa weapons (arma) appeared flying in the sky" (Obsequens 17). The term refers to defensive weapons, especially shields.
3. In 104 B.C. "the people of Ameria and Tuder observed weapons in the sky rushing together from east and west, those from the west being routed." Thus Pliny (Nat. 2.148) who uses the term armafor UFOs is essentially the same as Obsequens’ (43) version. Plutarch (Mar. 17.4) also gave similar support by calling the weapons "flaming spears and oblong shields," but may be merely glossing and expanding; since he noted the time as night, the phenomenon in question might be the streamers of an aurora borealis.
4. In 100 B.C., probably at Rome, "a round shield (clipeus), burning and emitting sparks, ran across the sky from west to east, at sunset." Thus Pliny (Nat. 2.100), although Obsequens (45) called the phenomenon "a circular object, like a round shield". The clipeus was a round shield similar to the parma, but bigger. Seneca (Nat. 1.1.15; 7.20.2), quoting Posidonius (1st century B.C.), referred to a class of clipei flagrantes, saying that they persisted longer than shooting stars. Nothing in the ancient reports forbids that these were spectacular bolides (meteoric fireballs), which move across the sky more slowly than ordinary shooting stars, but enormously faster than genuine comets, which are seen for days or weeks.
5. In 43 B.C. at Rome "a spectacle of defensive and offensive weapons (armorum telorumque species) was seen to rise from the earth to the sky with a clashing noise." It might be possible to visualize in this report a bolide exploding while rising above the horizon.

- YEARS AGO

YEARS AGO

The earliest known device that could have been designed as a battery for storing electric charges appeared in the first century A.D.

In 1936, archaeologists working for the Iraqi Antiquities Authority unearthed a jar roughly 14 cm tall. On removing the asphalt seal, they found a tube of copper surrounding an iron rod. The two metals did not make contact. They were held in place by more asphalt. Wilhelm Koenig, an Austrian who served as director of Baghdad Museum at the time, looked at the strange jar. Apart from the fact that it was constructed by someone living in the Parthian empire, the Parthians were not noted for any special engineering or technical prowess. Yet, somehow, this jar excavated from a site of Khujut Rabou near Baghdad looked remarkably like a battery.

Experiments to replicate the design and add an acid such as salt water, copper sulphate, citrus juice or vinegar, can produce a measurable voltage. Salt water was the least useful as it quickly corroded the iron, causing the voltage to drop after 60 seconds. Copper sulphate was better, allowing a voltage of 0.45 volts to be maintained for several hours until the copper plated the iron rod, which in effect stopped any further production of electricity, assuming this was the purpose. However, a mixture of acetic acid (or vinegar) and grapefruit juice produced 0.49 volts for several days. (Keyser, "The Purpose of the Parthian Galvanic Cells," pp.88-92.)

After uncovering more "batteries" from the Sassanid Period, archaeologists remain baffled by what use the Parthians had for these little jars. Definitely no motors were found near these jars, and certainly no thin filament metals to heat up at night to become electric lights. The only clue one can fathom is that a number of the jars were stuffed with papyrus, and may have come with magical amulets. (Keyser, "The Purpose of the Parthian Galvanic Cells," p.82; James and Thorpe, Ancient Inventions, pp.148-149.)

The most likely explanation is that these jars were either a means of preserving papyrus scrolls and anything else the Parthians thought would stand the test of time once the jars were sealed, or it is possible the Parthians may have discovered electricity and used it to treat certain medical conditions. Certainly the Egyptians were known to have used (and still do to this day) the electric catfish from the River Nile to treat headaches and nerve pain. The voltages need not have been high to treat pain. Modern medical literature claims anywhere between 0.8 and 1.4 volts and 0.2 to 1.0 milliamps is sufficient. This is roughly in the range of how much electricity the Baghdad jars could technically produce if an acid was added to them.

Perhaps the Parthians had accidentally found another way to create electricity for this very purpose?

YEARS AGO

The early Greeks reported seeing UFOs. The Greek biographer and historian Plutarch (46—120 A.D.) recorded the most spectacular passed down over generations by word-of-mouth with reasonable details of the event thanks to many eye-witness accounts, including when it occurred and roughly over the area where it happened. It was enough for Plutarch to make the decision to write it down. The UFO was observed minutes before the start of a battle during the third Mithridatic war (75—63 B.C.).

At the time of the sighting, Lucullus and his Roman army were preparing for battle to fight against Mithridates, the king of Pontus, and his ally Marcus Marius who was dispatched by Sertorius. When the UFO arrived and made its spectacular glowing appearance over the sky and close enough to witnesses to make out its shape, the sighting was enough for the armies to withdraw from the battle as it was seen as a sign of the gods' displeasure at the event that was about to unfold on the ground.

Here is the best English translation and interpretation of the extract concerning the UFO incident:

"With these words, he [Lucullus] led his army against Mithridates, having thirty thousand foot soldiers, and twenty-five hundred horsemen. But when he had come within sight of his enemies, he was amazed by the number of people. He desired to avoid and delay the battle. However, Marius, who was dispatched from Iberia [Spain] by Sertorius to provide an army to join forces with Mithridates, got set for battle. As the armies were on the verge of commencing the fight, without any observable change in the weather, the air opened and appeared a rapidly descending and large flame-like object, which appeared like a wine jar or vase in shape and like a glowing annealed metal in colour. Both armies, astonished and frightened by the sighting decided to withdraw. They said that this happened in Phrygia, at a place called Otryae." (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Lucullus*.html and http://www.historydisclosure.com/plutarch-wrote-about-ancient-ufo-sighting/. This account of the UFO sighting compiled by SUNRISE.)

YEARS AGO

A young religious leader in his early thirties emerged in the Middle East with an unusually knowledgeable understanding of God, a willingness to defy Old Testament laws followed by Jewish religious elites, and to carry out important social work to help the poor, the sick and disadvantaged groups. This leader was also a notable teacher, teaching in the language of the everyday folks about life and death, the Kingdom of God, everlasting life within this Universe, and the principle of love. He would bring such knowledge to, yet again, an oppressed people in the place we call today Israel and Palestine. It was a time when Roman occupation manifested itself in this part of the world for the sake of power and the accumulation of wealth while finding ways to control the large numbers of people who were generally against the occupation, but had very little choice for the sake of staying alive.

The young man who made a mark in human history and formed the foundation of the New Testament in the Bible for modern Christianity was named Jesus Christ (often shortened to Christus). In fact, the correct Hebrew/Aramaic name used by the Jewish community for Jesus in his time was Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ), a shortened form of Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ), meaning "Yahweh saves". A befitting meaning given that in Matthew 1:21, an angel tells Joseph: "You shall call his name Jesus (Yeshua), for he will save his people from their sin." Given that this new religious leader would embark on a mission of salvation with an apparent connection to God, one could indirectly interpret this as God helping to save the people. At any rate, the form Yeshu (ישו) is a later, shortened version used in rabbinic texts, but historically his name would have been Yeshua. Later, when the story of this religious leader got translated into Greek, the language did not have a "sh" sound, so Yeshua (the pronounciation is closer to Joshua) became Iēsous. Then in Latin, it got translated into the familiar Jesus in the Vulgate Bible, and eventually the English language derived the name from this Latin form.

As for the word "Christ", this is not actually part of the young man's name. "Christ" (Greek for "Christos", meaning “anointed one”) is a title. So "Jesus Christ" means "Yeshua the Anointed One."

Then there is the question of whether such a man existed in history. Given that more than two millennia has passed, there is a tendency for humans to forget, and in modern times trusting of their own eyes to start questioning the reality of such a figure. Well, let's face it. Not everyone today was alive at the time this young man was alleged to have appeared to help confirm beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of such a man.

There are few surviving historical records (outside of the Bible) from his era, but enough to give religious and historical scholars an insight into this man's life and the likely probability he did exist. Among the evidence in support his existence is affirmed by Dr. Bart Ehrman, a prominent secular New Testament scholar and agnostic. He wrote the book "Did Jesus Exist?" (2012), in which he stated:

Virtually every modern scholar of antiquity — across the theological spectrum — agrees that Jesus existed and was crucified."

In Annals (15.44), Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD) records that "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.".

In Antiquities of the Jews: The Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, chapter 3, sections 63–64, also written as Antiquities XVIII.63–64) by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 AD) who was writing for a Roman audience, mentioned Jesus in the following quote:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus... He was the Christ. Pilate condemned him to be crucified... those who had loved him did not cease to do so. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared." (Antiquities XVIII.63–64)

And although later Christian interpolations may have expanded on this quote (but would be a stretch of the imagination to argue the entire text from Josephus was forged by people like Eusebius), scholars broadly agree that Josephus did mention Jesus, and also his brother James in Antiquities 20.9.1. Whether the finer details of a resurrection and the idea that Jesus was the Messiah as mentioned in the following passage as translated by Louis H. Feldman did come from Josephus or was added to later by other Jewish writers sympathetic to the Christian cause is true:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

the general consensus among historians is that Josephus did write something to support the existence of a man named Jesus and his crucifixion.

Writing to Emperor Trajan (Letter 10.96), Pliny describes early Christians as gathering to "sing hymns to Christ as to a god." This reflects established worship of Jesus within decades of the crucifixion.

Although these Roman historians—Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny—did mention Jesus in their writings, none of these figures were alive during the period in which Jesus is believed to have lived. As a result, their accounts likely relied on second-hand information or earlier Christian writings, such as the canonical Gospels. These Gospels themselves were composed decades after the events they describe, by authors whose identities remain uncertain (possibly to protect themselves from persecutions by the Jewish religious elites and the Romans), and are sometimes presented as eyewitness testimony (i.e., not seen as absolutely precise historical documents with footnotes lavishly peppered throughout, and providing indisputable evidence to satisfy even the most hardened of scientists/historians in the 21st century).

Even within the Bible, nothing was written during his lifetime or immediately afterwards. The earliest known reference is found in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was composed around 50 or 51 CE—roughly twenty years after Jesus’s death.

Yet if these quotes could somehow be shown to be untrue and Jesus never existed, it would be incredibly pointless for hundreds of millions of people around the world to follow a new religious movement called Christianity in honour of a fictitious individual. Otherwise, we should expect other fictional characters in history to have their own world religion. Even today, new religions would have sprung up for Bugs Bunny, and some other Looney Tunes characters, or why not Santa Claus? Clearly this is not the case. Someone of exceptional character and performing great deeds was witnessed at this time and has inspired a large following of people to continue the work of this individual. About the only thing we have left to support the existence of this intriguing man are some writings from ancient times, some of which have ended up in what we call the Bible, and a few independent writers in Roman and Jewish societies, and from this we can gather a reasonable insight into the life of this intriguing individual. What does not help is the occasional interference of Christian leaders adding their own sensationalism to parts of this writing, which can only make some religious scholars and historians question the reality of such an individual. But so long as we can identify those additions, the not all hope is lost.

For example, Josephus, a Jewish historian writing around 93–94 CE, mentions Jesus in two places in his Antiquities of the Jews: The Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, Chapter 3). In the first one, we see the controversial passage preserved in Christian manuscripts as follows:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man... He was the Christ... He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life..."

Most scholars agree this version has been interpolated—meaning Christian scribes added theological flourishes like "He was the Christ" and "restored to life". A widely accepted scholarly reconstruction (based on Arabic and Syriac versions and stylistic analysis) looks like this:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

This version strips away the overtly Christian claims while retaining historical content.

However, the part that has given greater credence to the claim that Jesus did exist can be seen in the following second mention by Josephus:

"…the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…"

This quote is significant because:

1. It is brief and lacks theological embellishment.
2. It is embedded in a legal and political context, typical of Josephus’s style.
3. It confirms that Jesus was known well enough to identify James by his relation to him.

Furthermore, Josephus was not a Christian and, therefore, had no theological motive to promote Jesus. As this second mention is universally accepted by religious scholars and historians as authentic, together with Josephus' standing in his community and independence from the Christian movement, we should have reasonable confidence that such a individual named Jesus did exist at this time, and that should be worthy of an entry into this historical timeline.

Today, The scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was not only a real figure in history, but was also baptized by John the Baptist and later crucified under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate — these two events are considered the most historically certain aspects of his life. Historians also widely accept that Jesus was a Jewish preacher in Galilee who gathered followers and taught about the Kingdom of God, and revealed how the principle of love should be applied in certain stories he created (or seen in his life), and often using parables as a means of getting people to think deeply about certain ideas behind this principle of love. He was also a know antagonist in debating the concept of God with Jewish religious elites which eventually led to his death due to a misinterpretation of Jesus and his relationship with God. His reputation as a healer and exorcist of sorts (mainly to clear people of their deadly sins) is also supported by multiple independent sources, though interpretations vary. While the resurrection and other supernatural claims are matters of faith, not historical consensus, Jesus’s execution around 30–33 CE is well-documented in both Christian and non-Christian sources, including Roman records and Jewish writings. The impact of his teachings and death led to the rapid growth of early Christian communities, which further supports his historical significance.

Beyond this, we see a considerable effort by a specialist in forensic science, British researcher Richard Neave, to use his expertise to reconstruct the face of a typical average adult male from this era living in the Middle East. The results show, not surprisingly, a dark-skinned man (which is to be expected given the hot and mostly sunny conditions found in the deserts of the Middle East) with short black hair, and possibly carrying a black beard for someone in his early thirties. This is not to say Jesus looked exactly like this. But if the conception of such an individual was done in the natural human way among people living in the Middle East, it is likely Jesus would have looked similar to any other dark-skinned and bearded men roaming around in this part of the world. But then, as we shall see, the conception did not appear to be the run of the mill variety. So the reality of Jesus' appearance is still very much up in the air. Indeed, how would we know for sure what Jesus really looked like? All it takes is a white-skinned Nordic man to arrive in the Middle East, got a friend in well-dressed and clean clothing to get a designated woman to agree to the coupling, the woman is drugged one night, sex took place, and afterwards she was none the wiser as to what happened other than feeling a little unusual and discovering her baby bump. Therefore, to say Jesus was probably dark-skinned could still be way off the mark. Until we have better evidence, we can only speculate on his appearance.

With that said, what follows below are some more details focusing mainly on the core events and concepts Jesus understood. No discussions on so-called miracles — such as healing a blind man, walking on water, changing water to wine, or other alleged miracles — will be discussed in this historical timeline.

With that said, Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem on 17 April in the year 6 B.C (the acronym B.C. stands for Before the birth of Christ) at a time when a bright light was seen in the sky by some old wise men. The exact number of men is unclear, but if three gifts were allegedly provided to the parents of Jesus, one could assume three men were present. These men were part of a special group of people described as the Magi.

One key prophecy is Daniel 9:25, which gave a timeline for when "the Anointed One" or "the ruler" would arrive:

"Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens’ and sixty-two 'sevens.'"

Another is this apparent prophecy in Micah 5:2, which gave a hint of the location of where to find this new "ruler":

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

These prophecies likely circulated among Jewish communities in Babylon and Persia, where the Magi could have encountered them. The cryptic timeline of the first prophecy and the presence of the second prophecy may have led the Magi to expect the Messiah’s arrival around the time of Jesus' birth. To cement this view, a bright light suddenly appeared on one night by the Magi. Being astrologers or astronomers, these men would have recognized a new bright light in the sky taking place that wasn't there the previous night and, therefore, could have interpreted it as a sign of a royal birth.

As for the light in the sky, what exactly was it? Was it really an astronomical object, such as a planet, star, or supernova explosion? Or was it something else?

If this light is an astronomical object, scientists are certain 0 B.C. was not the year Jesus was born as the calendar system might suggest. This is because the latest astronomical analysis of the sky has been gathered using computer analysis of how the stars and planets would have looked in the past and scientists have noticed an unusual event in 6 B.C. consisting of a sudden appearance of a bright light in the northern morning sky under the constellation Aries by the planet Jupiter as it passed out of the lunar eclipse, as revealed in the BBC documentary Son of Man).

However, there are indications that the bright light may not be a natural astronomical object as originally thought. The idea of a bright light guiding the men to where Jesus would be born would be impossible to achieve if the light was an astronomical object in the sky, such as the planet Jupiter. Furthermore, the light was said to be in the east, not in the north. According to the King James Version (KJV), one of the most widely cited English translations of Matthew 2:2 is as follows:

"Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him."

But Matthew 2:9 says:

"The star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was."

This suggests the star was not astronomical in nature. It "went ahead" and "stopped" are actions that no normal star or other astronomical object can perform. Nor can an astronomical object move side-to-side sufficiently to help with this task of guiding humans on the ground to the right location. Astronomical objects will only give the impression of very slow movement, rising from the horizon in the east and settle in the west as the Earth rotates. Yet somehow the light in this story could guide the men with such remarkable accuracy. Either the men had incredible luck on their side to find the right place, or we are dealing with an artificial light. In which case, some kind of god with sophisticated technical abilities has been hanging around in the sky to influence certain humans on the ground. But the implications of a non-astronomical object in the sky is that the actual year of the birth of this child could vary significantly. Whether it is 6 B.C., the year 0 A.D., or even up to 6 A.D., no one really knows. Or else, we must consider this light a miraculous event of unknown origin. Because an astronomical event of the type requiring Jupiter to be so bright and appear out of a lunar eclipse would be necessary to draw the Magi's attention to the heavens, it is likely the event began in 6 B.C., not 0 B.C. based on the current calendar system.

At first, the celestial event of the planet Jupiter (looking like an unusually bright "star") was interpreted by the Magi as the fulfilment of these prophecies. It was enough to warrant the Magi to travel westward to Judea and into Jerusalem to ask whether a newborn king had arrived. As Matthew 2:1–2 stated:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, 'Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.'

Their inquiry in Jerusalem triggered alarm in King Herod (Herod Antipas).

Prior to the birth of Jesus, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke claimed that Mary (a popular name for women at this time, much like Smith is today), the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. This is despite the fact that she was pregnant and had given birth to Jesus. Why mention this at all considering it is irrelevant in the whole scheme of things, and especially in regards to the life of Jesus. Just state Jesus was born and that is it. Simple. But somehow it had to be mentioned. Why?

In Matthew 1:18–23, the virgin claim is acknowledged. However, Luke 1:26–35 goes to a lot more detail, including a quote from Mary asking how she could carry a child if she remains a virgin. Apparently, this was the woman's way of describing the unusual manner in which this child would be conceived with no personal knowledge of having sex with anyone. Either that, or the woman had been drugged at some point in her life. But there are no indications of this having happened to her. Just a firm conviction that she had no sexual relations with any man. Just to add to the mystery, she claimed the pregnancy was instigated following a visit by what she called a human-like angel who wanted to seek her consent to carry a child, presumably with God's help.

If one can rely on the Bible for some insights into this claim (specifically Luke 1:26–35), Mary stated that an angel named Gabriel arrived unexpectedly and began conversing with her. Not quite a general chat over a hot cuppa and get the latest gossip on people in the area or anything. Rather, Gabriel wanted to get her consent that God would get her pregnant with the aim of bringing into this world a child. According to Gospel of Luke 1:31–32, Gabriel allegedly said:

"You will become pregnant, give birth to a son, and name him Jesus. He will be a great man and will be called the Son of the Most High..."

Not sure why Mary would call Gabriel an "angel" and not another bloke down the street. Among the behaviours and signs that made this stranger look and sound angelic were as follows:

1. The sudden and unexpected arrival of an unfamiliar person standing outside the door, and later the ability to disappear so quickly on walking out the door without anyone knowing the direction or how this person has managed to disappear.
2. The person usually comes with a message for the recipient of possible danger, guidance, or to seek approval about some request.
3. The person appears particularly clean, wearing well-ironed and attractive flowing white and/or golden robe.
4. In the case of Gabriel, who was a male (with a voice that carried some authority, yet sounded peaceful and calming) and appeared in human form (since Mary was not afraid by his appearance).
5. The highly dignified and strikingly beautiful nature of the person, followed by a well-spoken and calming nature and sense of overwhelming peace.
6. The person may radiate some kind of glow or light around them, making them look a little brighter, which can represent purity, holiness and divine presence.

Despite the unexpected and direct nature of this request from a strange man (which from the nature of the quote does not quite sound like getting consent, but rather looks more like a direct order to be barefoot and pregnant whether or not she agrees), all these angelical behaviours made Mary feel comfortable, and was probably enough for her to agree to this stranger's request. Well, if the request came from God, would anyone in these times say no? Probably not.

Well, let us put it this way. If any ordinary man were to say those words to a woman of what will happen to her, he would instantly get a no answer and a very stern look from the woman. Or worse still, she might even feel completely unsafe and probably call for help. However, if those same words came from God, then somehow it must be okay.

Very strange indeed.

Never mind. At least we can see from the story that over the next few months, Mary noticed nothing unusual, and was none the wiser about how her miraculous conception was achieved, other than the fact that her monthly menstrual cycles were interrupted. Mary had to assume she was still a virgin despite ending up carrying a child under unusual circumstances.

Assuming God has made yet another triumphant return to influence human kind towards a better future by being more direct and perhaps intimate in its decision to have a child born into this world (sounds like humans are still having trouble learning about the principle of love and need more help), it seems as if artificial insemination (with the woman kept briefly unconscious during the event) was probably the way this was achieved while she could maintain her view of being a virgin. Of course, no one really knows for sure. Artificial insemination was an unheard of concept and practice among the people in the Middle East or anywhere on the planet at this time. Furthermore, without evidence of who God is, it is a matter of speculation. Still, at least from a scientific perspective, one can see how a woman might end up describing herself as a virgin while carrying a child if artificial insemination was employed.

In addition to this, the angel made a specific mention of the gender of the child (and later proven at birth). That was rather a good guess. A 50 per cent chance of getting it right as a punter would say. Or did the angel receive advanced medical advice on the exact gender of the child? Somehow God would not leave this gender choice to chance. To know the specific gender of the child so early in the process means selective choice and methods to achieve this must have been employed. It would indicate some fairly advanced medical knowledge and tools to isolate and provide the right type of sperm to fertilise Mary's embryo. Sounds eerily similar to what we now call assisted reproductive technology. But in the context of the biblical story, it’s framed as a miraculous event: not bound by biology, but by divine will. Or should we see this as someone having the sophisticated technology at the time to achieve this kind of work in such a very specific way? Sounds like we may have had a technically-advanced God in our midst.

Just imagine God with a lab coat and having a genome sequencer to decide on the gender — it opens up a whole realm of speculative theology. Could divine intervention be indistinguishable from advanced technology? As Arthur C. Clarke famously said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Maybe what was once called a "miracle" in the conception of Mary's child could, in another age, be seen as mastery of nature.

But why a male? What's wrong with a female coming into this world? To choose a male for the child does have certain implications. It would appear that God feels more confident of a male capable of influencing mostly men who were running the show on the ground. Otherwise, not enough men would listen to a possible future female prodigy, and especially one who might claim to have a connection to God (which brings negative consequences under the hands of Jewish priests).

Then again, choosing a male is not much better either. Sure, males are more likely to listen to other males. But by having a male, this would inadvertently reinforce the already unbalanced view of males in human society that only a man can do God's work. As an example of this, we see from the Gospel of Thomas of an outspoken male disciple who stated to Jesus that he thought males were the only ones entrusted by God to hold and teach religious knowledge among other men, and to be involved in the debates and teachings of this knowledge. And because of the Old Testament story of Adam and Eve and how Eve's decision had brought down man from God's grace, this disciple did not want a woman to join "the club of male disciples" led by Jesus.

We will have more details and the specific quotes of what was allegedly said later in this story.

As a result of this view, and despite efforts by Jesus to balance the situation by allowing at least one female to become a disciple and later an apostle, the makeup of the Church in Rome right up to modern times became male-dominated for the reasons described earlier, and as a way of maintaining Jewish religious traditions.

It makes some people wonder what would have happened if God introduced twins — one boy, and one girl — into the world? How would this have affected the thinking of males involved in this new religion called Christianity and those who eventually formed the Church in Rome?

Or perhaps the decision to go with a male was based on other factors. In particular, Mary may not be able to physically handle the birth of twins given her potentially small and young body. Or, it may simply be the fact that in order to change the thinking of males in this part of the world, a male had to be born to have any chance of reaching the inner sanctum of the Jewish religious leaders club, where ideas could be introduced and incorrect ones rigorously debated. And from there, hopefully change could be made on a wider scale.

Whatever the reasoning behind God's decision, there were more pressing concerns to get through for Mary.

As we can imagine for this young woman going through the latter stages of her pregnancy, she would have felt a bit tense. God's initial and seemingly miraculous intervention was the least of her worries. Living in a Jewish community and not knowing she was pregnant can have its issues. At some point in Mary's life, she would have become aware of her pregnancy. Once she finds out, how would other people in her community view this situation? \Here, a woman found to be pregnant with no known father (at least not one she knew and could point a finger at) was fraught with danger. It would not be recommended for Mary to blame God for it. Any mention of God as being responsible is bad enough as this could see the charge of blasphemy put on her by Jewish priests if she claims any connection to God, leading to a more serious risk to her life and her unborn child. Better not to say anything. But even if she kept quiet about God, people will still ask questions. There is no getting around this fact. People will find out, as a pregnancy would be difficult to hide. Furthermore, Jewish people were a stickler to the laws of Moses and Old Testament views. Mary's situation can easily be taken in a negative way while she was without a man to act as the father of the child. This would have been a problem for Mary.

You see, anyone who don't know Mary and seeing her without the father could easily interpret her situation as a woman having sex out of weblock. Such a narrow-minded view can turn into an extremely dangerous situation for any woman facing Mary's predicament. As practically everyone in those days understood, a pregnant female had to have experienced some form of sexual intercourse with a male and, therefore, should have a reasonable awareness and knowledge of who the father is or was. It would be inconceivable for anyone in these times to imagine a virgin having a child and not know who the father was. Not unless, of course, there was an acknowledged miracle from God, or explain who God is and state he is the true father of her child. Unfortunately, that would bring trouble to her. Interestingly, we see no evidence from the Bible or in modern times to suggest that some people closest to her were disagreeing with Mary on this very claim of her virginity and who was responsible for getting her pregnant. But to everyone else living in the Jewish community and potentially knowing nothing about who Mary was as a person, the situation was fraught with considerable danger for her. It became clear to Mary that she had to find a way to get others to accept her pregnancy as legitimate and done in accordance with the strict Jewish laws of the day.

It should be noted that if people assumed this sexual activity occurred outside marriage, they were likely to consider Mary as a woman falling into the temptation of lust and potential prostitution, which is one of the original sins from the Old Testament (under the term "adultery", which at the time was seen as the same as "prostitution"). Thus, any woman found to have consented to sex outside marriage could be condemned to death by stoning at the hands of self-righteous Jewish men in Mary's time. It shows how important it was for Mary to find a man who was open-minded and willing to accept her extraordinary claim and allow her child to be born, and to do it as quickly as she could.

Well, it turns out Mary was betrothed to a man named Joseph. Not quite a full marriage, but a legally binding commitment in Jewish culture considered stronger than modern engagement. Coincidentally Joseph was a descendant of King David, which fulfilled messianic prophecies that the Messiah would come from David’s line (Matthew 1:1–16). Mary was unlikely to be thinking along these lines when choosing a fatherly figure. More a case of convenience considering she was already in a relationship with Joseph, and that Joseph was described as a "just man" (Matthew 1:19), meaning he was righteous, law-abiding, and compassionate. Together with earning a modest income from his carpentry skills (he was a carpenter according to Matthew 13:55), Mary thought he would be the ideal candidate to be the father to her child. Only one slight problem. She had to break the news to Joseph that she was already pregnant. A tricky discussion no doubt when we realise having a child should only happen in wedlock. The relationship had to somehow progress to a full marriage and form a proper husband and wife team. Nothing less would be acceptable under Jewish law. If only Joseph could see the advantage of marrying Mary.

Joseph seemed to be a compassionate and open-minded individual, and someone who seemed to be unusually understanding of her plight.

Or was he open-minded? Perhaps not initially.

We learn in Matthew 1:19–20, that this man had second thoughts. The legal and social "arrangement" with Mary to become the father of her child must have weighed heavily on his mind. He may have even initially considered quietly ending the relationship with her, when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy. However, something happened to Joseph to compel him to change his mind and stay with Mary.

In modern times, one non-miraculous means of getting a man to be the father of a child is for a woman to trick him into thinking he is the father. All it takes is one night of hot intimacy with the man in the early stages of pregnancy. Then she can claim he was the one responsible for getting her pregnant. Not a surprising technique considering it has been used regularly enough in modern times by some devious females who prefer the genes of one male, but end up living with another male having the resources to support her and her child and making him think it is his own child. So long as the father does not request a DNA test, it is amazing how many woman can get away with it.

However, in the Middle East more than 2,000 years ago, it would be virtually impossible to tell. A man would have to take a woman's word that it is true. So long as there was at least one intimate night of passion, then a man living in Judea all those years ago would have to take on the responsibility.

Somehow we get the impression this was not the case for Mary. First, the Jewish law demands the "sex part" should only happen in marriage, not in a boyfriend-girlfriend situation, even when the couple is betrothed. Either she had to quickly get married within weeks of being pregnant, or face serious trouble under Jewish law where the man could easily decide to end the relationship and walk away thinking she had prostituted herself to another man, while the woman could face punishment. The fact that she wasn't yet married to Joseph and had to break the news of her pregnancy suggests she was in a dilemma on how to approach this touchy and sensitive topic. She must have had some sleepless nights thinking what she would do. Part of the problem is that she didn't know if she was pregnant. Even if no menstruation cycle would appear after a month, it usually takes the second month or even the third to be sure something changed in her body. She must have delayed telling Joseph until she realised she couldn't hide it and knew the child was coming. But without consummation in bed to somehow link the child to Joseph in make him think he is the biological father has meant that there had to be a very good excuse to give to Joseph to stay with her. A kind of:

"I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that not only God is all powerful and loving, but I just met an angel from God the other day who spoke to me about a wonderful thing that is about to happen to us. The bad news is that I am pregnant by God and we haven't got married yet!"

Imagine being a Mediterranean fly on the wall watching how all this went down for Joseph. A serious blow for him no doubt. There must have been a lot of explaining to do from Mary. A case of how she got pregnant. The only way to lessen the impact on Joseph was to mention that she was still a virgin. No knowledge of having sex with God should lesson the blow and hopefully convince Joseph to think this is okay.

Now if only Joseph would be willing to marry her.

As we later learn, Mary was more worried about losing Joseph. From her perspective, Mary thought this guy was kind and a believer in the existence of God (and probably God-fearing as well), had excellent carpentry skills to earn a living, and was willing to do the right thing in society and avoid all the sinful behaviours. Or perhaps he was a little too straight because it seems this man was trying to avoid the temptation of this woman to become her husband in case she had ulterior motives. A bit like the story of Adam and Eve, unless there was a way to nudge him in the right direction. Fortunately for Mary, an angel apparently had to intervene once more and appeared to this young man in a dream and told him in a highly vivid way not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, because the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Luckily for Mary, Joseph took his dream seriously (and Mary's story seem to tally up well enough to be considered truthful). Definitely not some form of intense hallucination from whatever magic mushrooms he may have accidentally eaten the day before. Whatever the true situation, it turns out this gentleman became understanding of Mary's miraculous pregnancy claims and predicament within her society. Whether or not he told Mary about his dream (although the author of the gospel did learn about it), he decided to marry Mary. What a thoughtful man he turned out to be.

Now that Joseph has entered the scene and agreed to be the father of Mary's child, one would think it would be difficult to maintain this "virgin" status for Mary later in her life. There is talk in the Bible of a brother named James having appeared and possibly other siblings. Now we enter a fierce debate as to whether these siblings were biologically linked to Mary through her newfound husband, or something else.

The figure of James, often called James the Just, is mentioned in several New Testament passages as the "brother of Jesus". But what kind of brother was he?

• The Biological Brother Theory
  Protestant traditions generally interpret James as a biological child of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus in the usual way. This view is supported by passages like Matthew 13:55, which names James along with other siblings of Jesus. Paul also refers to "James, the Lord’s brother" in Galatians 1:19, which many scholars take to mean a literal familial relationship.
• The Stepbrother or Cousin Theory
  Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions hold that Mary remained a perpetual virgin (as a means of expressing her purity and devotion to God, which is the origin of how nuns came to exist with their decision to remain pure and untainted by any form of sexual relationship with the opposite gender or even among other women), so James could not have been her biological son. Instead, they suggest that James was either a stepbrother, possibly Joseph’s son from a previous marriage, or he was a cousin, since the Greek word adelphos (translated "brother") can also mean close kin.
• The Spiritual Brother Theory
  Some scholars argue that "brother" could be spiritual, meaning a fellow believer or member of the early Christian community. However, Paul’s phrasing—"the brother of the Lord"—makes this less likely, since he doesn’t use that title for other apostles. It is a bit like what you see among men in the Arab and African communities calling each other "brother", or "Hey bro!". It was never meant to be anything more than a spiritual connection.

So, depending on which theological lens you wish to focus on, James could be Jesus' biological half-brother, stepbrother, cousin, or spiritual brother. The historical evidence leans toward a biological relationship, but tradition and doctrine will shape how different communities interpret it.

At any rate, it was good to see another problem solved for Mary, and for God too. With Joseph playing his part to help the child, marrying Mary, and perhaps deciding to move to another town who knew nothing about the couple in case questions might get asked about the child and lateness of the marriage, there is just one more thing to take care of.

Towards the end of Mary's pregnancy term, we learn of a slight complication taking place outside the family. In the backdrop of all of this, we have to consider the waning years of Herod the Great’s reign. A man who was paranoid of potentially new kings who could undermine his authority and rule. He could sense these esoteric astrologers and scholars from the East — Magi trained in the ancient arts of celestial divination — looking intently in the night skies, noticing an unusual sign in the sky, and going off on a journey to the west to find someone. Herod learns it has something to do with a prophecy of a new king emerging into the world. There was quiet unrest simmering in Judea, and rumors spread of a child destined to be king. To Herod, this was a problem as any new ruler could undermine his authority and rule over the land.

Herod, disturbed by the news of a rival king, summoned the Jewish religious leaders to clarify the prophecy. As Matthew 2:3–6 states:

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."

Herod finally had details of the location of where this "new King" would be born: Bethlehem. The only problem for him is that the town has nearly 1,000 people living there. The potential for dozens of new babies born in the town would make the identification of this new ruler difficult unless the Magi can say who is infant they feel would be King of the Jews.

Herod asks the Magi to meet him. On listening to the Magi's explanation to support their claim of a new ruler, he secretly instructed the Magi to report back on who they find is the "new king" in Bethlehem, so he may worship this child. In reality, he wanted to find a way to eliminate the child, as he did with his sons and his wife in order to stay in power. He feared not just rebellion, but a child whose birth might galvanize the people against him. Obviously, not an ideal situation for the power-motivated Herod. Unaware of Herod's personal motivation in knowing who this child is and the reason for requesting this information, the Magi agreed. After receiving a hearty meal and a short rest, the Magi were ready to travel south to the town of Bethlehem.

In the meantime, Caesar Augustus, the emperor in Rome at this time, issued a decree for the first Roman census to be held in 6 A.D. For this to be effective, all males of each household had to register for this census. Registering required the head male of each household to give their names and age and declare property as well as lineage. To confirm lineage, males had to be registered in the ancestral towns of these males where they were born. Evidence for this claim is provided by an edict of the Roman governor of Egypt in 104 C.E. A copy of that edict, now conserved in the British Library, reads: "Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt (says): Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their districts to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census, and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments."

But why a census?

In Italy, the purpose of a census was to find males who were aged 17 to 46 years old so they may be conscripted into military service. Their names and ages mattered in these censuses. However, in Judea, Jews were exempt from Roman military service, but not on other matters related to the census, such as tax collection. Instead the census was primarily about collecting taxes from the principal income earner of each household (for those who were born in a Roman-occupied territory). Since Judea was now under direct Roman rule, Rome needed to establish taxation and property records. This required a census, but first Rome had to gather information on all the men born in Judea.

On learning about this, Joseph travelled to his birthplace in Bethlehem to register his household in readiness for the census. Since Mary’s child was imminent, he naturally took her with him so the birth would occur in Bethlehem (the same place where Joseph was born), which coincidentally helped to fulfil prophecy. If Joseph had been born in Nazareth, he would not need to register. Nazareth was in Galilee, which was ruled by Herod Antipas. Because Galilee was not a Roman province, it was not subject to direct Roman censuses like Judea. But because Joseph was born in Judea, Jewish people had to register for Roman taxation purposes. It was a requirement for Jewish people like Joseph to register for the first Roman census, which would not take place for some years later. As Luke 2:1–5 stated:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. … And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house an... a child.

But according to Matthew 2:1, Jesus was already born at a time when King Herod was alive:

"In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem…"

This reveals a delay in the arrival of the wise men from the East. How much of a delay? Days, or months? No one knows for sure. At any rate, these wise men would arrive at a time when Joseph found a house in Bethlehem for his family to stay.

During this time, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (~51 BCE – 21 CE) was not just the governor of Syria, but the nation bordered Judea. And since the Romans acquired Judea soon after the death of Herod, it become an official Roman province. Because of this, Quirinius was fully aware of the registration and census. His experience in this process and having imperial authority over military and administrative matters in the region made him the right person to run it. Indeed, the entire registration of new Judean men as well the census part of establishing whether existing men on the system were still alive and able to pay their taxes (or eligible to go to military service for those born outside Judea) across all provinces would have taken years. By the time all provinces had been visited, assessed, and their rolls updated and the Romans visited each town in the provinces, it might take close to a decade before Rome could declare a census cycle "complete". Only when the process is complete across all provinces would it get recorded historically by Quirinius as a completed census, which he stated in 6 A.D. For most people on the streets, the entire process, from registration to the actual census to confirm details of existing men was considered all part of a broader census process. To others who knew the process better than most, the census may relate to the end of the cycle once all the provinces have been visited.

As the registration process was necessary and part of the overall census, Joseph travelled to Bethlehem. His wife, Mary, made the gruelling journey with her husband of around 96 kilometres while riding a donkey with Joseph walking by her side. The whole journey took at least 4 days.

Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem late at night. Looking around, Joseph and Mary noticed all the guest rooms in the town were occupied. Fortunately, a kind soul may have seen the state of Mary and how close she was to giving birth. The person directed the weary travellers to a stable nearby.

Meanwhile, some shepherds arrived to witness the birth. Perhaps they owned the stable and came in after a long day tending some sheep. And, just in a nick of time and with impeccable precision in finding the place (their map reading skills must have been superb), the Magi arrived to the right spot. Apparently they arrived west of the town and needed a bright light in the eastern sky to provide the precise location.

Mary gave birth to a healthy male infant. The wise men from the East offered gifts and reverence at the sight of the new child. Or given that Matthew 2:9-11 claims the Magi arrived to the house where Joseph, Mary and the child were, this would suggest the family found a house in the town to stay on a more permanent basis. So perhaps the Magi arrived a day later? Who knows?

Then we learn in Matthew 2:12 about a dream the Magi allegedly received, presumably from God, warning them not to go back to Jerusalem: "And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they [the Magi] returned to their country by another route."

If this is true, the Magi were wise enough not to report the newborn to anyone. A good decision. Perhaps there was a discussion by the wise men and Joseph about Herod and how uncomfortable they felt in his presence after Herod learned of the arrival of the "new ruler" in Judea. His bad reputation as a ruthless ruler and killer of his own family members for the sake of maintaining power and rule over Judea must have preceded him.

As the Magi never returned to Jerusalem, Herod soon realised he had been deceived. He then assembles a small team of soldiers and ordered them to go to Bethlehem and find all infants under two years of age and have them massacred. As Matthew 2:16 states:

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."

If God originates from the sky, it must have been at a very good vantage point to quietly observe what was going on on the ground and seeing this group of soldiers heading towards Bethlehem. Therefore, it would appear that a decision was made by this localised God to send a messenger to Joseph and gave details on what he should do to protect his family. According to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 2, verses 13–14:

An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."

Again another vivid dream was enough to wake Joseph up abruptly and take it seriously. His wife awoke about the same time to notice her husband in a state and sweating profusely. Clearly Joseph took his dream to mean something bad was coming and he had to do something. There seems to be little time to warn others as far as the story reveals. Or if he did try, how many people would have accepted his claim of having received this news from an angel in a dream? Probably none, and potentially too dangerous in a Jewish community that frowns on people having a connection to God. Any mention of the favouritism he might have received from God without proof of such a claim could see him as a charlatan and in need of punishment by the Romans at the request of Jewish priests. Not a good outcome for Joseph and his family. Better to keep quiet. Instead, the more pressing issue on Joseph's mind has to be the impending arrival of Herod's hired killers. Of course, he probably did not know how far away they were. He just knew he had to leave the town. The potential for these deadly men being not far off from the town &8212; perhaps less than a couple of hours away — was ever present on his mind. Joseph quickly told Mary about his dream and, together with the child, made another gruelling journey, this time to Egypt. As Matthew 2:15 stated:

Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."

After the purge and Herod thought he got all the male infants rounded up and dealt with, the family returned at a time when news came of Herod's death. The family returned not to Bethlehem, but to Nazareth, where Roman influence was lighter and Herod’s son, Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea with less scrutiny. However, the decision to return to Nazareth was not without further intervention from God. As Matthew 2:19–23 reveals:

After Herod died [sometime between March and April in the year 4 BCE], an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead." … Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

The reader should be made aware that this part of the story of the alleged "Massacre of the Innocents" as it has come to be known to scholars is hard to verify with archaeological evidence or for historians to find independent written sources to confirm this moment in history. The event is described solely in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:16). It recounts Herod ordering the execution of all male infants in Bethlehem under two years old to eliminate the newborn "King of the Jews". Unfortunately, there is no mention of this event in the Gospel of Luke or in independent historical sources, including Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who extensively documented Herod’s reign and atrocities. This absence is notable because Josephus did record many of Herod’s brutal acts. The likely reason for Josephus not to mention it must be the highly targeted and temporary nature of this action against the infants. Such limited and localised events in Judea may not have raised sufficient interest by Josephus, who was more focused on the bigger picture of the history of the Jews and the connection to the Romans. Without official records in Rome or sufficient discussions in Judea of the event, Josephus would probably not write about it.

Whatever the truth, one thing is undisputed: the baby was born, and a healthy one at that much to the delight of everyone present, and it survived the brutal purge by Herod, whether or not the event actually took place.

Over the next 30 years, there appears to be little we can glean about this mysterious God or what was happening in the lives of Mary and her husband, Joseph, and the child we call Jesus. In fact, Jesus remained a highly elusive individual throughout much of his early formative years. Nothing to suggest that he had anything more than a relatively ordinary childhood and upbringing, as far as we can tell from the Bible.

However, in June 2024, Dr. Lajos Berkes, from the Institute for Christianity and Antiquity at Humboldt University in Berlin, and Prof. Gabriel Nocchi Macedo, from the University of Liège in Belgium, were searching meticulously through the archives of ancient written documents at Carl von Ossietzky State and University Library in Hamburg, Germany. There, they happened to come across a 1,600-year-old papyrus fragment. The fragment, roughly 11 x 5 cm (4.3 x 2 inches), contained the word "Jesus". It was catalogued as P.Hamb.Graec. 1011, and originally dismissed as a mundane document due to its crude handwriting and irregular lines. But on closer examination, it was determined that this papyrus fragment written in Greek is the earliest known copy of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a non-canonical Christian text that recounts miraculous events from Jesus' childhood. A rare find indeed and a useful addition to understanding the bigger picture about this strange individual who lived more than 2,000 years ago.

According to the papyrus fragment, it talks about a magic trick perfected by Jesus in which he was able to allegedly mold twelve sparrows from clay while playing near a stream. When rebuked by Joseph for doing this on the Sabbath, Jesus claps his hands and the birds kind of woke up, probably looking a bit worse for wear, and covered in a thin layer of clay, broke free from the clay and suddenly flew off. Might explain why Joseph was not happy as he may have seen what Jesus did to the birds initially. Either that, or Jesus was a great magician, much like a modern-day magician can pull a rabbit or pigeon out of a hat. Just like with chickens putting them upside down and watching them go unconscious and limp is quite easy to do, Jesus may have done something similar with a certain breed of birds he had and later played a trick on his father or anyone else watching of pretending the birds were inanimate clay figures, until Jesus clapped his hands and the birds woke up from whatever hypnosis they were under. Certainly the trick worked well as the writer of this story claimed Joseph was fooled into thinking Jesus had brought those birds to life out of a bit of clay.

As the papyrus fragment is not large, there were no other stories mentioned.

As this fragment is the earliest ever found for the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which has been dated to around 4th or 5th century CE and discovered in a cave in Egypt, later versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas have revealed two other stories. One of the stories showed that as a child, Jesus was perfecting his craft of resurrecting people, and not just animals if the famous "birds coming to life out of clay" story is an example. In particular, Jesus resurrected a child named Zeno after he accidentally caused the child’s death. Again, it is unclear the circumstances behind this accident, but Jesus showed a willingness to fix his mistake and avoid unnecessary grief for the parents of the child.

In the second story, Jesus allegedly cured his stepfather Joseph after a poisonous snake bite. How this was done is not elucidated in the written papyrus. Although elsewhere in the official Bible of accepted stories, we learn of God's ability to treat the wounds of Jesus with such rapid healing to allow him to return to his followers within 3 days. This kind of rapid healing process may reveal certain unexplained medical techniques and special ointments made available to Jesus as a young boy by whoever was the teacher of this knowledge. The kind of knowledge that could astonish modern-day doctors. If we are dealing with a sophisticated and technically-advanced God, who knows how advanced medical solutions might have reached to help repair the body. Whatever the techniques Jesus learned as a child, it seems someone has been teaching him this knowledge very well while he was a child.

They are all the stories we know about for Jesus as a young boy.

These little known stories were widely circulated in antiquity and the Middle Ages, but were never included in the canonical Bible, likely due to theological concerns about portraying Jesus as a child with unchecked powers. Either that, or it seemed too unbelievable for such stories to be real. But then again, if the Bible is willing to accept a story of Lazarus being resurrected from the dead by Jesus, there is no reason not to include these obscure stories to help with building a more comprehensive look of Jesus at all stages of his life, including his childhood.

Is there anything else Jesus could have been taught by God as well?

Well, we do see glimpses of Jesus' advanced thinking abilities as another of his well-trained skills, especially as a boy or young teen. This seems most evident when we learn of his decision to visit the local religious temples to listen in on the religious discussions of the day. Not only that, but the young lad was showing a willingness to be independent for his age, much to the dismay of his parents. On one occasion, he walked away at the age of 12 years to enter the religious temple in Jerusalem and stayed there for 3 days without notifying his parents on his whereabouts. The length of time he was away did raise concerns by his parent, Mary and Joseph. According to Luke 2:44–46 (KJV):

"But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of religious scholars and teachers of the law, both hearing them, and asking them questions."

There was also talk among Jewish priests and the Jewish people in the town of Jesus being exceptionally bright and knowledgeable of religious matters. For example, in John 7:15, the Jews were amazed at Jesus’ knowledge and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having been taught?"

In Luke 2:47–48 (KJV), this is written like so:

"In and all that heard him [Jesus] were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they [the religious scholars] saw him, they were amazed."

After the parents found Jesus, Mary asked Jesus why he didn't mention where he went. His response is revealed In Luke 2:49-50 (KJV):

"...his mother [Mary] said unto him" 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing'. And he said unto them: 'How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?'"

Of course, on reaching adulthood, one can't be expected to make a decent living simply by listening and talking to religious scholars at a temple all day long and for days at a time. According to Mark 6:3 we learn the following: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?"

This reveals that Jesus in his twenties was already a competent carpenter, and a good trade to strengthen those rational thinking skills and develop clear logic when developing his arguments.

Hardly anything more was known of Jesus until one day, as a young man in his early thirties, Jesus felt confident in his knowledge to become a religious teacher and social problem solver for people in various local towns. No longer interested to pursue the life of a carpenter, he made the decision, again on his own, to move away from the family home and into another neighbouring town named Capernaum to begin his life's work as a religious Jewish leader. Already we see strong signs that he was willing to forego certain Jewish traditions or laws mentioned in the Old Testament in order to restore his personal understanding of "balance" in the world as he saw it and act on his belief. It was the kind of independent thinking needed to break free from traditions. This was the time when he began to solve certain social problems as he observed them. And that was when we discover certain men (and women) in society would take notice and remember the subsequent events surrounding this young man's life and his teachings as best they could.

Among his likely education, Jesus already knew the benefits of good hygiene and cleanliness using fresh water and some plant-based soap-like substances, and quite likely more intimate knowledge of the medicinal benefits of certain plants grown in the area where he lived.

This may explain why Jesus started his work by helping to bathe certain sick or diseased people using the fresh bubbling underground water at the temple where he did his training, and do it at night and on the Sabbath to avoid the disagreement of the religious elites who owned the temple. Later, as people saw their diseases going away, he would mention to the people who were willing to listen about the kind of world everyone could live in if they followed this principle of love and helping one another and how it can lead to a kind of Kingdom of God in society as he would describe it. He would see it as an achievable goal with expected "rewards" to come from it where everyone can have what they need and be happy. Among the other positive consequences to come from this new Kingdom would naturally include making the environment productive for everyone (to ensure there is plenty of food), staying relatively frugal and learning to live within our means while focusing on our needs, and in seeing other lifeforms (whether humans, enemy or not, or other more exotic creatures) as playing an equal part in supporting the system and ourselves in order to have what we all need.

If God did make a comeback at this time and could listen in on the early teachings of this young man, it would have been proud of this man's efforts thus far. The only thing is, did the man receive help from God in this area? Or did he work it out on his own? No one knows for sure.

There was something different about this young religious prodigy with a finger on the pulse of society. Yet at the same time, he was a bit of a troublemaker with certain men in authority. Not so much with the Romans, but those closer to his religious upbringing and who were running the temple. The Jewish religious elites, as Jesus would call them, would feel a sense of this man's willingness to challenge their authority and religious views. Signs were already on the wall to suggest that this young man had not intended to tow the status quo and do what everyone else at the temple expected him to do. The best we can say is that Jesus would think more independently and to a deeper level than any of his contemporaries thanks to his prodigious imagination as a young boy and later his strong rational thinking skills acquired through his training in carpentry from his fatherly figure named Joseph and while listening in on the religious discussions of the day at the temple. Or did he receive some extra quiet training or help from someone more mysterious? We can never be sure exactly what happened. What we do know is that he was prepared to disagree on teachings from the older religious leaders of the day, and especially with regard to certain stories in the Old Testament. And at other times, he would listen carefully to see what it is that religious leaders knew about God, the principle of love, and what to do to solve the various social issues that prevailed in society at the time. Some of this he would internalise, as he slowly formulated his broader and more balanced ideas. But eventually, he would attempt to implement his own ideas in reality.

For all this to happen, there had to be a certain level of independence by this young man.

One can imagine such fierce independence must have at times rubbed off the wrong way on certain people close to Jesus at this time. For example, we see from the Bible how the young man had a fervent desire to live an independent life away from his family and find a separate roof over his head. Perhaps this was a normal part of what a Jewish religious leader had to do? In order to gain divine inspiration from God, one needs to stay away from others, especially from women who could put the wrong ideas into a religious person's thoughts.

Well, to be honest, Jesus wasn't totally independent. We learn from the Bible of some Jewish men willing to follow and stay with Jesus in the town. This was partly because Jesus needed to teach other men his broader and more balanced religious ideas to help carry on the message and become leaders in their own right. But the other reason is because men wanted to benefit from listening to this young man's insightful and somewhat radical and more compassionate views on various social issues of the day, not to mention his unusually deep understanding of the concept of God.

Still, such level of independence sought by Jesus from his mother and other family members to pursue his life's work could have created conflict in the family. We see a story in the Bible in support of this claim, in which his brother James had to see him and ask personally for his presence for a get together with his mother Mary, but the young man wasn't ready and said he had other matters to attend to at that precise moment. Could this level of independence have created conflict with his old man at home? Could there have been a falling out with his estranged father Joseph because of the young man's ambitions to become a religious leader and be more independent? Little if anything is known about Joseph when the young lad started his own religious teachings. Indeed, Joseph would never be around to witness the end of Jesus' life. A bit unusual. Perhaps Joseph wanted the young man to continue his carpentry work and carry on the business only to find that the young man had other ambitions. Or was Joseph already separated from Mary due to some quarrels in the home, or had there been a prior agreement that once the child was born and raised, Joseph was no longer needed to be around? Not likely since Joseph and Mary would have officially got married, and Joseph does not appear to be the type to divorce Mary. His compassion would see to it that Mary and the rest of the family were well-supported and able to survive. Therefore, the currently accepted view of most modern religious scholars is that he probably died unexpectedly from some mysterious situation. A snake bite that nearly killed him is one thing. But if something else happened to him, it is certainly possible for Jesus not to be able to arrive in time to apply his medical knowledge and skills to "resurrect" Joseph or heal his wounds. The reality is, no one knows for sure. Joseph somehow disappeared into obscurity. Only Mary, the mother of the young man, would appear at various times throughout the young man's remaining part of his life, showing her love as would any mother for her son.

But all this wasn't a concern for Jesus at the time. He had more pressing issues on his mind of helping the people in need in society. Yet his methods to achieve this would raise concerns among the religious elites. The kind of concerns that would make others think that he was acting like God or doing things that only God can do. It was becoming clear that Jesus had major disagreements with the religious establishment at the temple, stemming from his particularly deep understanding of the concept of God and the confusion this view of what God is was causing among the elites.

First, Jesus knew the difference between God and god, which was essential for him to begin his life's work of going around as a Jewish priest helping to solve social problems. In fact, he thought we were all gods in the way we can change and influence things (and hence we can solve all our own personal problems and not just the bigger world problems when people work together as one to find and implement a solution), but always made sure he was never the same as God. Only through his life's work did he believe that he was one with "the Father" (i.e., the God he knew, even if not quite with Joseph at the time). How did this young man know so much about God? Did he meditate deeply enough to see through the problem? Or was he helped along the way to make him realise who or what God really is and could make the distinction from "god" clear in his mind? It is hard to tell.

From the way he spoke about this mysterious God in his teachings, he seemed to believe in the existence of something localised that would come down from the sky to affect the world. His general acceptance of the phrase "our Father" or masculine form of God in his communications and early teachings seems to reflect this idea. How would he know God is localised into a truly masculine form? Unless Jesus has already seen God in his younger days, the truth is, eastern mystics would see the true God as a paradox, and as such, expect to see the feminine side of God. In which case, why not call God "our Mother"? Perfectly reasonable. Yet something would convince him that the masculine form of God is correct.

Does this mean that Jesus had no realisation of the paradoxical nature of the true nameless God? Not likely. His decision to "forgive" sinners and be more compassionate seems at odds with, if not opposite to, the way God is portrayed in the Old Testament. The latter is often interpreted as the "masculine" God having expectations of people following the rules and doing as God commanded, or else you will be punished (or certainly will never enter heaven, but go to some place called hell according to some Christians). Unfortunately, here lies a problem. The Old Testament's portrayal of a formidable and mostly masculine God tends to paralyze people with fear in not doing anything to solve problems on their own. They are not sure whether there is anything they can do to help or solve problems except wait for God to reveal certain insights to help the religious leaders be inspired and know what to do. Apart from needing to constantly repent for their sins in the hope that they will be in the good books of this masculine God, not knowing if God will ever be happy with their actions for fear of disobeying God again was enough for most people to not do anything to solve problems. If we don't do anything, surely we can't be called sinners? Well, at least not worse sinners than we already are. Just do what we are told, provide the essential services for one another, get paid for our services, and let the bigger problems get solved by God, or someone connected to God (e.g., a Messiah) with the power to change the world. People can pretend everything is normal and be apathetic to the plight of others thinking that God is either punishing them for not repenting and praying, or the Roman soldiers were just too brutal to fight back, even when working together to solve the problems. And if the people were to try to solve the problem, any failure might be seen as God's disapproval. The wrong time to fight back perhaps? God was not on their side?

Until God could come along to say it is okay, people were not sure what to do. And part of the problem was one story in the Old Testament that was holding people back. Hence the story of Adam and Eve and how they disobeyed God is enough for people to stay on the straight and narrow, but do nothing to improve the situation. Might as well just keep praying all the time and hope we will receive divine inspiration on what to do. In the meantime, those Jewish religious elites who were entrusted with the religious knowledge and keeper of the laws merely have to sit back, do lots of praying, and expect at some point for God or the Messiah to return to give them further guidance on what to do. As for everyone else, just follow the Ten Commandments as given by Moses, and pray like there is no tomorrow, and everything will hopefully be fine when God decides to return to help everyone.

Jesus, on the other hand, was different to other Jewish priests. He was more in keeping with the "feminine" side of God. Women are more likely to show compassion and be more forgiving, rather than the masculine types who would punish if you don't obey or do the wrong thing.

This would suggest that Jesus had a strong sense of balance of what a true God would do when solving problems. Never did he want to discriminate people. The sick and poor were just as important as anyone else in the towns, as well as the religious elites. Not only that, but Jesus also thought that women were just as important as men and, therefore, should be treated the same and with respect at all times. This would explain a moment in Jesus' life where he had to restore balance to the idea that religious knowledge can be shared with women and taught by women, much to the dismay of some outspoken fellow Jewish men who were part of his entourage following him around and listening to his teachings, as we shall learn later. This would be a radical approach that would have put off the religious elites of the temple. Not so for Jesus.

Deep down, Jesus felt ordinary people on the street had the power to make things right if they so choose. Anyone can be whoever they want to be. No one was above or below anyone else. Indeed, the contributions of everyone to helping one another to achieve greater things are equal and important. No one should be made more special than others. All that was needed is for people to feel confident, to ensure the principle of love was understood, to be strong and fit to achieve the goals, and to stop the fear people have of doing the right thing and instead start changing history for the better.

Whatever Jesus realised about God, his understanding of this concept would lead to serious disagreements with other Jewish priests and scholars, especially among those elites who was suppose to be at the top of their game in religious matters but weren't if the knowledge Jesus had was anything to go by. Eventually this disagreement would have long term repercussions for the young man, including how long he had to live.

In an attempt to straighten out the misunderstanding, Jesus stated to the elites during a rigorous religious debate, "Is it not written in the scriptures that you are gods?" showing that he understood the difference between god and God (and so did the writer) and what humans should be doing if they are gods themselves with the power to influence and change things. Not so for other priests. Whether this was the way God and god sounded when spoken in the Hebrew language which was too similar and its meaning had confused the priests, it would appear that there was a view that the young man had allegedly committed blasphemy by claiming he himself was "God" (instead of realising he was saying "god").

Could this have been a question of semantics among the semitic-speaking elites that was causing all the strife? Extraordinary if this is true considering this misunderstanding would eventually lead to the premature death of a religious leader as we will see later.

Whatever the reason for the confusion, this is not a particularly good outcome for Jesus, as we shall see, as this would have potentially dire consequences for his life.

As the Jewish priests quite rightly said, no one can be God. There can be only one God, and no one human can, under any circumstances, be God. Good to see the elites have managed to work this one out on their own, and so did the young man too. However, the priests were getting awfully confused about how he and other people can be called "gods". And in the singular form for Jesus, he would have to be called "god". The question is whether the Hebrew language could distinguish "God" and "god". Surely the priests should be able to work it out from what Jesus said, but apparently not.

Or was Jesus testing the Jewish elites understanding of God and god through a play of words, just to see if they knew what they were talking about?

Just to add to Jesus' woes in front of these unenlightened elites, he would say through his work that he was one with "his Father". Controversial? Hell yes! This was bound to cause considerable trouble as the elites took this to mean that he was God or somehow closest to God than anyone else, which would imply that he was "the Messiah". This was a very dangerous moment for Jesus. In fact, this very issue of god or God and the way Jesus spoke of relating to God as one would haunt the young man right throughout his life as some spiteful Jewish priests would never let go of this serious "blasphemy" claim they would put onto him. There was certainly no interest by the elites to see him as the "son of God", which is another way of saying he is a "god" (it was likely Jesus attempted to resolve the conflict with the priests by elaborating on what he meant) even though today, technically speaking, we are all "sons and daughters of God", or the "children of God". No one is allowed to elevate themselves to a position that could be equal to that of God. God, if it could ever exist in a localised form, would be seen as the ultimate being, and someone to look up to and reach for. An ideal position of great balance, insight, and love. The Great Teacher, you might say. Yet the priests could not see how "son of God" (or "daughter of God") is the same as being called "a god". Or why we should call ourselves "god"? Don't the priests know "a god" is someone who can change and influence things?

This has to be the real clincher that would determine whether Jesus should stay alive or not. When Jesus was asked whether he was God, Jesus had a clear picture in his mind of the answer. But was that picture the same as the one in the minds of his fellow religious leaders? As Jesus understood it, through his work, he saw himself as being aligned to God because of how he followed the principle of love. This is how God, in a localised form, would go about doing work in the universe to help others and Jesus was merely doing what God would do when he understood what this principle of love was about. Unfortunately the way he said it to the priests came out rather poorly, if not too simplistic, when he said, "I am one with the Father". Taken literally, this could be interpreted as Jesus being God. Of course, today, we all know this is untrue. Jesus is not God. He is a "god", and a rather well-trained and highly knowledgeable "god". It is just that Jesus could have been a little more clearer in his response by focusing more on the work he does and how this follows the principle of love, which is in keeping and in alignment with how God would do the work as well.

It is clear that the religious elites were interpreting his statement with words of "god" and "son of God" as either "God" or the "Son of God", which would elevate the status of Jesus well above everyone else, and potentially be seen as God in flesh form. If he is not God, then at the very least he was elevating himself to be closest to God, which would imply that Jesus was potentially "the Messiah". Unfortunately, the elites were not ready for this.

Little did the religious elites know, we are all part of "God's family" and hence the hierarchy with God is always maintained without breaking the fundamental rule of the Universe. The presence of the hierarchy means that it is there to help people see themselves as children learning something. No child is perfect. To improve we must learn and gain a better understanding of the principle of love for us to do things better. In that way, the world can approach this "Kingdom of God" spoken so highly by Jesus. A Kingdom in which no one is ever discriminated or left out. Everyone has what they need to survive and be happy. People will always feel safe. Doors to homes can always remain unlocked and opened. Everyone is welcome into any home. People can help one another. People can be forgiven when they make a mistake and want to learn to do things better. People are free to achieve great things on their own or with others, and you don't need money to survive or achieve those great things. It is up to people to be their own "gods" to influence and change things for the benefit of everyone, as well as doing one's own life's work for the betterment of others in society and not just for oneself as part of the principle of love we should follow. But for this to happen, we all must learn, like a student in the classroom of the Universe and in the presence of a great Teacher. If we so choose, we can learn a better way of doing things. It is an opportunity to change what we are doing for us to head in the right positive direction.

And to know what is right, we have to imagine what a localised God of love would do. For example, a true God would not discriminate. When it comes to people, we have to see everyone as the same and of equal importance, and capable of doing anything if we let them, or encourage them at the least. But to see this and to find out what this true God might do to solve a problem, we need to listen to as any people as possible. The true God is in all things and not just within us. To get a truly balanced and better perspective on any problem and eventually see the right solution, we need to gather as much information as possible from a wide range of sources. Then we need to use our brain to analyse all this information in its intimate detail, and so breaking it down to what's important to remember in terms of differences, as well as seeing what is in common. Then we use the brain to re-imagine and synthesize a new pattern of reality, and with it a solution. As God is in all things and not just within us, we need to open up our minds to this greater diversity of views and experiences of others, and to let this information get sorted in our mind until a balanced solution is found.

Of course, little did Jesus know in his time, other than having the balance of an imaginative childhood and a strong rational mind developed through his carpentry skills and listening to the rigorous religious debates in the temple, we all have the brain with its hemispherical L- and R-lobes designed to perform these basic and opposite tasks of breaking apart and analysing information, and to synthesize and help us visualise and see new patterns leading to new solutions. Because we are not God, this work is not instantaneous. We need time to shuttle the information back-and-forth between the hemispheres. By switching the information back and forth between the hemispheres, this is how we approach this God-like status of seeing through the problems to their fundamental essence and finding the solutions.

Thus, in the early stages of solving a problem, we must always be like the "children of God" with its parent (i.e., a true God, in all its balanced masculine and feminine dualistic properties that appear to us, as well as to imagine how a localised God would properly follow the principle of love). We have to ask questions. Gather information from others and our surroundings. Then we must think about the problem at hand.

As we seek a solution, we have to keep in mind how to balance things in the end. There is the old masculine-like "father" figure in God commonly found in the Old Testament scriptures who seems to provide advice and guidance. See this as the part where we listen to other people. When we are ready to find the best solution from a range of possible solutions, there is also the feminine-like compassionate, empathetic, and forgiving "mother" figure in God commonly found in the New Testament scriptures who is there to help us visualise and look for the best solution while being mindful of how the solution impacts other people. It is a paradoxical entity representing absolute balance. It represents the ultimate solution when we apply our rational skills, our imagination and visualisation skills (as a true God would do to find the balanced solution), and our emotions (as a localised God of love would do in real life), especially when people are involved and are part of the solution. This means that God is meant to be your Teacher (at least in a religious sense, although it can be interpreted by non-religious types as listening to others around you). If you are not so religiously inclined as the people 2,000 years ago were, substitute God for the Universe. For the Universe is your source of information, and your solution. And that means listening to the people around you. Look at what is available to help solve the problem. Because all this helps you to find the best solutions.

The only thing we have to remember though is that there is one fundamental rule of the Universe that we can never break in this relationship with God: we must never see ourselves as a true God. In other words, we don't have all the answers. We are not perfect. This means that under no circumstances do we attempt to equate the "god" tag on people or ourselves (i.e., "the children") with God (i.e., "the Parent/Teacher"). The terms "god" and "God" are totally different concepts and remain that way at all times. There is nothing in the Universe in isolation of everything else that can be described as God. Sure, some things might look more God-like than others, but they are not the true God. Even the so-called God spoken by old wise men in the past when they claim to have heard and/or seen this entity is not a true God. It is a highly advanced and sophisticated "god" to a level where it may be interpreted by simple-minded folks as "God". But this is not the true God. The only thing that is similar in the two terms is the ability to "influence" and "change" certain things, and hopefully it is done with love (based on this localised form of God). Of course, our knowledge and understanding of the principle of love will not be perfect.

The reason why we must remain child-like in our thinking in order to be flexible to learn and find better ways to do things.

On the other hand, compare this to the true God, which seeks to maintain balance in all things over time. Here, the true God is unlikely to know or understand what is love. It just does what it is suppose to do to maintain absolute balance in the Universe. And if we upset this balance in any way through our actions and what we do to manipulate the environment, then we need to face the harsh reality from the true God when balance has to be restored. It is the way it has always worked. The Universe has always existed through this balancing act achieved over various timeframes (which can be very great, or very quick). Just like we need death to maintain balance in the Universe and allow all things to exist. As imperfect creatures, we don't have a complete and full mastery of everything, including what love actually is and how to be perfectly balanced in our thinking. This is why people will make mistakes. Just so long as we learn from the mistakes and we are forgiven by those we have harmed can we have a chance to do better and achieve greater things for one another.

Still, the priests could not understand that they were a "god", let alone the difference between "god" and "God". It is almost as if the Hebrew language wasn't helping in this regard? We will look more closely at the known words in use within the Hebrew language in a moment to see where this confusion may lie.

Was there anyone else who could have had a better understanding of the difference between "god" and "God"? Not really. Not even the Romans were any better in their understanding of God. In fact, Romans did not believe in one God, but rather a plethora of different gods. These Romans preferred to worship any kind of god, including animals, and often as statues kept in a sacred place. The multiplicity of god was everywhere to be seen throughout Roman society. All one had to do was visit the homes of Romans and in the city of Rome itself to see the variety of different gods on display and represented in statue form. Here we have a complete misunderstanding of the concept of God.

Yet despite presenting what should have been a clearer understanding of the concept of God and god by the young man to everyone in the Jewish temple, what eventually got Jesus into considerable trouble with the Jewish religious elites was when he was asked whether he was God, or alternatively "the Messiah" which is the closest thing to being called God. As the words "God" and "god" are virtually indistinguishable in certain words used in the Hebrew language when spoken and the young man claimed he was god (but not God) and tried to avoid the term "the Messiah" and instead choose "son of God" (but not "Son of God") to provide clarification, as well as being "one wth the Father", this got him into all sorts of trouble. The priests were interpreting his answers as if he was God (which he can't do to avoid the multiplicity of God) or elevated himself enough to be close to the level of God (i.e., Son of God, and, therefore, a "Messiah"), which was problematic for the priests. Certainly they did not believe Jesus to be God, and certainly not "the Messiah" or someone who is closer to God than anyone else.

Unfortunately, the priests did not like what they were hearing. While the misunderstanding continued and these elites could not change the situation on the ground for the oppressed people of the land, Jesus' fate was almost sealed at this point. Eventually all this religious conflict about God would come back to haunt Jesus later when the unforgiving, unimaginative, and spiteful priests found a way to have the man killed by the Romans.

But there were other problems Jesus saw in relation to this God concept.

For example, the young man disagreed over yet another fundamental aspect regarding God—namely, the unwavering view from Jewish priests of an authoritarian God that was willing to punish people as revealed in the Old Testament, even for those who make simple mistakes, have to find ways to survive, or are forced into a life of sin by others who have control over their lives (e.g., the prostitutes). To test this theory, Jesus had to do the work on the ground by visiting a variety of different people, sometimes on his own. Here, he would talk and learn from those who were committing sin in society about why they had to do what they did. A classic example would be the prostitutes in the town for whom many Jewish religious leaders and their supporters would describe as sinners. From there, Jesus quickly formulated in his mind a better understanding of the various factors that were controlling this apparently "sinful" situation and causing people to do things that perhaps they shouldn't or somehow felt forced to do in order to survive. Eventually, Jesus understood the importance of forgiveness for those people who were stuck in situations they couldn't get out of. At the same time, Jesus had to be strong against many of the Jewish men in certain towns who he found were quick to judge and condemn certain women to death for their adulterous sins, without realising they themselves were contributing to the situation and also committing a sin, often without the awareness of their wives.

This is why Jesus believed in the power of forgiveness. It was the only way he could help people break free from their "sins". The idea of forgiving someone and helping them out of a difficult situation (e.g., to join his group, or freeing people from their sinful situation) became an essential part of the young man's new teachings and dealings with certain people who the religious elites thought were sinners. He did this because he saw a more compassionate and "feminine" side to God, which is kind of in direct contradiction to the official view of God in the Old Testament according to many traditional Jewish priests, which is more to punish sinners. The kind of thing that a "masculine" form of God would do. But here too we find further conflict taking place with other Jewish religious leaders of the day. In particular, the power to forgive can only be granted by God himself, not a human like Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would effectively be saying to the world that he is God. Again a dangerous thing to say in front of other priests for this young man.

This may also explain why Muslims also feel Jesus was not God or the "son of God" in its own religious teachings. In the Qur’an (the equivalent of the Bible in Christianity based on the Arabic teachings of another Prophet named Muhammad who lived in the 7th century), Muslims believe the power to forgive someone belongs to God and only to God, for it asks:

"Who can forgive sins except Allah?" (3.135)

It is a view closely shared by Jewish religious leaders when we read in Mark 2:5–7 of the New Testament:

"And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.' But some of the [Jewish] scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?' "

Here is another example, this time from John 5:21–23:

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgement to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

How interesting. Apart for forgiving people, here we see why the term "son of God" was being interpreted as "Son of God" (note the writer has chosen to capitalise the letter "S" for "Son") and how this was affecting other Jewish religious leaders. The problem these leaders were seeing is how this young man was essentially performing the same forgiving acts as God would and acting as though this power was bestowed onto Jesus by God or as if he was "God" himself, or someone with the gift from God to perform this act (i.e., "the Messiah"). If he isn't God, then as a Messiah he would have to be the "Son of God". Not like ordinary "sons of God" (and by implications "daughters of God"). Rather, this is an elevated level of importance.

All this would again get back to Jesus in a negative way later.

What a mess the Jewish priests (and some Christian writers) have got themselves into. It would certainly explain the continuing social problems of the day, and why so many people were sick, or committing what the Jewish priests and their followers thought were sins, and God had to punish them in some way, if not by other Jewish men (or the Romans), then the masculine God himself (through sickness, disease, and eventually death).

Come to think of it, it is a situation that hasn't changed much today. There is still a view among those supporters of Christianity that somehow Jesus was God in flesh form, or at the very least is part of the trinity consisting of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, to help show the importance of Jesus beyond anyone in human society as if no one could ever do the things Jesus did in his times, and somehow equate his position to the level of God (if we try to imagine the unity in all three aspects), or very close to it (if we imagine Jesus as the Messiah).

The idea that Jesus was God started in 325 AD when Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to settle a major dispute in the Christian Church: Was Jesus truly divine and hence is God, or was he a created being? A bishop named Arius argued that Jesus was created by God and therefore not equal to Him. Most other bishops believed Jesus was fully divine and equal to God the Father. The council overwhelmingly rejected Arius’s view and declared that Jesus is “of the same substance” (Greek: homoousios) as God the Father. This became a cornerstone of Christian belief in the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God in three persons. Later councils, like Chalcedon in 451 AD, expanded on this by affirming that Jesus is both fully God and fully human.

Is Jesus really God? Or is he the "Son of God", and hence the Messiah? Or is he simply a man with exceptional knowledge and skills that was well-trained by his stepfather Joseph and perhaps from more obscure and mysterious source?

An analysis of certain statements in the Bible and our understanding of broader views in Eastern mysticism does challenge this view of Jesus being God, as a number of leaders of Christianity would like to think. For example, Matthew 16:15–17 stated that Jesus had asked his disciples who they thought he was.

"But what about you?" he asked Peter. "Who do you say I am?". Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

Already we notice two things here:

• If Jesus was God, this would have been the time to explain this to Peter since there can only be one God and it cannot be Jesus (and certainly not in a localised form). But he did not, since Simon Peter understood the position of Jesus with respect to God. The two were separate entities. Thus Jesus cannot be God.
• Those things that Simon Peter believed were revealed to him by the Father suggests that we are definitely dealing with a separate entity that he and others wish to call God, but are not calling Jesus God as well. They are prepared to distinguish him from God by stating he is a "god", or the "son of God", although some Christians leaders will elevate Jesus above ordinary humans by capitalising the letter S to become "Son of God" because he seems to have exceptional abilities and knowledge compared to other humans. Hence the reason for Christian scholars to write the word "Son" in it, instead of "son".

Certainly, Jesus never saw himself as an equal to God and, therefore, God himself. For example, it was claimed that Jesus said according to John 14:28:

"You heard Me say, ‘I am going away, and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I."

Note the writer continues to capitalise the letter "M" for "Me" in an attempt to show a higher importance of Jesus, ignoring the fact that we are all the same capable of achieving great things in our own right. Even if we choose to overlook this aspect, we see again how modest this young man is in seeing God as a separate entity able to do greater things than he. But does this mean he should be elevated above others, but kept below God? Should we continue to capitalise letters to emphasise this Christian view of the hierarchy Jesus has with the people, and choosing the word "Son" to peg the man down a little in the hierarchy from "God"? In other words, is he anything more special than other people, or should we call him the "Son of God"? Surprisingly, Jesus would claim that others in his community could do greater things than he did if they followed in his footsteps in doing good things in society. For example, in John 14:12:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."

This tells us that we cannot see Jesus as the "Son of God" if there are other people who can do greater things than he can. Or else we have to describe them as the "SON of God" or the "DAUGHTER of God" (note the extra capitalised letters, which is the only way to elevate people to be above Jesus for doing greater things than he did). No. It is starting to look a bit silly now. We all should remain the "sons or daughters of God" (or quite simply, "the children of God") doing God's work as we understand the principle of love should be about, or else we learn more from others with a higher knowledge what love is all about. Like it is said in Matthew 5:9:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."

Yet a peacemaker has to do the work of creating peace. Where there is learning and the application of that knowledge in the service of helping others, we are all "the children of God". Similarly, someone who builds something to help put a roof over other people's heads is doing work, and a useful job indeed of helping others. He is, therefore, one of the "children of God". In which case, we could easily write:

"Blessed are the carpenters, for they shall be called children of God."

Or what about medical professionals who heal people? All those people stressing themselves out in emergency rooms helping to keep people in society alive. They are "the children of God". Or how about the teachers who teach people new ideas and ways of doing things that leads to positive outcomes and the achieve of great things of benefit to others? Should we not bless these people and see them as "the children of God"?

Yet some Christian leaders prefer to interpret this "greater works" in terms of the number of people being helped through the ministry work performed by the apostles after Jesus was not around. Well, these leaders can interpret "greater works" in whatever way they like. At the end of the day, work is work and that is it. So long as the work helps others, no matter if it is one person, or a whole society, then you are always part of "the children of God". It doesn't matter what you do or how many you help, just so long as you find something that can help others.

Then you can see yourself as part of God through the work you do.

But what about those miracles that Jesus was alleged to have shown during his lifetime? Should we not elevate Jesus to a higher level than anyone else simply because no one else can do those miracles?

We must remember that we don't elevate anyone above all others through the work they do, or even who they are, no matter how miraculous things may look. Not even so-called miracles performed by Jesus should elevate him to a higher status. Such miracles are subjective and could easily be achieved in modern times using the right knowledge and technology. It doesn't mean we should describe what we do today as miracles (although some people might if their knowledge is limited and don't know how other people achieve what they do). The work that anyone does is no greater than anyone else. The contribution of, say, a carer helping a sick person return to good health is just as important as the work of a carpenter to build something for someone else, or even as astronaut who lands on the Moon and achieves a certain amount of inspiration in the next generation of people to imagine and see what else is possible, are all worthy contributions. All the money in the world or what we pay people for their work should make no difference in the importance of what each person contributes to society. Each person plays their part to achieve something important and worthwhile for society, and that is all that matters. Otherwise, how can we encourage people to do greater works for others? If we start to denigrate or reduce the value of someone else's work compared to another because we say someone else's work is less important than another and we pay accordingly the person who we think is more important, what does this say to the person who is less important? That it doesn't matter what they do, they will never be important? Rubbish. All this is going to do is create problems. Soon the person will feel like he/she cannot contribute anything to help solve the problem, and eventually apathy sets in and nothing is done to solve problems. if enough people feel this way, we don't change. We don't do anything to make things right. We just wait until someone of a higher and elevated position of power can come along to solve all the problems. To avoid this, we all need everyone to play their part, no matter how small the contribution may seem. And we must encourage people to see what they are doing matters to everyone.

If we want people to solve any problem before them, we have to see Jesus as no greater than anyone else, just as we are no greater than Jesus. Treat everyone the same and at the same level, and value our contributions to helping others, and we can expect everyone to feel they can contribute anything to solve any problem.

As for God, we can see it as doing greater things than each one of us on our own, unless we all decide to work together as one. In which case, we are the closest thing to God as we can ever get when we are united and working together on a common goal. But only a true God, whatever it is in reality, will achieve greater things than all of us combined because it is the paradoxical thing at the fundamental level and reaches out to all things. It has the ability to create the Universe, which is far more than anyone or any advanced civilisation can achieve. Instead, we accept the "greaterness" of God compared to us and see it as somethng to aspire perhaps, to will us to create and achieve great things. In the meantime, we simply have to learn to accept the concept while the Universe exists, but it just is. We accept the Universe as we see it, and we don't ask how or why it exists. It just is, and we must be grateful for this.

Thus, when you read the following from Tertullian (who died about 230 CE):

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: 'My Father is greater than I.'

In the Psalm, His inferiority is described as being 'a little lower than the angels'.

Thus the Father is distinct [or different] from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.

...Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess:
that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other.
The Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one;
and They are distinct from each other, not by division, but by distinction.
It is not by diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution.
The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one;
the glory equal, the majesty co‑eternal.

Here we see Tertullian acknowledging God as greater than all things in their individual parts, but when combined and aligned with God through the work we do and is achieved, we are one with God. So when we combine Eastern mystics views of what a true God is, we all need to see ourselves combined as one with God, but individually we are less than God. We are merely learning to be better at what we do to help more people and achieve greater things. And we need something to guide us in the right direction of how to do things better by imagining what a true God can do. But no one individual is greater than another. Only God is seen as greater.

That is all.

Hopefully this will clarify the matter for some Christian readers.

As for who or what is this mysterious God spoken of by Jesus, it is either a sophisticated "god" that has come down to influence humanity, or a true nameless God maintaining true balance in the universe and somehow is able to influence people back in these biblical times.

Already we see in the above quote from Matthew 16:15–17 an interesting choice of a word to describe God as "living". Why choose this word? Is this another Christian embellishment to give God a sense of being alive and is real? Or is this God genuinely alive? In other words, does this mean God was alive at least in the time of Jesus when he was alive? Well, that would imply a sophisticated "god". However a true God can be either alive or dead. For example, scientists will have a definition for what life (and hence being alive) is and might look like this:

"The property or quality manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimulation, and reproduction, by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or from inanimate matter." (Reader’s Digest Great Illustrated Dictionary, p.979)

But Eastern mystics see no difference in say a rock being alive. A rock we observe on the ground may appear to look lifeless from a certain perspective (and definition). However, Eastern mystics can argue that on closely examining the rock at a much smaller scale, we can see the hustle and bustle going on that causes the rock to vibrate and move. And if we look at the lifecycle of rocks over the grandest of time scales, there are elements in the way a rock can behave like a living thing, by separating from molten or cool rock, can grow if the rock has crystals or minerals that get deposited on its surface. The rock may break again as if "reproducing", and continue the growth, and may eventually rejoin other rocks back into the molten state to repeat the whole process.

This might explain why Russian biochemist, Dr Alexandr Ivanovich Oparin (1894-1980), a former professor at Moscow University, kept the definition of life simple and elegant when he said as early as 1924:

"There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter." (Edelson 1980, p.33)

Therefore, a true God is paradoxically neither alive nor dead (but can be both when we look at it from different perspectives). Apart from the fact that a true God cannot be in a localised form, it need not be the case that a true God can be identified as "living". We should also see the opposite in this entity as well.

According to Eastern mystics, the true God has no name and is part of the entire fabric of the Universe that is alive and not alive, which we know from physics is made of a God-like paradoxical oscillating mass-energy designed to help create the paradox that is solid matter and, with it, the Universe. The oscillating nature of this energy is what gives the Universe a sense of being "alive" while it hums away at different frequencies through the incessant vibrations at the smallest scale, but from a distance, it can appear lifeless or inanimate when we take a sliver of time to observe things. Take a larger slice of time, and we may see evidence of what appears to be life-like behaviour in so-called lifeless matter.

But if people in the past are prepared to see what they thought was a true God as "living" (or being alive), then we must have a sophisticated and localised God-like living entity in our midst who is alive. The only question is, who or what is this living localised entity? And where did it come from?

Well, there is a view among those who were with Jesus that the knowledge he acquired was "not of human origin". This raises the possibility that we are dealing with a separate entity having this knowledge, passed it on to Jesus, and that this someone doing the teaching exists outside of the Earth. It is someone that is having a little visit to our planet and wants to interfere in human affairs in an attempt to teach us the value of the principle of love with the promise of an everlasting life that is both heavenly and great if we all do the right thing.

Strangely, in Galatians 1:11–12, one of the close disciples named Paul stated that nothing he preached was learned from other men: As he stated: "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Paul seems convinced of the non-earthly nature of Jesus and his knowledge. Is Paul revealing more than he should about the origin of this man and his knowledge, and even of this "living God"? Or is he mistaken, and anyone with the right curiosity and interest can work out this knowledge if they so choose?

Unfortunately, no one can prove this at this stage. Nor can we prove who or what this "living" God actually is in reality, even though this entity does seem to arrive from the sky (and certainly not from a cave underground here on Earth, nor do we have a bunch of Bonobos chimpanzees from the food-plentiful rainforests of the Congo having a visit to the Middle East and teaching some humans about the finer points of how to love and be peaceful to one another given the social nature of these creatures) and uses clouds to conceal itself and may use bright lights as well. What happened in the Middle East for certain people was a long time ago and something has influenced these people to believe in the existence of a localised being they call God. We can only go by what certain people have remembered and chosen to write down for posterity (even if the writings are not "scientific articles" designed to be precise in every detail for modern scientists). The rest is up to us to interpret in our own way.

Nevertheless, all this knowledge about God would not end there. There was also the question of the multitude of names the Jewish priests would give or put onto this entity. Instead of sticking to one symbol and sound pattern (or preferably no name for a true understanding of the concept of God), the priests would use the Hebrew language to describe and name God in a variety of ways. Not so in the older Aramaic language.

To elucidate this point, let us look at the original ancient Aramaic word for "God" prior to 700 BCE. According to Biblical scholars who have studied a number of ancient texts written in the Middle East, the earliest Aramaic word for "God" was,

To the linguistic expert, this "word" comprises two Aramaic "letters" combined with several dots positioned in such a way that they have meaning, shows a sense of hierarchy with this mysterious entity, and helps to visualize the picture behind the "word" to the people who spoke the language. Those three dots at the top have a philosophical meaning prior to 700 BC as the duality of things in this universe, such as the body (the means by which all living things are able to affect the physical universe and achieve certain goals) and the spirit (this is the everlasting "thing" representing our true self that is unaffected by whatever happens to the body), which becomes one, or "unity", for the dot at the top. Of course, there can be alternative meanings, such as "past", "present" and "future". Generally whatever makes it easier for people to remember the symbol and nature of this mysterious entity of the universe. Later, a new interpretation would be given by modern Assyrian Christians as representing the Holy Trinity—"the Father" (the dot at the top), "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit", but that's a more recent invention.

Below the three dots we have the two important Aramaic letters telling the Aramaic-speaking people how to pronounce the word for God. The only slight problem we have is that no one knows precisely how the combination of these two letters would have sounded more than 2,800 years ago. The best linguistic scholars can do at the present time is compare this Aramaic word to similar words in other languages (especially the Hebrew language, which is known to have borrowed a number of the pronunciations from the Aramaic-speaking people as well as modern Aramaic spoken by a few communities in the Middle East). Today, these experts have suggested that the Aramaic letters may have been pronounced independently from left-to-right as either "yodh-heh" or "yuth-hay". However, in the Aramaic language, the sounds of each letter need to be combined appropriately. Thus, it is believed the original word for God in Aramaic was likely to be pronounced as "Yah".

As for the solitary dot sitting below the two Aramaic letters, this stands for the "one universal God".

This Aramaic symbol for God was often employed by ancient Middle Eastern scribes in their writing to indicate its sacred nature, usually because it contained some kind of knowledge pertaining to God, either through certain stories handed down through the generations or experienced by the writer in real life (perhaps after an encounter with God).

Then Jesus, who was already fluent in Aramaic (and quite possibly the original ancient form, as well as the more modern version), learned the Hebrew language and listened to some of the teachings from Jewish priests in the stone temples.

Before Jesus noticed the plethora of names and titles being thrown about by the Jewish religious leaders for God (or god) in the Hebrew language, his primary language as a young boy was definitely Aramaic, both the original form and a more modern version. The absolute original early form of the language was spoken regularly prior to 700 BCE when the ancient symbol for God was created. As Biblical scholars can surmise from a study of various surviving fragments of Aramaic texts written at different times, some important changes were made to the language after 200 BCE, partly because Hebrew—another language spoken in those times—had influenced the more popular Aramaic language. Despite the changes, it would appear that the Aramaic-speaking population, including Jesus, spoke of God using one of two modern words:

1. Elah (אֱלָהּ)
   A singular noun representing "god" or "God". This modern Aramaic singular word, pronounced as either Eloh or Elaha, is not a direct borrowing from Hebrew, but it is cognate with the Hebrew word Eloah (אֱלוֹהַּ). It had likely originated from the root words "fear", "reverence" or "awe", and so may be translated into English as "the awesome One" or "the fearful One". The word is used in the Aramaic portions of the book of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah 10:11.
2. Elahin (אֱלָהִין)
   A plural noun of Elah, denoting strictly "gods" (or multiple deities). Never is the word used to denote "God" in any of the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament. The word is used at least once in Daniel 5:23.

In Hebrew, the Aramaic word Elah can be written as אלה. Alternatively, it may be written as האל according to Google Translate. In other online sources, the simplest Hebrew word for "God" is אל (simply translated as El).

Interestingly, the Hebrew word El is one of the oldest Semitic words for God used by the Jews. It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible only occasionally (e.g., Genesis 33:20 and 46:3), but usually in combination with other words to help emphasise some specific attribute or quality of God, such as El Elyon ("Most High God") and El Olam ("Everlasting God"). However, on its own, El simply means "might, strength, or power", and so it may be translated into English as "the mighty One", "the strong One", or "the powerful One". This word is considered the closest in meaning to the Aramaic word Elah (or even Yah). In fact, the Aramaic people may have created a new hybrid word from El and Yah to create Elah and the Hebrew looked at it and thought it was a great idea, so they added something else to it in order to make it plural, and later the Aramaic-speaking population thought they would do the same when they created the plural form Elahin.

However, there were other ancient words used as names or titles by the Israelites for God. One such word is Baali, meaning "my lord" or "my master". In the Book of Hosea, the prophet Hosea criticised Jews for using this word to represent God mainly because it sounded too similar to the word Baal, which was being applied as the title for virtually all gods by way of statues of beasts in various cities and so made it difficult for people to see there is only one true God. Instead, he recommended the title Ishi, which means "my husband". Here is the verse supporting this in Hosea 2:16:

" 'It will come about in that day,’ declares the Lord, ‘That you will call me Ishi and will no longer call Me Baali.' "

Then one day the Hebrew language evolved to a point where it would appear El was the favoured word for a while. But even this was not enough. So another Hebrew word took precedence over El. To see this, here are the modernised Hebrew words used for either "God" or "god":

1. Eloah (or possibly pronounced as Elowah)
   The singular noun of "God" or "god" in the Hebrew language. The word is used in the Bible approximately 57 times, mostly in the Book of Job (about 15 times).
2. Elohim (or Elohay)
   The plural noun in the Hebrew language to represent both "God" (Exodus 32:1; Genesis 31:30, 32; etc) and "gods" (e.g., Exodus 9:1, 12:12, 20:3 etc). The word is used 2,600 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh, Old Testament).

Thus, we know the singular Hebrew word for either God or god is אלוה (pronounced as Eloh, Eloah, or Elah). Then we have the plural form of Elah (Aramaic) or Eloah (Hebrew), which is the widely used Hebrew word אלוהים or sometimes spelled אלהים (pronounced Elohim). In all these words, we see a common link to the original word אל (i.e., El). This is not a fluke. The word El is subsumed into various Hebrew words representing "God" or "god". For example, אל (or El) is subsumed into אלאהא (pronounced Elaha, or Alaha in Aramaic Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church). Today, many religious scholars believe Jesus had used Elaha to mention "God" in his own teachings in both Aramaic and when he spoke in Hebrew to the Jewish scholars.

However, Jesus noticed something else. He could see how the Jewish priests were quite happy to create their own knowledge of God by uncovering a heap of other words to represent this same entity, such as El Shaddai ("God almighty", "mighty God" or "God the all-sufficient One") and Elyon ("highest").

Not only that, but the Jewish men would create compound words to represent God. For example, the Aramaic word Elah (or Eloh) can be used as a common word to describe God in Hebrew as follows:

• Elah (meaning "the Awesome One", or simply "God")
• Elah Avahati (meaning "God of my fathers" e.g., Daniel 2:23)
• Elah Elahin (meaning "God of gods" e.g., Daniel 2:47)
• Elah Yerushelem (meaning "God of Jerusalem" e.g., Ezra 7:19)
• Elah Yisrael (meaning "God of Israel" e.g., Ezra 5:1)
• Elah Shemaiya (meaning "God of Heaven" e.g., Ezra 7:23)
• Elahi, Elohi, Eloi (meaning "My God")

Alternatively, the Aramaic word Elah can be replaced with the Hebrew words El, Elohim, or Elohay and the meaning is the same. Thus, you can have,

• El Elyon (meaning "the most high God")
• El Olam (meaning "Everlasting God")
• El Roi (meaning "God who sees me")
• El berith (meaning "covenantal God")
• Eli (meaning "My God")

Or,

• Elohim Kedoshim (meaning "Holy God")
• Elohim Chaiyim (meaning "Living God")
• Elohay Selichot (meaning "God of Forgiveness")
• Elohay Elohim (meaning "God of Gods")

And this list does not include the original Hebrew word that translates as "Lord" known as "YHVH", which is mentioned approximately 7,000 times in the Old Testament. For example, we can have:

• YHVH Elohim (meaning "Lord God")
• YHVH O’saynu (meaning "The Lord our Maker")
• YHVH Shalom (meaning "The Lord of Peace")
• YHVH M’kadesh (meaning "The Lord who makes Holy")

Yet the Jewish men did not stop there. Soon these men moved away from the El, Elah, Elohim, Elohay, or YHVH pattern, finding a range of new and different Hebrew words for this mysterious entity without regard to any link to the original and simplest Hebrew word for God, or even the single symbol and pronunciation for God in the original Aramaic language. Thus, it is not uncommon to link, for instance, "God" or "god" to the Hebrew words for "master" (pronounced as Adonai or Adonay), "lord" (pronounced adon) and "our father" (pronounced Avinu), just to name a few.

Why does the Hebrew language use so many different terms for what is essentially the same mysterious entity lying at the heart of all religions? It appears to be because religious Jews wanted to create many of the words as an epithet highlighting the different roles or characteristics allegedly seen by these people in God. The only question is, is this work of creating different words and sounds helping to solve problems for the people in society? Not according to Jesus.

Furthermore, Jesus must have observed how the Jewish priests were using the Hebrew word Elohim in both the singular and plural form to represent God to the point where they could not see a distinction between "God" and "gods" (a bit like the earlier situation with Baali and Baal). Furthermore, the word was being used to replace the older and more appropriate word El representing a singular God. Not even Eloah, with its emphasis on the singular form would be used enough when representing the one and only God. It is here where Jesus saw the biggest problem. How could anyone see an obvious distinction between "God" and "god" using the word Elohim?

Because if the right terms were available to show a clear distinction, there should be no way for anyone to confuse people as "God" when we should know we are all gods with the ability to change things for the better.

It soon became clear to Jesus that none of the words helped him or anyone else to relate to this singular God (the ultimate form of unity and balance of the universe), or to see ourselves as gods (those capable of influencing various things, such as humans, in a limited way). As a result, the Jewish scholars failed to see themselves as "gods" capable of improving the situation for many ordinary people in the Middle East.

Worse still, the biggest problem of all for Jesus was using the right term that would not confuse the Jewish priests. Unfortunately for Jesus, no matter how this young man tried to explain it, the priests were confused, and it sounded like Jesus was being blasphemous at every turn.

Unfortunately for Jesus, the Jewish priests simply did not understand, or refused to accept his view as valid and correct. And as a result, Jesus ended up being persecuted and eventually crucified on the cross by the Romans at the request of the Jews because as John 5:16–18 states:

"And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working still, and I am working.’ This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

Leaving this God issue and the conflicts with religious elites aside, we see Jesus had reached an age where he would supplement his knowledge of a more compassionate God and the power to forgive so-called "sinners" in the eyes of Jewish people with a thorough understanding of the principle of love considered more all-encompassing of different people and their circumstances, irrespective of gender, race, or the unfortunate circumstances some people found themselves in. Thus, radical statements such as "love thy enemy" (even, dare we say it, some of the Roman leaders, which Jesus learned was possible at least in one story of a Roman Centurion with a sick young servant boy under his care), as well as looking after the sick and destitute who were often being ostracised and seen by Jewish people as a sign of God's unhappiness and willingness to punish people (the general perception of God seen by Jewish priests in the Old Testament) for whatever sins these people had apparently committed, became a normal part of his life's work and attempts to change the views of people at the time.

We also learn of the young man's deep insight of why people fought and accumulated wealth and power, not to mention how these people were more likely to become corrupt in their thinking and ways of doing things when they do acquire enough wealth and power. And, from this he could see why people would get harmed by the actions of these corrupted people, such as what we see in those slaves building the pyramids in Egypt, why the Romans were occupying the lands, and anything else he saw in these dysfunctional leaders in this part of the world.

Jesus must have also understood why some rich people were keen to extend their lives and believe in an afterlife, usually at the cost of others who were told to build the great pyramids or give them what they want. There was also, especially among the Roman families, a belief in innumerable statues of different gods they could worship thinking the problems of the world would be solved if the gods could be made happy (usually through some form of sacrifice) and later hopefully give the humans something in return. He also understood why poverty existed and could see how relatively simple and curable diseases would develop in humans from the way people went about their lives and not given the knowledge of good hygiene and being clean. He could also see what the Jewish priests were doing, and this was not in keeping with the young man's idea of how to solve world problems. In some ways, the priests were waiting for the return of God or the Messiah to solve the problems and would spend more time praying and looking for imaginative new words and descriptions to call upon God in the hope of receiving the divine inspiration or intervention they so desperately sought under such oppressive conditions from the Romans, whichever would come first. From all these observations he could see a solution. But in order to implement the solution, something had to change.

Firstly, the young man had to see himself as a "god" capable of doing good in the world and making changes, and seeing his work as aligning with God.

Secondly, the young man had to change his own life. Kind of get his own backyard in order so to speak by simplifying things and choosing to live more frugally. Already his family did the right thing in this regard. The young man wanted to keep it simpler, be happy with the essential things he had and which enabled him to survive, and to get away from the domestic distractions at home in the family so he can focus on his life's work, think through the problems, and implement the solutions he came up with. Even this first step of keeping things simple and focusing on one's needs was a significant solution to many problems because he believed all people should be able to experience this happiness and contentment in life by at least sticking to what we need and not what we want. There is no need to be wealthy to be happy, nor do we need to be constantly fighting and protecting oneself from others who also want to have the same things. Having what you need should be more than enough to achieve true happiness and security in any society, no matter the time or place. And there is enough for everyone to have what they need too. If we all do this in our lives, he realised there would be no need for wars, and people would be genuinely happy and live in harmony with one another. There would be no crime when people are happy having what they need. People could live in genuine peace (and have time to think and come up with original and great long-term solutions to any problems set before them or wish to pursue for the benefit of everyone else) so long as we all understood death was not meant to be the end, but just the beginning to a new adventure. The true God will take care of this aspect for all living things in its own mysterious way, as well as letting God (helped along by our our knowledge and efforts) provide everything people need (i.e. recycling, growing foods, and knowing there is an afterlife) as well as to resurrect those who have died. Everything will be kept in balance and in abundance in due course if we all play our part in doing the right thing in what is effectively a heaven on Earth if we so choose. This is the heaven by which the young man would call the Kingdom of God.

The only thing to keep people from achieving greatness are those in a position of power. The ones who want to maintain their wealth and have control over the people to ensure the wealth and power is not taken away by the people. Somehow, the young man had to convince the masses that it is okay to make changes in society and be powerful in their own right, both individually and collectively, to solve the problems. He wanted everyone to realise their full potential in achieving great things. In that way, even he could achieve the social change he wanted to see on a grand scale with the help of others. It cannot be a one man effort (or a one God effort). Just so long as he was careful not to be seen by the Romans as inciting social unrest that could affect those in a position of wealth and power and so put his own life at risk, it should be okay. Just quietly make it look like he was only teaching the principle of love to the people, and helping to heal those who were suffering. Nothing the Romans could do there if this is all they could see. But if the people want change, it should be possible to do it peacefully. And if the authorities try to put fear into people again, people should be able to rise up against them in order to restore balance.

Fair enough. For all this to happen, Jesus had to be in a position of stability in his own place, and able to think freely and independently of everyone else, especially the influence and distractions from his family, Jewish priests, and the Romans. Once he had the clarity of thought to know what to do next, the young man knew how to begin tackling a number of problems in the outside world using his knowledge and insights.

Among the first things Jesus did to change people's lives was the decision to break the power held by the Jewish priests over the people (especially in the town where he moved to), not just because of what the old religious scriptures said, but also the level of control they had over certain valuable natural resources kept at certain temples, including one near Capernaum. The young man knew the temple provided an abundant fresh underground water supply. A natural spring was bubbling up from underground with its rich levels of minerals. Only problem is, the water was being protected by the priests as if it had special powers or religious significance, as if it was holy water. And they felt it was their privilege to hold this resource to themselves because of their work to understand God. Or maybe it was just the fact that it was clean and drinkable and made people feel good. More a placebo effect? Or maybe it contained trace minerals, such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, bicarbonate and some sodium, to aid in the improved health of people who could drink from it. Whatever the truth, the only problem was, the resource was being locked up from the people either because the priests felt entitled by God to own it and was essential in the priests work to get closer to God (for divine inspiration and a solution to the social problems), or they did not want other people to contaminate the water. If people got diseases, it must have been God's way of punishing people for any wrongdoing. More praying and following the ten commandments from Moses was considered essential to be in the good books of God before people could get better. Whatever it was that made the priests so controlling of the fresh water, the young man saw it was wrong. Furthermore, he became acutely aware of the health benefits of properly bathing people in fresh water, for which many people did not have. So, it seems the number one decision in this young man's mind was to give people access to this clean water by helping to bathe them secretly at night (and even on the Sabbath).

This was also a time when Jesus probably had knowledge of some medicinal plants that could have aided in his treatment of common human diseases, and to use this opportunity when bathing the people to refine his techniques in administering the treatments. It is unclear about this aspect.

The young man would not be ostentatious about what he had to do. Quite the opposite. And for good reason too as we shall learn, at least in the early stages of commencing his life's work. The surreptitious and harmless manner in which he began his work can be seen at the temple where the young man frequented and gathered his essential training.

As more and more people felt cured of what they thought were incurable diseases (and may even have described the cures as miracles), they become more receptive to listening to the ideas from this young man.

Among the concepts being presented to the people by this young man was in a kingdom of God and who could enter it, and who would not. He would teach the people certain interesting stories that would apply the principle of love (or lack thereof and the consequences of such action). These stories would be presented in a way that helped people to think through the problems and understand the consequences of doing the right thing or not do the right thing (to at least highlight these opposite extremes and what can arise out of them by way of consequences).

However, there was one more concept that the young man realised later in his life was stopping others from making the necessary social change for the better: it concerns the issue of death. He didn't realise this at first, but later he saw what was holding back the people from making the necessary changes. They were afraid to be the agents of change due to the fact that the Romans could easily have them killed.

Somehow the young man had to convince ordinary folks not to be afraid of death. Resurrecting Lazarus, as people were led to believe, was one way to convince more people of the broader patterns of the Universe and the cyclic nature of life and death. Yet people could not be absolutely sure about this.

Exactly how could Jesus show to the people the truth behind death as he understood it? It is hard to know for sure how the young man saw the issue of death other than claiming that God can forgive your sins and be reborn or something along those lines. Certainly there has been talk of an everlasting life. Whether this involves joining with God in some kind of heaven, or an experiencing of the endless cycle of life and death, and back to life again with the true God being there during the unexplained and mysterious moment of resurrection, it is not entirely clear.

Then, at some point in his life, the young man made a very odd, almost foolhardy, decision to use himself as the guinea pig in an experiment that would show how he could survive after death with the help of God. This would be his moment to try to convince people in the reality of God and what happens to all of us when we die. In other words, it is not meant to be the end, but a continuation into new life, or a new beginning. The implications of this idea is to get people to think longer term and to do the right thing if we were to return to a new life to benefit from our good work in the previous life, but also that all living things go through this resurrection process. In other words, you do not need to be a special person (not even a Christian) for God to help you become resurrected. It is a normal part of life within the universe.

Whether or not this is true, we see in the backdrop of all of this how the spiteful Jewish priests would continue in their efforts to find a way to have Jesus punished by the Romans for blasphemy after claiming he is the Messiah or potentially even God if he thought he was one with "the Father". If not, to somehow get the Romans to see Jesus as a troublemaker and potentially inciting unrest among the people even though a Roman leader in charge in Jerusalem struggled to see where the trouble was in this young man. No obvious signs this young man was against the Romans and wielding a sword ready to cause an uprising. The Jewish priests could see what the problem was. Jesus wasn't exactly a warrior, a kind of badass Rambo soldier ready to start a one man war against the Roman military. Talking about the principle of love isn't going to sound all that threatening to anyone, surely. Well, perhaps. Yet the elites merely wanted to control the people (who in turn helped the Romans in their quest to quell large-scale unrest among the people), and perhaps received money and other benefits from the Romans accordingly. The priests wanted people to believe there had to be a heaven (and possibly a chance to see God), or else go to hell. There is no in between. No return to a new life. Nothing along those lines. Just do what we want you to do and you will go to heaven, or be condemned to go to hell. And if it is the latter, there is no chance for you to be forgiven unless God specifically says so. No one else has the power to forgive people.

It is no wonder the young man was having increasing conflicts with the priests. He was willing to challenge a number of traditions based on his own understanding of God, the principle of love, and his approach to forgiveness with people around him, especially those who want to change and do better but can't for whatever reason.

It is clear that Jesus had a serious problem with the elite Jewish priests, but they were not the only problem. The Romans were another source of contention. These uninvited foreigners arrived before he was born and would occupy his homeland with a stranglehold that was unparalleled in the known world at the time. Roman violence and brutality was customarily dished out to the people as a way of quelling small-scale unrest. But if the entire population underwent a massive uprising against the Romans, this would be a major problem. The only way to avoid this was to use the help from the Jewish priests and certain kings with authority over various regions. Kind of like the eyes and ears, and the finger on the pulse of society. And as an incentive to tell all what they discover to help the Romans quell unrest, certain benefits would be had.

Here the priests would use the laws to teach people to fear God. To see the masculine side of God from the Old Testament as the instrument of fear to get people to do the right thing. As for individual troublemakers and those found to have killed one or several Romans behind the scenes, or if the Jewish priests put forward a strong enough case to recommend punishment, the Romans could unleash violence and the instrument of excruciating and prolonged pain as a means of instilling fear in the people. While locals were not yet ready to rise up in great numbers, the main weapon the Romans used effectively to bring fear into the people was the punishment known as crucifixion — a brutal Roman idea of causing maximum pain and suffering to an individual while being pinned by large metal nails through the wrists and feet until sufficient blood loss and/or the shock of the experience kills the victim. Hardly anyone could survive this ordeal, no matter how strong they were. There was one report of a survivor who lived his days after the crucifixion, but since then, the Romans added the terrible act of breaking the victims legs to make sure they died properly from the shock and intense pain (and couldn't walk away from a burial site for such victims). Otherwise, Romans were known to be efficient at crushing small-scale rebellions unless somehow the number of people involved were too great for the Romans to handle. This was the only thing that scared the living daylights out of the Romans. Perhaps this was the quiet aim of the young religious prodigy? To use sheer numbers of people to change the view of the Roman authority and stop the occupation as an important way to make the necessary social change and bring peace to the land, but to do it in a more peaceful way.

Jesus did have his own personal view about the Romans, and it wasn't one of great fondness. He preferred the Romans to stop interfering in the affairs of the people and show more kindness, while at the same time stop seeking wealth and power (not to mention their desire to worship multiple deities). It did not mean that he would not help the Romans, especially those who were kinder to the people. As one story would have it, a Roman centurion with a young male slave asked Jesus to help heal his slave. At first Jesus tried to ignore his request, but on hearing more about the plea for help and seeing the person who was asking, the young man stopped and listened. It wasn't long before he was moved sufficiently by the Roman's faith in him to help the slave and assist the Roman. Then he made his famous statement to the people (mostly the Gentiles) saying that he felt this Roman was showing more faith in him and his ideas that any of the Jewish priests and many of their Jewish followers. Since then, he did find some Romans in his local area to be sympathetic to his cause as they could not see a problem with his work (at least at a local level and no signs of any exterior motive for helping so many people), much to the dismay of other Jewish priests who did not want this young man to rock the boat and undermine the position of power held by the priests over the people.

Were some of the Jewish priests receiving financial and other benefits from the Romans to ensure the people were kept in control? Probably. To the young man, he probably wanted the opposite to happen, but to do it in a way that promoted the principle of love. Only one problem: not enough people were going ahead to make the changes. They were afraid of something else.

While the Romans were unaware of the young man's ultimate aim, the Jewish priests could do nothing to stop this man while the Romans were effectively "protecting him" in the local town where he lived and allowed him to go about his work. Unless Jesus could leave the town, the priests could do nothing.

Nevertheless, the fear people had of death kept returning to the young man's mind. Jesus saw it as the number one reason why the people would not work together to make the required permanent change for themselves and for others, and in a way that would be peaceful and stop giving the occupiers and the religious elite and rulers any chance to wield power and fear on the people.

On seeing the brutal methods employed by the Romans to control the population, many people chose to keep quiet, be somewhat apathetic to the whole situation, and instead for some to look for an escape from reality by listening to this young man's interesting ideas as a way to imagine themselves out of a difficult problem. It seemed so alluring, almost like a drug they could enjoy, and within reach of this ultimate goal for the "Kingdom of God", but the reality for many people is that they could suffer immensely before they die if the Romans did not relinquish power. So the young man eventually had to not only teach people about the afterlife, but finally make the very brave point to all regarding the nature of death by putting himself through the process. Perhaps a foolish thing to do. Then again, the young man was unusually confident about something. Did he know what would happen and how we might survive it? There are indications that Jesus was confident he would be assisted by God to help bring him back to his people. But this would require the young man to have had a secret discussion with God at some point where he explained what he had to do and how God would play its part to help push through the idea about what happens at the moment of our passing? Did God agree, and was it ready to assist the young man at the right time to make this change possible?

Indeed, did God ever disagree or explained the risks to the young man? What happens if he dies and God could do nothing to return him to his old life? Would there be a Plan B? Somehow Jesus had every faith in God that it could bring him back to life. This idea of being resurrected or brought back to life remained strong in Jesus. He looked unusually confident in a quiet sense of what the outcome would be.

All we know at this stage is that Jesus did make the bold decision to visit Jerusalem. Perhaps foolishly, but he had already made up his mind given the enormous trust he held with God, and the risk this would bring from those spiteful priests. Despite having many years ahead of him to teach the finer points of his knowledge to a wider audience, maybe even travel around the world to spread his message of hope and positive change on a grander scale, it seems as though he felt it was necessary to go to the city and be ready to sacrifice his life, or so it seems. He was a man on a mission, and nothing would phase him on this latest and dangerous quest. He was looking to achieve something great, and wanted a bigger audience to see the outcome as a way to convince everyone of the reality of God and in an afterlife. At the same time, he must have known the risk this would involve, especially with those unforgiving Jewish priests who wanted nothing more than an opportunity to put an end to this young man's life due to the blasphemous nature of his claim that he was a god/God, or at least the Son of God and how this has been interpreted by the priests as the "Messiah". Very risky move considering he would now be away from the protection of the Romans in his home town. Or, maybe he already knew the outcome for his own life? Perhaps he had planned and prepared himself all along for what would be the most difficult phase in his life just to get an important lesson across to the people about what happens when we die and why we should give ourselves entirely to God when we do, because in the end we will all become resurrected, as part of the great mystery of the Universe.

While this view of an afterlife from Jesus may seem in stark contrast to Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 showing a philosophical view from another person who relies on his eyes like a scientist but adds some imagination to show what likely happens to us when our bodies and brain are no longer functioning and described as dead. Talk about our previous lives coming into play has no bearing when we are dead. It becomes irrelevant. Our names will eventually be forgotten by the living (except for the few closest to us, but even they will die and eventually the name will be forgotten in time). Hopefully what we achieve in our lives will benefit many for a long time, perhaps long enough that when we do return, we too can benefit from it as well. Otherwise, the writer talks about enjoying your time with your wife and what life has to offer. Enjoy the warmth of the Sun and what the Universe can reveal to you. To Jesus, however, he seem to have a quietly hidden confidence of moving beyond death and into life. He thinks something strange happens to all living things and God plays a part in this. Death was never seen by Jesus as the end, but a continuation of life starting with a new body. The body is really like our clothes that wear down and need to be changed after a while. To wear new clothes, we need to experience that process of making the transition to a new line of clothes for us to wear.

Unfortunately, such a view can never be scientifically proven. It is beyond science. The problem with death and what comes after is hidden. Our eyes must be closed. And the brain at some point has to stop its electrical activity completely, and that is the moment when science ends, and faith in an afterlife begins.

But this isn't the full story. Trying to convince other people of the possible existence of an afterlife is only one aspect. There was another reason why Jesus would put himself through this next difficult stage of his life, no matter how foolish this may look with the risks involved to his life. He had also hoped that showing his own death (or the perception of death) and resurrection (rather than showing this on other allegedly dead people or animals) could be interpreted as God freeing the people from their sins so they may go ahead and implement solutions to solving world problems. It kind of makes sense. Once people move on to another life, it is expected that no one will recognise who they once were. So any labels of someone having sinned in his previous life would not get transferred to the next life. But for Jesus, it was important not to go that far in the process. He needed to come back at the moment when people thought he had died, and would seem impossible to come back from it. But if God had the means to bring Jesus back from what people perceived was death, Jesus could convince simple-minded folks of "freeing us" from our sins. He took away those sins and gave us the freedom to try things and find out if the actions can solve world problems. Like it is said in Corinthians 15:36: "...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." He wanted to remove this feeling that we are all sinners all the time and, therefore, unable to do anything to solve problems because we must constantly repent to be in God's good books (unless we get divine inspiration and advance from God on what to do) and that means doing nothing at all. Spending all that time repenting puts you in a time-limited situation of not being able to do anything else. Jesus appeared to want to free us from all this repenting and to do things on our own without fearing God and thinking that we might be sinning if we tried.

Whatever the truth, what happened next would end up being incredibly difficult for this young man (and to his disciples who watched on and saw the terrible suffering this person had to endure) just to convince enough people of the existence of an afterlife. Jesus was probably 32 years of age when he experienced what could be best described as horrific brutality and torture at the hands of the Roman soldiers, no thanks to those idiotic and unimaginative Jewish priests who have managed to find a way to convince the Romans to have this man killed.

The Gospel of Luke gives some indication of when this next difficult stage began for the religious leader. In Luke 3:1:

"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar — when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea…"

This refer to when Jesus was baptised in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Historians are certain, based on independent sources in history, that Tiberius Caesar ruled from 17 September 14 to 16 March 37. This would make the fifteenth year of his reign at around 29 CE. And in John’s Gospel, the writer identifies at least three more visits to Jerusalem for the Passover, which brings us to the year 33 CE. Furthermore, in Acts 4:27, it states:

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel…"

Historians know that Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, ruled Galilee and Perea as tetrarch from 4 BC to AD 39. As for Pontius Pilate, he served as the 5th Prefect (or governor) of the Roman province of Judea from around 26 AD to 36 AD. All this would suggest that 33 CE was probably when the final and most difficult part of Jesus' life would take place.

At the time Jesus was arrested, Pontius Pilate did not believe Jesus was guilty, but he condemned the man anyway because of political pressure from the Jewish elites, fear of unrest, and self‑preservation. The only question he had to ask can be seen in Matthew 27:11, when Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?". The same question appears in Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 18. Furthermore, the titulus on the cross on which Jesus would be crucified read “King of the Jews,” identifying this as the formal Roman charge of sedition. To the jewish elites, "King of the Jews" is equivalent to saying Jesus was at a higher level to everyone else, and in this case closer to God. And hence "King" is equivalent to "Messiah" in this Kingdom of God spoken so highly by Jesus in several of his talks with the people previously. But Pilate couldn't charge him on the grounds of a religious matter regarding a "Messiah". It had to be made on the grounds of political reasons, mainly to show the possibility that Jesus could cause unrest among the people and rise up against the Roman authority.

So without thinking about his own life, and his willingness to sacrifice himself for a greater cause, Jesus gave his response to the charge presented to him by Pilate:

Matthew 27:11: "You have said so."
Mark 15:2: "You say so."
Luke 23:3: "You say so." (parallel in the same passage set)

This phrase means "That’s your wording, not mine" while neither denying or affirming the political title in the way Pilate means it. Jesus did try to clarify his answer by saying to Pilate:

"Is that your own idea, or did others talk to you about me?"

This forced Pilate to confront whether he sees Jesus as a political threat or is simply repeating the accusations of others. Then Jesus said in John 18:36:

"My kingdom is not of this world."

Jesus finally answers the charge directly, according to John 18:37:

"You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth."

This is unfortunate. If only the young man could have explained in a little more detail about the concept of "god" and "God" (and how this relates to "king" and "King" from a human perspective) and make everyone see that we are all gods capable of making changes. It is as simple as that. Pontius Pilate was one god capable of deciding the fate of people under his control. Jesus was another god capable of making peaceful changes among ordinary people on the street. There was nothing Pilate could see in the actions of Jesus to warrant an arrest and require the most serious form of punishment. Unfortunately, Jesus was on a mission to save humanity with a simple goal of showing God had control of our destiny even after death and can decide when to resurrect us. And that idea somehow had to get through to the people.

Therefore, Jesus chose not to deny the charge. Pilate had no choice but to charge him with sedition.

However, to wash his hands of the blood of this religious man, Pilate allowed the people to decide his fate: either to free him or be punished. Unfortunately for Jesus, the people who would decide his fate were directly influenced and stirred up by the Jewish chief priests to demand Jesus’ crucifixion instead of his release.

Jesus now faced the most difficult stage of his life.

On the day he was condemned to die on the cross, he had to bear the pain of being tortured and whipped by a number of Roman soldiers. To appreciate the considerable suffering and pain (unless he prepared himself in such a way to minimise the pain), Jesus could be seen bleeding profusely around his head from the numerous large thorns of a bush used as a crown for his head and pushed in hard until it made significant cuts. A decision from a naive young Roman soldier based on unfounded claims from the Jewish priests that he was acting as the King of the Jews and thus of his Kingdom of God as if he was God. Thus the soldiers thought that for a king he must always wear a crown. Since the soldiers knew the young man was condemned to die, it probably didn't matter what was used as a crown, so long as it provided lots of pain and suffering. He was going to die anyway. Might as well slap on a thorny branch on his head.

Yet more violence was to be inflicted on Jesus.

Jesus would be given a brutal whipping as part of his punishment, for which the Jewish priests could observe and take pleasure watching from a distance. Part of his clothing was removed so that the whipping he would receive would be felt right across his back. This was no ordinary whipping. The impact from each whipping would take out tiny pieces of the young man's skin. He would bleed profusely until he almost passed out, but somehow he managed to stay conscious.

Then came the crucifixion.

Jesus, as did a couple of other men condemned to die for their sins, had to carry a heavy rectangular shaped "top wooden beam" with a hole in the middle for attaching to the second beam (already prepared and waiting near the hole dug in the ground on a hill outside Jerusalem). This heavy beam was probably about 7 ft in length (2.2m) and 6" x 8" sided (15cm x 20cm). It had a hole in the exact middle in which a metal loop was attached.

Already weakened by his blood loss from the serious whipping on his back and thorny crown placed on his head by the Romans, Jesus made an incredible effort to carry the beam. A couple of times he tripped and fell. Eventually one of the followers of Jesus was asked by a Roman soldier to carry the beam.

The next bloody stage was for the young man to be tied to the second wooden beam prepared and waiting outside Jerusalem. Blood loss was already enough to see him struggle to find the energy to keep himself up let alone carry the heavy wooden cross as he was expected to do. His face already looked bloodied at this stage.

While lying on the cross at the final resting place on top of a hill just outside the city walls, the Romans hammered in large metal nails through the wrist (although some argue it was the hands, in which case ropes would be necessary to wrap around the wrist and arms to hold him up on the cross; this is unlikely to be the case as it would have been more painful through the wrist as the Romans would prefer to see, and the bones and tendons would do a much better job of keeping his body on the cross and holding him up against the force of gravity) and feet of the young man. The pain would have been unimaginable. Nerves in the wrists and certain blood vessels going to the hand would have been either severed or severely damaged. The two bones in the forearms were likely pushed apart by the foreign object, possibly dislocating from the joints in the wrist. But if not, any movement of his body would suddenly inject excruciating pain as the metal pin pushed against the bones and tendons, and damaged many nerves. Several smaller bones in the feet may have been crushed, broken, or dislodged from their joints. Once he got through the initial almost unbearable pain, it may have been a little easier. The body would kick in to try to numb some of the pain.

Then came the moment of hoisting up the wooden cross in a hole that was at least a couple of metres in depth and prepared earlier that day. As soon as the wooden beam fell into the hole, and hit the bottom, the body of Jesus, as did the other condemned men either side of him, were jolted severely, creating yet another intense moment of pain in the wrist and feet as the body was pulled by gravity to the ground in a more violent way. With the wooden cross finally in position, it was now just a waiting game to see who could stay alive the longest. However, this game has no finish line and no rewards to offer the condemned men on the crosses other than death. You were not expected to survive this form of torture.

The slow blood loss and unrelenting pain just from gravity pulling down on the body (best to keep as still as possible) would have slowly eaten away at Jesus' remaining energy reserves. He was feeling increasingly tired and unable to support his body for much longer. Letting the weight of his body fall would have added enormously to the pain and further damaging his wrists by the nails holding him up.

As Jesus endured the pain, less blood in his body would also see a reduction in oxygen intake to the brain. He was slowly going in and out of unconsciousness. Just before he did go into a more permanent state of unconsciousness (which tends to be interpreted in these times as the equivalent of "death"), Jesus had forgiven the other men condemned to die with him.

The exact time when this event was alleged to have occurred seems to vary with different gospel writers. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not give a specific hour for when Jesus was nailed to the cross. They describe events (darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, etc.) but do not state the hour of crucifixion. However, in John 19:14, we see, “It was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour…” This is not the time of the crucifixion itself, but the time of Jesus before Pilate, shortly before the crucifixion. John’s Gospel uses the phrase “Preparation of the Passover”, which can mean (i) the day before Passover (traditional interpretation), or (ii) the Friday of Passover week, meaning “preparation day for the Sabbath,” not for the Passover meal itself. Scholars disagree on which meaning John intended.

What scholars think happened is that Jesus endured at least 3 hours of intense and unremitting pain on the cross. It is most likely by around three in the afternoon, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?" — that is, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" according to Mark 15:34–37 and Matthew 27:46–50.

As he said this, Jesus was being mocked by the chief priests, scribes and elders of Israel while soldiers cast lots for his clothes. According to Matthew 27:41–43, CSB):

"In the same way, the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him and said, 'He saved others, but he cannot save himself! He is the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God rescue him now — if he takes pleasure in him! For he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "

Not long after this, Jesus allegedly uttered among his last words saying in Aramaic for God to forgive the people around him for they do not know what they are doing, and finally "It is finished." (which may mean his work on Earth is done, or he may have realised the possibility that his plan might be going wrong or was not confident God would be able to save him) according to John 19:30. After mentioning these last remaining words, Jesus went into a more permanent state of unconsciousness, or he may have literally died. We do not know for sure.

For all intent, being unconscious would look like the young man had died. The paradoxical nature of whether unconsciousness truly represents death or not was starting to show at this point. What are humans to make of this? Should we interpret this as the moment of Jesus having died on the cross?

Well, the people who witnessed the event thought he died. To some extent, the Romans thought so too, except they needed proof of this claim. But rather than check the man's heart rate to see if it has stopped, or check for electrical signals in the brain (the technology for this was not available more than 2,000 years ago), the Romans had a rudimentary method of checking for this, and a fairly violent one at that too.

In a rare and unusual act, a decision was made by the Romans not to break the young man's legs. A Roman Centurion witnessing Jesus endure the terrible pain for such a long time and the words he spoke to the people below and to a higher authority, started to have second thoughts about Jesus being some kind of criminal. The only Roman soldier mentioned at the crucifixion who showed sympathy is the centurion who declared, “Truly this was the Son of God” after Jesus died (Matthew 27:54). Again, unnamed, but likely to be from Jesus' town of Capernaum, and could have been the person who received help from Jesus to heal his sick servant boy. Whatever the truth, he granted the wish of mother Mary for this final act of brutality not to happen to her son. Yet something had to be done to prove to other Roman soldiers that he was probably dead. Therefore, a decision was made by the Centurion to show everyone that the young man had died by piercing his ribs with a spear. Fortunately, being unconscious, if not dead, would ensure no pain would be felt by Jesus from this further injury.

Then another fortuitous moment arrived to help Jesus in his potential recovery if God could save him (although time was of the essence). There was a sudden change in temperature and humidity. An unusually well-timed heavy rains and initial blistering wind to force most people back to the city came from a large and rather unexpected dark thundercloud that was sweeping over the spot. Apparently no one saw it coming, so no warning signs that this was not a good day to be crucifying people. After the rain had passed, the young man's wet and cool body was wrapped in clean cloth and placed in a cave for further protection, and carefully guarded by two Roman soldiers at the request of the Jewish priests (in case it turned out Jesus really was the Messiah and God was on his side to bring him back from the dead).

Then another oddity took place where it appears that Jesus was taken away by some mysterious entity or entities during the night. As the story goes, a couple of Roman soldiers were ordered to guard the entrance way to the cave. Sometime during the night, the soldiers later claimed they saw a bright light approaching them, and this was enough for the men to run away. The next morning, and with no one around to witness what went on during the night, the body was found missing from the cave by the mother Mary followed by another unusual sighting, this time of a mysterious angel at the doorway to the cave who was attempting to alleviate her concerns by explaining his son was alive and well.

Timing couldn't have been better for Jesus. An opportunity to live again was definitely on the cards for this very lucky individual. Either that, or perhaps God had to implement plan B to help with this aim to convince humanity in the reality of a "resurrection". But no one can be absolutely sure about this aspect. We must assume God was telling the truth and this religious leader has survived his terrible ordeal to live another day.

Then somehow, after about three days, the young man returned to his closest disciples, his mother, and a few friends at a secret location. Quite extraordinary if this was true, and would have convinced anyone to believe in God. Or was it a sophisticated god with the technical means and extensive medical knowledge to revive and repair this young man's body? One thing is certain, the young man was not perfectly healed. Signs of the severe damage to the wrists and feet could be seen. Even God could not do a perfect job of repairing the damage, which is a bit odd. Surely a true God could do a perfect job of restoring the man to perfect health and repair all damage, but apparently not. Even the man's appearance was not exactly as he was before he got arrested and pinned to the cross. In John 20:14, Mary Magdalene allegedly had trouble recognising the man she was talking to as being Jesus, until he spoke. But on further observation, the other disciples were able to recognise him on closer examination. As the Bible would reveal, the disciples recognized Jesus through his choice of words, actions (or behaviours), and physical signs—both the eyes, voice and especially the wounds from the crucifixion. This recognition would not occur immediately upon seeing this man. Either the injuries to the head by the Roman soldiers just prior to the crucifixion had been significant than previously thought and a lot of effort was made to heal the damage but not able to restore his original appearance, or he has been given a nourishing meal by God to fatten him up and no longer looked emaciated. Or did God have to implement Plan B after discovering Jesus had really gone too far and died before God could revive him? Whether it was really Jesus or not, as further evidence to convince the disciples of the reality of resurrection or revived body and the belief in the return of their beloved religious leader, witnesses observed the man ate the food he was given, which included cooked fish. It was then that people realised the speed of his recovery was highly unlikely to be natural.

If Jesus had died, his return had to be a miracle. They had no choice but to think God does exist and had intervened in the process just at the right time to revive, but more likely interpreted by those present to witness this man as being brought back from the dead through some form of resurrection, as the people thought at the time.

Or was there a resurrection?

Skeptics have argued that the resurrection was probably a myth added to in the 17th century of the King James Version of the Bible, specifically at the end of the Gospel of Mark (i.e., Mark 16:8). Supporting this claim is how two very different 4th century versions of the oldest surviving complete manuscripts of the Christian Bible, known as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, showed no evidence of a resurrection according to Mark compared to much more recent versions after the 17th century. Apparently the original story ends with women entering the tomb, noticed the body of Christ wrapped in a white linen was no where to be seen (although it is possible the women had overlooked the linen cloth had been neatly folded and placed nearby), saw a figure described as a young man clothed in a white robe, seated on the right side who then proceeded to say:

"Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here."

and later instructed them to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee, and then the women ran away in fear, saying nothing to anyone. After that, it seems the reader is left to imagine what could have happened next, which is very unusual.

The women who arrived at the tomb were, according to Mark 16:1, were:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body."

Hard to imagine the writer (if it was Mark) choosing to end so abruptly and not confirm if a "resurrection" had occurred with the appearance of the religious leader to other disciples at some later date, together with any other events that occurred before Jesus eventually departed this planet with the help of God. The reader is made to assume this is the case, and whatever events did occur afterwards were not seen as relevant to the story. This sounds more like someone had decided to cut the story shorter than it should, as if the writer was interrupted for some reason. Or perhaps the apostle who told the story made a decision to have the story deliberately cut short for his own personal reasons?

One thing is interesting. Peter (his original name was Shimon, with Jesus giving him a new name of Kephas, meaning "stone" in Aramaic, which when translated into Greek means Petros or Peter in English) did have his own issue with Mary Magdalene according to the Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Peter never liked Mary Magdalene being a disciple learning from the religious leader even though Jesus was prepared to allow a number of women to be his disciples. But deep down Peter hated the idea of women becoming an apostle to teach others and become leaders of the religious knowledge. Indeed, as we later learn from the Gnostic texts, Mary Magdalene was later appointed by the resurrected Jesus to be an apostle and, together with John, shared leadership of the whole group of apostles, much to the dismay of Peter. Even though he kept quiet after a previously heated moment of Jesus kissing Magdalene on a spot that was designed to antagonise people like Peter to speak their mind about the gender issue, such special treatment of a woman must have deeply affected him with the possibility that subsequent events and whatever Mary Magdalene may have mentioned later to the group had further fuelled Peter's mind on the idea that women should not take up leadership roles as religious teachers or given any special treatment by Jesus or God. Only men should receive this special treatment and have divine access to learn and teach religious knowledge to others according to his Jewish upbringing and unwavering traditions. Knowing Mary Magdalene was a particularly close companion to Jesus to the point where she might have been given special treatment by an angel appearing specifically to her and later another person with whom she thought he was Jesus himself, all this may not have sat well with Peter. Now, after Jesus was gone, he was free to speak his mind and only Mark (who was not a disciple of Jesus) present and learning from Peter about what happened, Peter may have decided to bundle together all the women, including Mary Magdalene, into one group. A group that merely came to the tomb and observed something, and ran away, but added that the women told no one. And this is where the story ended. Well, obviously they could not have said nothing. How else would the male disciples learn about the situation and arrive at the tomb themselves to confirm the missing body? So what Peter is trying to say is that while the women ran away and said nothing, he had actually spoken to at least one of the women — if not two of the women, but not Mary Magdalene — to know what they saw, which is how it came to be mentioned in Peter's own story. Then Peter left it like that. He simply did not want Mary Magdalene to be credited later of seeing Jesus first as this would suggest greater favouritism to a woman than men. In order to get a more complete picture of the alleged events that took place with less bias from Peter, it would require the other gospel writers to recall from memory a potentially more accurate series of events, while Peter had his own reasons not to make Mary Magdalene more special than any of the other women.

This would explain why Matthew choose to write a gospel when he had access to Mark's gospel. Of course, we can never be sure exactly what Mathew was thinking at the time, but it is likely he saw the shortcomings of Mark's gospel according to Peter as people listened and asked questions. There is absolutely no doubt that the Gospel of Mark ended prematurely without discussing the resurrection in more detail other than "Jesus had risen". We see this in Mark 16:8:

"So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

This is the final sentence to appear in the Gospel of Mark. It is obvious the story has been cut short because if the women said nothing to anyone, the male disciples would not have heard about the empty tomb. Then the other gospel writers would have nothing to say about what happened next. However, it is fairly obvious to people listening to this story that Peter (and the other male disciples) did find out. And there had to be more to this story. On realising Mark’s Gospel was no longer adequate for the needs of Christianity, Matthew decided to add a few more details to help answer questions that needed answering in the latter decades of the first century. It was something that had to be done. Of course, whether Matthew's additions are accurate is difficult to be certain. He are relying on potentially the memories of an old man in which the finer details may be a little hazy. However, it is likely the essence of what he said in those additions are substantially true. It is just that it will be difficult to prove.

As they say, one must show faith in the words of Matthew and other apostle who had been alive at the time.

At any rate, we see that Mark had wanted to explain Jesus as having descended from King David, so Matthew ‘proved’ this to be true by providing a generation-by-generation genealogy. Mark said nothing about the birth and early years of Jesus, so Matthew provided an captivating story of his birth in Bethlehem during the reign of King Herod and of his early years in Egypt. As originally written, Mark provided no evidence that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion, so Matthew resolved this by describing the disciples as meeting him on a mountain in Galilee and receiving the Great Commission. There were other improvements and elaborations, such that Matthew appears to have become the favourite gospel during much of the second century.

If what Matthew said is true, then it would appear that someone else must have came to the tomb to confirm this fact from the women. Or the person had, as one would say, a morning stroll to the tomb, not realising what had happened. That person was probably Mary Magdalene. The initial observation mentioned by Mark of a missing body in the tomb and seeing a young man that was assumed to be a messenger of God sitting there and reassuring the women of Jesus' resurrection was probably no more than two women (note this maintains the plural form for women to be involved). Peter (through the Gospel of Mark) claimed the women ran away (probably true), but also claimed they said nothing (probably untrue unless he spoke to the women later to find out, although this would imply another person was required to tell the male disciples what had happened) because he did not want to mention Mary Magdalene was the woman who saw the empty tomb and told him and the others about it (in order for Peter to confirm this situation with the other women who did venture to the tomb before Mary Magdalene did), and later received special treatment from another angel and then she ran outside to suddenly see Jesus. And from there, the whole "resurrection" story began to take shape when she spoke of what she saw to the male disciples. Fortunately for her, it was a story the male disciples were happy to perpetuate, because at some point later Jesus did appear to all the disciples to help 'prove' this resurrection idea. Except Peter hated the idea that Mary Magdalene would take the credit for establishing this resurrection claim first.

It is either that, or the only other possibility is that Peter was getting around to the moment of explaining what happened next, but something had interrupted his story-telling.

This leaves us with the following likely reasons why the story was cut short:

1. The apostle Peter was not happy about what Jesus did after his return to allow at least one woman, namely Mary Magdalene, to become an apostle and to head the group of apostles, and this was his quiet way to protest against Jesus.
2. The apostle Peter was upset about the departure of Jesus soon after his resurrection, and he chose to have the story cut short because of this emotional time for him.
3. The apostle Peter did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus as if he knew the secret to how Jesus was revived, and didn't want the reader to know about this.
4. The writer Mark was interrupted in the process of writing down Peter's complete story while in Rome, as this was the time Peter was arrested and sent to prison (where he eventually died).

Until we know what really happened, the controversy surrounding the ending of the Gospel of Mark will remain.

As for whether the resurrection aspect of the story was added to later by other writers based on what Mary Magdalene saw initially and later by all the male disciples, we learn that Matthew, Luke, and John—also part of the New Testament canon—contain detailed resurrection narratives. These are present in early manuscripts and are not considered later additions in the same way Mark 16:9–20 is. Furthermore, the resurrection was a core belief of early Christians, attested in letters from Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15), which predate the Gospels by decades. Hence the idea from the skeptics that the resurrection was a myth added in the 17th century (KJV era) is not supported by manuscript evidence. The resurrection belief was already central in 1st-century Christian writings.

However, if the question is more about whether resurrection really did happen, this moves us from textual analysis of the original manuscript to historical, philosophical, and scientific thought. Here, a debate rages among the scholars and scientists as to whether a human could be physically resurrected in the sense that a person that is genuinely dead for a long time can be returned to life in the current body that the person physically was in, even if a localised and highly sophisticated God with extensive medical technology did exist at the time. If Jesus had died for an extended period of time without medical help to preserve the brain and organs from certain death, the only resurrection would be a spiritual one followed by re-birth into a new body should this religious idea have any merit in real life. But if the idea is to be resurrected back to the same body after death and be able to reverse the damage to the body and brain from a lack of oxygen, this is highly unlikely.

Just to add a further layer of complication, it should be remembered that being unconscious for extended periods of time while having a slow heart rate can fool people in the Middle East during these times into thinking a person has died. It is something that needs to be considered when understanding this idea of resurrection from a 1st century Middle Eastern perspective.

As the story of Jesus is by no means the end according to the other gospel writers — assuming Jesus had been revived or resurrected, whichever belief you wish to follow — we learn of further teachings from Jesus. After making his return to his followers at a secret location in a local town and ate fish and bread to confirm to others that he was indeed alive and later they moved to another location, the focus of the teachings this time was on a woman named Mary Magdalene done behind closed doors away from the male disciples.

This was also a time when Jesus sensed something was not quite right, and it involved a return to the gender issue of whether a woman could become his apostle and not just a religious teacher of his teachings. In order to get a reaction, there was an attempt by Jesus to kiss the woman on her lips on more than one occasion in front of the male disciples as a way to bring out this gender concern. But everyone kept quiet.

Thinking the gender issue was finally resolved, Jesus anointed his disciples to become apostles, including Mary Magdalene, to take over his work of spreading the knowledge during a special ceremony on a hill. Mary Magdalene and John were then made the head of the group of apostles, although quietly certain men remained extremely uncomfortable about this decision to have a woman leading the group. Then the moment came for the religious leader's departure. The only other time those people closest to Jesus would acknowledge God's presence in a highly localised form for all to see and believe was in one spot in the desert. Here, we learn of a spectacular aerial event in which a big cloud appeared in the sky (where God allegedly resides) and the usual flying lights representing angels of which one had descended to pick up Jesus and ascend back into the cloud. All the apostles (including Mary Magdalene) were present to witness this remarkable event according to the Book of Acts written by one of the apostles named Luke, and in the Gnostic texts written by Mary Magdalene.

Beyond that, we now have the legacy of Jesus' teachings for us to ponder, understand (not quite complete as we will learn the decisions by those Christian leaders to later select aspects of various gospels written at the time and destroy others), and implement in real life. Well, at least those aspects that helped to promote the principle of love and make us do the right things for one another, and some insight into the the life of Jesus from different perspectives of the apostles. We see how the man knew more than a thing or two about God and the difference between "God" and "god" (or the "son of God", although some Christian leaders still want to capitalise the letter "S" to become the "Son of God" in order to have a higher hierarchy than any man or woman can ever achieve), and showed his ability to heal the sick through his medicinal knowledge. So deep and powerful was his understanding in the principle of love that he was prepared to "love thy enemy" and to "forgive" in a way that many of his contemporaries found it hard to understand. Even today, you will hear governments claim that they will not talk to terrorists and instead continue to use violent means to stop certain people as presumably the only solution. But from the perspective of this man, he would choose a non-violent approach. Negotiate. Talk to your so-called "enemy". Understand why. Make sure everyone has what they need. And learn to live within our means and not interfere with others that might affect their survival. Or at least show some respect. Understand the circumstances and what others are going through. Learn why people do what they do. How can we solve the problems together in a peaceful way? That is how we get to a permanent long-term solution that will benefit everyone (i.e., a win-win situation).

Because of his remarkable efforts to affect a large number of people through his teachings and healing abilities (and the work of the apostles ensured more people would hear about his teachings), a new religion was formed in his honour and to promote his teachings, known as Christianity.

YEARS AGO

The newly-formed religion of Christianity to honour, preserve, and follow the teachings of its leader, Jesus Christ, would not spread across the world as quickly as one would think. Part of the problem had to do with the Jewish religious leaders at the time. Many of whom still had serious hang-ups about the young religious prodigy's claim of being one with God and refused, even after his death (from their perspective) or departure (from the apostles' perspective) to accept the possibility that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion and had some connection to God, or at the very least he had a better understanding of the concept of God. They would not even mention Jesus in any writings. Not even other Jewish writers who might reasonably be expected to learn about Jesus from these Jewish religious leaders and were alive at the right time — including Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary Jewish philosopher who wrote extensively on religious themes — made no mention of any reference to Jesus. It is like the religious leaders tried the block out the man from memory. Even if we took out this "God connection" from the man, Jewish priests still had trouble acknowledging his exceptional knowledge of the principle of love and the concept of God, let alone acknowledge his existence. About the only Jewish writer from the first century who would be willing to acknowledge the existence of Jesus came from Josephus, but absolutely nothing to discuss the man's knowledge. From the perspective of these Jewish priests, Jesus was just an ordinary bloke who spoke in a blasphemous way. So, without irrefutable evidence of the man having returned and healed very quickly to make them re-think the possibility that Jesus may have received miraculous help from a mysterious entity called God, it seems none of the Jewish leaders wanted to have any dealings with this strange young man and his ideas. They were still hung up about the alleged blasphemy all because of the priests' poor understanding of the concept of God.

Another factor to affect the spread of the new religion can also be seen in Rome. Certain Roman leaders thought the only good Christian was a dead one, especially in the arena where many Christians got killed in battles with well-trained brutal male warriors known as gladiators, as well as being eaten alive by deadly animals (lions, bears etc.).

Another thing to slow the spread of the new religion was the way certain male apostles wanted to maintain their Jewish religious background and traditions. People like Peter, who should have dropped the Jewish title and its traditions in favour of a new, more modern, balanced and cleaner religious start, still could not accept women in leadership roles within this new religion. Indeed, this gender issue remained a source of contention for some of the apostles. This is evident from the Gnostic texts (the ones rejected by the Church for a variety of reasons and attempted to have burned at this time, except for one or two copies that have survived the destruction and were smuggled out and preserved in jars inside caves in Egypt for nearly 2,000 years). If we can rely on these additional texts, we see Jesus (who was now resurrected, or revived) had presented his final teachings to his closest disciples. At the same time, he also noticed something was not quite right with certain male disciples, especially the ones most outspoken about having a woman involved in religious discussions with the men.

This gender issue began on the day when Jesus had saved a woman from the full gamut of "devil/demon possessions" (seven of them in total). We learn the woman was named Mary Magdalene. According to Luke 8:1–2, Mary’s problem was best described by the biblical writer as possessing every conceivable "demon" known to humans at the time:

"And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him. And certain women, who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils."

Mark 16:9 gave support for this claim when the writer stated:

"Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

Whatever these "demons" were, Jesus employed some form of obscure technique to remove the "demons". If one were to accept this at face value and assume the woman had been possessed by supernatural evil spirits, the action performed would be considered a truly astounding feat. A true miracle. But it was probably more likely the woman had gone through the various stages of becoming "corrupt" through the various sins she committed in her community, and she needed someone of religious standing to help her out of this predicament.

When looking more closely at the nature of these "demons" referred to by the writers of these gospels, some theologians have speculated that the woman had suffering from a mental illness or epilepsy. For example, Meera Lester said:

"Mary Magdalene's seven demons, as the Bible describes them, might have been epilepsy or a form of mental illness."

Support for this view can be found in Who Framed Mary Magdalene? by Heidi Schlumpf:

"[T]he mention of seven demons is now believed to mean illness, most likely mental illness."

Or maybe she was genuinely possessed by demons and in need of an exorcism? As Bible scholar Ben Witherington III wrote:

"What, then, had happened to Miriam [Mary] of Magdala when Jesus came into her life? Sometimes modern people have assumed that exorcism texts are simply about people who have mental illnesses or epilepsy. While that is true in some cases, there is also credible testimony across many cultures about the reality of evil spirits, and the practice of exorcism over many centuries, including our own."

If it was mental illness or epilepsy, the ability of Jesus to cure Mary of her demons would be considered a truly bona fide miracle even by 21^st century standards. Or, could there be an alternative and more prosaic explanation to explain what happened to the woman? Because if this explanation could be found, it is possible that Mary could have been an ordinary young woman who was seriously misguided by her actions, which led to deep-seated corruption according to Jewish law.

Peter Binsfield gave some clarification on this idea when he said that "demons" could represent nothing more than destructive patterns in behaviour that needed correction, and for which are described by others as sinful if allowed to persist or reinforced by whatever means. According to his understanding, demons are essentially "deadly sins", or specific actions and behaviours that encourage the person to commit them repeatedly because of the short-term benefits they bring to oneself (but not necessarily to others), making it easier to commit the sins again and again. Each time the sins are committed, they become habits that clamp the person like a vice into a specific behavioural rut and so make it difficult to break the habit. If the sins persist in the person, it is likely such behaviour could cause harm to others, as well as oneself.

In 1589, Binsfield personified each deadly sin (right) with the name of a demon (left), as follows:

Deadly Sins

And in Judaism, people understood the problems associated with these destructive behaviours even if they may be called "demon possessions" at the time.

Here is how these behaviours would have been treated under Jewish law:

1. Pride: Not a punishable offence in Jewish law. It was considered a moral failing, condemned by prophets and wisdom literature, but no legal penalty.
2. Greed: Exploiting others financially (e.g., dishonest weights, usury) was forbidden. Penalties included restitution, fines, or exclusion from community respect.
3. Lust: Sexual immorality (adultery when married, prostitution by a divorced woman, or even fornication prior to marriage) was taken very seriously. This kind of behaviour could be punishable by death (usually by stoning to death at the hands of the accuser or husband and his supporters) under Mosaic law (Leviticus 20:10), though in practice by the Second Temple period, execution was rare, but not eradicated.
4. Envy: Coveting was condemned (Exodus 20:17), but it was an internal sin, not legally punishable unless it led to theft or fraud.
5. Gluttony: Overindulgence wasn’t a legal offense. However, drunkenness or rebellious living could be condemned socially. The “rebellious son” law (Deuteronomy 21:18–21) mentions gluttony and drunkenness, but it was symbolic and rarely enforced.v
6. Wrath: Violence or uncontrolled anger leading to assault was punishable. Murder carried the death penalty; lesser violence required restitution.
7. Sloth: Laziness itself wasn’t punishable, but neglecting religious duties (like Sabbath observance or sacrifices) could bring penalties ranging from fines to exclusion from worship.

To better appreciate how these deadly sins or demons could have played out in the life of Mary Magdalene, let us imagine her early life was one of living a relatively rich and extravagant lifestyle because of her family's wealth (although no family member was present to support her) or possibly she had inherited the wealth from her parents who may have passed away. Or the more likely scenario is that she married a wealthy husband. Given that Mary allegedly possessed all the "demons", including one where she took excessive pride in her appearance, also known as vanity (Demon 1), her good looks and having long hair may have seen her marry at a relatively young age. Once she was wealthy, she could have become greedy (Demon 2) and/or gluttonous (Demon 3). She wasn't described as fat or anything. The ability of this pretty woman to keep up with the long walks with Jesus and his entourage seems to support this view. So this gluttonous behaviour must be in relation to something else. Perhaps she spent a lot of her inheritance from her parents on things she didn't need leading to this gluttonous behaviour. Nonetheless, she may still be envious (Demon 4) of those who had certain things she could not possess or obtain, at least not in an immediate sense. And at times, what she did manage to obtain, she could have become slothful (Demon 5). As for the husband, who may have been abusive and neglectful to the woman at times, and/or probably committed his own sins behind Mary’s back, he may be tempted to cheat on his wife, which might make the woman feel jealous and wrathful (Demon 6). As English poet and playwright William Congreve said in The Mourning Bride, "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned". Otherwise, the risk of committing the sinful act of murder by the woman would have to be considered extremely high under the circumstances (surprisingly not one of the "deadly sins" even though under Jewish law, this is one of the commandments Jewish people had to avoid, so it seems as though she didn't try to kill her husband from what we can determine). However, if not, the woman could choose to get back at the cheating husband as a form of revenge by doing the same with another man, and perhaps another, and then it would not be long before she would eventually experience the deadly sin of lust (Demon 7). Or perhaps the husband was not rich and he gained access to her inheritance on marrying her and later ran off with everything she had for another woman? Simply divorcing Mary and making any excuse to blame the woman could be enough to remove all financial support to her. Upon reaching this low point in her life, she would have acquired the full gamut of deadly sins to her name.

Or perhaps as a woman without a family, Mary Magdalene's prospects of earning an income in the town and in any partt of Judea or the Middle East in general was dismal unless she could find someone to marry her and give her financial support. But if that wasn't forthcoming for whatever reason, she may have have found a way to earn an income by choosing to provide personal services to other men behind closed doors. And other men, in knowing what she was doing, avoided marrying her. At any rate, if her quiet reputation in the town among the men made her a popular choice, she could have earned enough money to eventually lead her to commit all the other deadly sins as described above. But where things could go pear-shaped for the woman is what happens if a married man were to take advantage of her personal service and he was somehow caught in the act by his wife or another family member? What excuse would he make to claim the woman had tempted him into committing the sin and how well could he convince other men and the family to believe she was responsible? Perhaps even describe her as being possessed by the demon of lust. Except Mary Magdalene had apparently the full range of "demon possessions" to her name, making the argument against her even more compelling to others. In which case, her chances of survival could be slim.

Under Jewish law (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22), adultery was punishable by death for both the man and the woman involved. However, by the Second Temple period (the time of Jesus), executions were extremely rare. It would require evidentiary requirements (two witnesses, direct observation, warnings beforehand) before the brutal practice of stoning a woman to death could be carried out. As for the other behaviours (lust, greed, gluttony, wrath, sloth, pride, envy), these were seen as moral failings. Not enough to be considered punishable by death. The most a person with these behaviours might face is social shame, exclusion, or the need for repentance and sacrifice, but not execution.

However, there is a story in the Bible where stoning a woman to death was recommended, even if it was seen as a test by the Pharisees and scribes to determine whether Jesus would uphold the Law or show mercy. The woman's alleged crime mentioned by the men turned out to be adultery.

To see how serious adultery (or prostitution by a divorced woman) can get in those days, we see a similar situation with another woman accused of adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11:

Then they all went home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Jesus kind of suspected what was going on. so he bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Apart from this scantily brief episode, the Bible is remarkably lacking in detail of who this woman was, and what happened to her immediately after the event. Was this woman called Mary? Probably, considering how many women were called this name at the time in this part of the world. But was she Mary Magdaleine? We don't know. All we know is that this woman got released of her adulterous sin and that was it &38212; the kind of release a Jewish religious priest or leader might do to remove the demon of lust from the woman's life.

Interestingly, this "Pericope Adulterae" story of the unnamed woman as it has come to be known appears in most modern Bibles in John 7:53–8:11, but it is absent from several of the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of John. Major codices (including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) move directly from John 7:52 to 8:12, leaving a gap in the text (and not due to any form of damage to the scrolls). And early versions in Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian also omit the passage. However, a minority of later Greek manuscripts include it, sometimes in different locations, which indicates it likely entered the textual tradition after the Gospel’s initial composition. Scholarly summaries reflect this consensus, noting the passage’s contested authenticity and late insertion relative to John’s original text. Or it could be because there is some uncomfortable link between this story and Mary Magdalene's sinful past that has made some writers avoid mentioning the story, or had been written out of the copies by scribes. But then a decision was made later to re-introduce the story, but this time make changes to avoid identifying who the woman was and focusing on just one principal sin that got her into trouble in the end when she faced the group of men in the town.

This aspect of whether or not to include the story and later making a decision to have something mentioned while keeping the woman anonymous to avoid people asking questions about the missing gap in the text could reveal a lot. Certainly it reveals the dilemma certain Church leaders were having over the centuries as to whether to include the story or not. But by making a late call to include some form of the story while deliberately choosing her to be anonymous could reveal something else. Does this mean the unnamed woman could be connected in some way to Mary Magdalene?

In the case of Mary Magdalene, we have quite a few demon possessions needing to be freed from her "sinful life" with the help of this religious priest. And if one of the demon possessions did involve lust, it is more than possible for Mary Magdalene to have faced potential punishment, even death, if for any reason the woman was found to have been married before and had associated herself with men to offer personal services. Even if Mary was not married, a married man found to be involved with her and her personal services could be grounds to see the woman blamed for the situation. You see, in patriarchal Judea, men often held more authority and could shift blame onto women. A man caught with a prostitute might argue he was “seduced” or “tempted,” casting her as the corrupting influence. And given that the story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) set a symbolic pattern where the woman was seen as the tempter, the burden of blame or corruption could easily be placed on the woman. Even if both parties could, in theory, be punished (Leviticus 20:10), in practice the woman often bore the heavier social stigma, and with a higher risk of being punished if the argument is put forward by certain men to convince others of this requirement.

In essence, it doesn't take much for a woman in Judea at the time Jesus was alive to experience all these immoral behaviours and potentially be caught in those behaviours resulting in a situation where she could face death by stoning if the circumstances were not in her favour.

Hence, it is not a requirement to be possessed by a demon, have mental illness, or epilepsy for a woman to face serious consequences. Simply immoral behaviours can also lead to serious consequences.

If all this seems highly conjectural and whether a person like Mary Magdalene could have acquired all these behavioural problems, we only need to look at examples of deadly sins played out in a number of American television drama series, such as Desperate Housewives and Dallas, to get an idea how plausible this is. Need another example? Have a read of the article by Louis Sullivan titled The Seven Deadly Sins of The Great Gatsby published on May 14, 2013. This has plenty of situations where the seven deadly sins are played out in remarkable detail. And no, people do not have to be suffering from epilepsy or mental illness to acquire "demon possession".

Furthermore, it does not matter if Mary Magdalene had been married before and had every right to divorce her husband if the above scenario had been a reality. It was the general view of people in those times to think that a divorced woman was responsible for the break up. And if the divorced woman was on her own, she could have lost all financial support from others. Even her own family (if she did have one) might have quickly disowned her to protect their own reputation — or perhaps her parents had already died and there was no other family member to give her support. When faced with this situation, she may have founds ways to commit sins in order to survive (e.g., the sin of lust) and later have what she wanted (income earned was used to commit sins in other areas), so long as people did not find out.

As Mark 10:11 has revealed about the nature of getting divorced:

And he [Jesus] said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

So if Mary had been married, a divorce would be devastating for her if she decided, as a matter of survival, to offer her personal services to another man. It would have to be hidden from public view and kept quiet at all costs. Or else she could be seen as an adulterer. And since adultery and prostitution were seen as the same thing in these times and part of the world, anyone who finds out and applies the Jewish laws could accuse her as having the deadly sin of lust because of her decision to engage with multiple men, even if it was necessary to survive.

Even if Mary Magdalene was not married, any married man associated with the woman could still cause problems for the woman. All it takes is for the man to argue in a compelling way to other men to help shift blame on the woman. Of course, this would only happen if someone else, such as the wife, discovers her husband's infidelity

However, someone did find out. Soon everyone knew, and the woman was in deep trouble under Jewish law./p>

This is the thing. For a woman with limited education and/or opportunities to work and earn a living in different areas considered acceptable to other people in her Jewish community, the options available to her to survive (let alone live a comfortable life) would have been seriously diminished. About the only thing going for Mary Magdalene was her good looks, and her apparently long dark hair. Well, in Judea during the Second Temple period, women generally took pride in having long hair, which was considered a symbol of beauty and modesty. Cutting hair very short was rare and usually associated with ritual acts (like mourning, punishment, or vows), not everyday fashion. However women would avoid letting their hair hang down, especially when they are married. Married women were expected to tie up and cover their hair in public as a sign of modesty. Uncovered or loose hair could be seen as immodest or provocative. In the case of Mary Magdalene, her sinful life including sexual desire showed that she was letting her hair down on a regular basis, and this was fine for her.

Allowing the hair to flow freely and come down to nearly waist in the company of other men could also indicate the type of work the woman may have engaged in if she wasn't married or wasn't trying to attract someone as marriage material. But this would imply the possibility that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

It should be noted that this is not definitive proof that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. There is no direct quote in the Bible to confirm this possibility. The only tantalizing clues we have at the moment are her good looks, long dark hair, her decision to leave it uncovered and hanging long in front of other men, and the fact that she allegedly committed virtually all forms of sin according to Luke 8:1-3. Since lust is among the list of known deadly sins, it strongly suggests that she must have at some point either committed adultery (and enjoyed it enough to have that feeling of lust to repeat the behaviour), or she was a prostitute (which again she probably got used to or was at an age she could handle easily enough, and possibly could have enjoyed the experience in order to be described as a lustful individual). However, in those days and part of the world, adultery and prostitution were seen as the same. And worse for her in the face of certain self-righteous men who claim to follow the laws of Moses and Abraham in the Old Testament, lust was seen as a sin. But if all her deadly sins were nothing more than bad and repeatable behaviours that somehow the woman could not get herself out of this situation, she should at the very least be able to hide those sins from others behind closed doors. No one had to know what she was doing. She would have known how dangerous it would be to mention what she was doing openly in a Jewish community. She seemed intelligent enough to know this. Yet something must have happened to her for her sinful life to get out into the open and this could have put her in a dangerous position.

Everything is suggesting Mary Magdalene had probably committed the sin of lust out of a necessity to survive. And to commit the sin of lust, it would not suggest that she was always alone. But even if this is untrue, incredibly no other unmarried male made the decision to marry her and so provide support. But if they did, Mary Magdalene would not get involved in offering "personal services" leading to the accusation of her suffering the demon possession of lust. Except other men felt uncomfortable in marrying her knowing she had already been married before or been with other men. Better to keep their distance, and even more so if the men were already married themselves. But did the men keep away from her? The only way men could even vaguely associate themselves with Mary was to do it behind closed doors and be extremely quiet about it. So quiet that married men would not tell their partners. And just to add another layer of complication, if one of the men was already married and got caught out by the family (wife, children or some other relative), it is relatively easy for a male to blame the situation on Mary as the one to have tempted the man to commit the sin. In which case, why not have the woman stoned to death as a result?

But this would be a double-edged sword. It can cut both ways. Accusing a woman of committing a deadly sin and requiring a serious punishment could also result in an accusation that the person accusing the woman of the deadly sin could also be committing the same sin himself. A powerful weapon in those days for the right knowledgeable religious leader to use.

It could be as simple as that.

So, this is where the problem lies for the woman. Something was keeping her in a state of constant sinful behaviour. No one to help her find alternative forms of employment and earn an income. No man to keep her company, happy, and provide support. It looks like she was trying to survive. If this was a case of her losing much of her inheritance or the wealth from her former husband, it would be necessary for a woman on her own to find ways to survive, even if what remained in her life was a lingering bad reputation among certain men in the town given the number of sins she had committed, and probably continued to commit with these men, and away from men when she received enough money to purchase what she wanted. When the day came when enough people found out, Mary's life came tumbling down very quickly.

No family members to support her. No husband to look after her or give a good word for her. Who would have helped her? No one, except for one man who arrived just at the right moment to help Mary Magdalene.

Speaking of this compassionate man who was willing to help Mary Magdalene, there is evidence that Jesus did have a soft spot for prostitutes. According to Matthew 21:31, Jesus was believed to have said:

"Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."

An interesting statement to make. For if Mary Magdalene had not been a prostitute, here we see the phrase "tax collectors" being used in a way that does not seem coincidental. We know the disciple Matthew (originally named Levi, but was given the new name of Mattityahu, which is transliterated as Matthaios into Greek, and later as Matthaeus into Latin to eventually became Matthew in modern English) was a tax collector before he decided to follow the teachings of this religious leader. Seeing the man was open-minded to listen to Jesus' teachings and follow him around, no doubt his presence would have influenced Jesus' thinking and made him come up with this statement of "tax collectors". If so, then who was the prostitute Jesus was referring to in the same sentence? Clearly it has to be someone who has joined his group of followers. The question is who is this woman?

The Gospels has mentioned several women who were part of Jesus’ entourage: Mary Magdalene, Joanna (wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward), Susanna, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Salome, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Martha and Mary of Bethany. The texts also mention “many others” who supported Him, though not all are named. The only women in this list who was known to have lived a "sinful life" including experiencing lust has to be Mary Magdalene. Who else could it be for Jesus to even mention "prostitutes" in his quote?

Here is the complete list of women that we know of who were part of Jesus' group of followers:

• Mary Magdalene — healed of seven demons, became a close disciple, present at the crucifixion, and first witness of the resurrection (Luke 8:2; John 20:1–18).
• Joanna — wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward; traveled with Jesus and supported Him financially (Luke 8:3).
• Susanna — listed among the women who ministered to Jesus (Luke 8:3).
• Mary, mother of James and Joseph — present at the crucifixion and resurrection (Matthew 27:56).
• Salome — mentioned in Mark 15:40 as one of the women at the crucifixion.
• Mary, mother of Jesus — appears throughout the Gospels, present at the cross (John 19:25).
• Martha of Bethany — sister of Lazarus and Mary, known for her hospitality and faith (Luke 10:38–42; John 11).
• Mary of Bethany — sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed Jesus’ feet with perfume (John 12:1–8).

As we can see, none of the women, except Mary Marydalene, had a problem of experiencing a significant sinful life that needed Jesus to help them out.

As for other women who were unnamed, we know that Jesus did have a wander around to a woman's house on his own while the male apostle were looking frantically to see where he went. They eventually found him outside a house talking to a woman. Jesus was merely conversing with her as far as we can tell, but any association with the woman was apparently frowned upon by the male apostles fearing the teacher might become corrupt by the sins of the woman, or be tempted in some way. Was this because the woman Jesus spoke to was a prostitute? Or was it the fact that any association with a woman is simply not on for a religious teacher? Not likely to be the latter considering Jesus would associate with her mother, Mary, without causing angst among his male disciples. So we should expect the occasional moments for Jesus to talk to women.

Given the way the Bible is written with multiple layers of deeper meaning and hidden insights, it is important to prepare ourselves for the possibility that we could be dealing with a woman whose behaviour might be difficult to accept among Church leaders even if those behaviours were meant to be in the past for the woman in question. It is understandable for Church leaders to want to portray Mary Magdalene in the best light. We know they want the readers to see a reformed person in Mary Magdalene doing great deeds after being freed from her deadly sins. Any suggestion that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute might have been too controversial and uncomfortable to mention in an official Bible to give to the masses, and especially among celibate men in the Church who had to keep their minds free of such thoughts. However, any attempts to hide the truth would make the Bible less credible and reliable as a source of information.

So now we get to a point where Mary Magdalene is freed of all her deadly sins. The opportunity was now there for her to move on and start a new life. Well, it turns out that she was allowed to join the ragtag team of followers headed by this strange religious teacher named Jesus, and later helped with what appeared to be the usual domestic chores as a means of supporting the work of Jesus and his male disciples, and for her to later witness his crucifixion and resurrection.

This is the preferred narrative the Church in Rome would give to the people. However the Gnostic texts would reveal further details of what happened next.

What we seem to know at this stage based on available Gnostic texts is that even after Jesus successfully saved Mary Magdelene from what we presume was a sinful life, gave her a second chance to live her life with a clean slate, and listened to her request to join his group and learn his teachings, he later heard the attitude of one male disciple piping up in a manner that undermined the importance of women in the group. It was an attitude that effectively summed up the prevalent view of most men, if not all Jews, in this part of the world, and has continued to this day. More specifically, women were seen as second-class citizens, or people who could never be as good as any man when it came to understanding the religious knowledge of the day, let alone become a respected religious leader of any repute and one that was capable of making reasonable decisions on a logical basis.

The statement from the male disciple can be seen in the Gnostic gospels, the ones not published in the Bible. We see this in the Gospel of Thomas where a reference is made to a woman named "Mary". In another Gnostic gospel, we learn who this woman was at a stage when she was already the closest disciple to Jesus and with impressive knowledge and rational skills to discuss and debate religious matters and lead a group. We know it is Mary Magdalene. At any rate, the view expressed by one male disciple, specifically Peter (full name Simon Peter) about her can be seen in the following statement:

Simon Peter said to him [Jesus]: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.'

Andrew joins in to support Peter.

Levi (Matthew) defends her, rebuking Peter and Andrew: "If the Savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her?"

Notice the particularly strong view of Simon Peter against one woman. Clearly he should have known better, especially if he had been taught the principle of love from his teacher and understood the concept of God in balancing his views. Remember, there should be no discrimination, right? And God is meant to have both masculine and feminine qualities as part of its paradoxical nature and how it achieves ultimate balance in these extremes. Therefore, it is important to treat both men and women equally and with respect. Both genders should be given the same opportunities to achieve whatever goal they wish to attain. If a woman thinks she can become an effective religious leader and have robust religious discussions with other men, then so be it. Let her be trained to become one. And as we discover, such a statement would have certainly required Jesus to respond and counteract in some way. If the Gnostic can be relied upon, he did exactly that as revealed in the full quote:

Simon Peter said to him: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.'

Jesus said: 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'

However, he did not stop there. The next radical decision by Jesus to reinforce his balanced view of God and the genders on the men in his group was to also allow a number of other women to not only follow him while providing general assistance in domestic duties and purchasing needy items for Jesus and his disciples, but also to let a number of them willing to listen to his teachings to become his disciples. Among these women privileged to receive religious teachings from him were Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna. As Biblical scholar Renita Weems stated in her book Just a Sister Away:

"...Joanna, Susanna and other female traveling evangelists made up the band of female workers who surrendered and sacrificed everything to follow Jesus....Between teaching, they did the cooking; beyond recruiting, they did the mending; in excess of donating their funds, they donated their time.

To his ministry, they had given everything they had: their gifts, talents, time, money...their very substance. Anything to keep his dream going. In short, the women had ministered to Jesus out of the abundance of their hearts."

To teach women religious knowledge was an immensely brave move in those times. As one commentator mentioned in David E. Garland’s Luke-Acts:

"It was unusual for a woman in first-century Judaism to be accepted by a teacher as a disciple."

In fact, it was more than unusual; Jewish men would simply not allow women to learn from a religious teacher. Full stop. Even the mere association (whether for a casual chat or some other reason) with a woman on the street by a Jewish religious leader and teacher, and especially on his own without the company of other men, was considered a serious problem among Jewish men in Jesus’ time, as we can see from John 4:27:

"Now at that very moment his disciples came back. They were shocked because he was speaking with a woman. However, no one said, 'What do you want?' or 'Why are you speaking with her?' "

Notice the adverse reaction of the male disciples on seeing Jesus talking to a woman. There is no evidence of Jesus teaching the woman any religious knowledge during the casual chat. In fact, the Bible is unable to tell the difference between a casual chat and the passing of religious knowledge to a woman on the street. If there was a passing of religious knowledge, we know this was forbidden under Jewish law. For example, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus (c. 45–117 CE), who lived around the time of Jesus, was famous for saying:

"Instructing a woman in the Law is like teaching her blasphemy. Let the Law be burned rather than entrusted to a woman."

But we don't see this in John 4:27. Unless the woman was a known prostitute in the town, it would seem strange for the male disciples to react this way over a casual chat. Or else, men who become Jewish religious leaders never meet women. Full stop. Unlikely considering Jesus’ mother Mary would see him on occasions.

Why the negative reaction from the men? Some commentators have reasonably argued that the woman was a Samaritan and this group of people and the Jews had a certain level of animosity that had not been quelled for a long time. Even so, the quote makes no mention of the woman’s ethnic origins. The focus was on a woman. Specifically, either the talking was of concern, or the passing of religious knowledge to women is the major issue. Or the men were concerned about seeing Jesus associated with a woman whose profession was considered sinful, such as the possibility she was a prostitute.

Whatever the concern was, Jesus was prepared to overturn yet another long-held tradition in Jewish law when it came to religious leaders freely intermingling and conversing with female strangers, especially on his own. And even more surprising was the decision to let women learn, discuss, and teach religious knowledge.

A truly radical move for any Jewish religious leader to do in those times.

As the Gnostic gospels have indicated, Jesus had chosen one woman as his closest disciple, providing numerous private religious teachings, including one not mentioned to the male disciples. Even if the male disciples were familiar with his teachings, any discussion of religious ideas with a woman was sure to rock the boat of any highly conservative Jewish religious male leader. If this was not enough, when the time came for Jesus to relinquish his position as leader of the group, it would appear that Jesus wanted this woman to be his successor together with John (Jewish name is Yochanan, which was transcribed as Ioannis in Greek, and later as Johannes in Latin) as his second-in-command, or to share the leadership role, for the entire group of men.

As we would discover, that woman was Mary Magdalene.

It was about the time when Jesus ceremoniously turned the disciples into apostles and thought that they were ready to pass on the knowledge to others. Later his opportunity to depart from the Earth came in a spectacular fashion where he permitted his apostles to watch on, including Mary Magdalene herself.

With Jesus gone into a lighted object hidden in a cloud moving in an otherwise clear blue sky, the apostles went to a building to grieve the loss of their teacher. Unfortunately, through all the grief in losing their beloved leader, at least two male apostles remained uncomfortable about having a woman as part of the group, let alone one to lead the rest of the men in the group. And if she was a former prostitute, that would in itself be hard to swallow for those males still wanting to maintain purity in their Jewish traditions. Actually, the males who seem to express the most concern were Peter and Andrew.

Fortunately, not all males were like this.

John, in particular, was a bit of a gentle giant and quiet man. A simpleton with a strong physique through his fishing days with his brother. He was like an empty vessel wanting to be constantly filled and ready to listen to everything Jesus had to say. Jesus was particularly fond of John for his open-mindedness and kind nature. Never one to constantly doubt Jesus and his teachings. When Jesus spoke of his willingness to help women join his ministry and become religious leaders, John was open to the idea, thinking there must be a good reason and allowed women to do so. Either that, or John had quickly grasped the concept of God early in his life and could relate the concept to real life without too much trouble. The only thing is, John was not the most eloquent speaker compared to the more "outspoken and distrusting of women" alpha males who had better communication skills. Yet somehow Jesus made Mary Magdalene and John the two principle leaders of the group of apostles. How can this be possible? The two least likely individuals to become religious leaders somehow became the "top dogs" in the new religion, quite possibly because they were completely open and willing to learn, whereas the other outspoken males remained deliberately quiet as they preferred to retain the Jewish traditions of not allowing women to become religious leaders, even when Jesus was around. And Jesus knew it too. He must have sensed it. He must have devised a plan to test those men and make them feel uncomfortable, so they may speak their minds and Jesus could try to address their concerns and teach them another important lesson.

The only slight problem is that we do not have the full text in these Gnostic gospels. So we don't know enough about how close Jesus and Mary Magdalene may have become or what was the issue among the two most outspoken male disciples against having women in the group to listen and partake in the religious discussions. We are not even sure whether Jesus and Mary were working together to show behaviours designed to test the men to see how they would react. The only thing we have is a moment when Jesus was seen in front of the male disciples kissing Mary Magdalene. But where did he kiss her?

The text is partially damaged in one critical spot to tell us where. But if you are going to test the male disciples in a dramatic way with the intent to create a reaction as needed for Jesus to address the gender issue properly, the most logical place would have to be on Mary's lips. No where else on the body would make sense, especially given the repeatable nature of the kissing in front of the male disciples. If this is true, then to those male disciples who wish to call themselves Jewish people in those days living in this part of the world, kissing on the lips usually signifies something significant in the nature of the relationship, and a great concern if this kissing involved a "Jewish" religious leader (not a "Christian" one, since the term itself had not been invented as yet to give a sense of a fresh new and more balanced beginning as Jesus could have been aiming for). An occasional kiss on the cheek would not be the concern as this is a common custom in the Middle East, even among men (or "brothers") meeting for the first time. But regular kissing on the lips has a much more significant meaning, and reveals something of the potentially close nature of Jesus and Mary.

Just how far the relationship developed is unclear. Or was Jesus and Mary merely testing the male disciples? All we can say is that the kissing on the lips was certainly designed to make certain men uncomfortable. But then again, it could reveal something else. If it is a test, it is almost like Jesus wanted to draw out of the men a reaction and a response so he may get to the source of the problem and resolve it permanently. And to some extent, he was partially successful. As the passage from the Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Codex II, 3) reveals:

And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her [—]. The rest of the disciples [—]. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’” (Philip, 59)

The response from Jesus has unfortunately been lost. Whatever was said, it would appear that the writer Philip continued to assume Jesus and Mary were companions, so it must have been a test to see how the men reacted. Well, that is the perception, but the reality could be far more interesting.

Now if we can rely on the other Gnostic texts of what happened next, it would appear that the two disciples most outspoken against women in position of religious leadership had decided to keep quiet on the gender issue despite whatever Jesus had said to them to quell this unrest on this very matter.

As Jesus could not be around forever to see whether the men had learned their lesson, he decided to really test the male apostles by making Mary Magdalene and his favourite male apostle John the leaders of the group. Hopefully that should throw a spanner in the works and see how the men would react, if not immediately then certainly later. But if the male apostles have learned anything, they should be able to forgive and move on. Accept the gender equality issue and focus on what the next task should be. And to make sure of it, Jesus provided additional religious teachings to Mary Magdalene just to make the male apostle feel uncomfortable or left out of the discussion with Jesus (which may also reveal a similar tit-for-tat situation following moments where the woman was not permitted to participate in some of the discussions among the male disciples), should they find out.

Well, a time came when the apostles did find out. Soon after Jesus had departed and the apostles were having their moment of grieving, at least one of the male apostles spoke up as if trying to find out why Mary Magdalene had been chosen to be the leader of the group. Was this because she has received extra teaching(s) for which none of the other apostles were aware of?

Peter looked at Mary Magdalene. He remembered the extra attention Jesus gave to Mary in what he presumed were numerous private teachings behind closed doors. Well, let's put it this way. No heavy breathing was heard. No sudden words in Aramaic of, "Oh God!" One must assume the door was thin enough to allow the male disciples to hear Jesus and Mary talking, but not close enough to hear exactly what was said. In case this could be the reason for her being nominated the "head honcho" of the group of apostles, he asked Mary whether there was any extra teachings from Jesus. Mary, in being honest and thinking her "brothers" would be immediately understanding and forgiving of her and Jesus for doing this, had to acknowledge that she did. When Peter asked what this was about, Mary agreed to pass on the extra knowledge.

Peter was not happy. Andrew joins in, saying the teachings Mary shares sound strange and hard to believe.

Despite her honesty in sharing her extra knowledge, not everyone was happy. It isn't because Mary could not, or would not, share what she knew. All the male disciples sat there listening to the extra teachings. They should have been smart enough to have understood why she received the extra teachings. Just move on and forgiven her (and, by implications, the Teacher). There was a reason why Mary was given this extra teachings. The apostles should have learned their lesson. Apparently not. Rather, the problem seem to be that either she was a woman and under Jewish tradition this should not have happened. Or somehow something else was said by Mary to have infuriated at least one male apostle, Peter. There must have been something else that happened or was said by Mary to have caused a falling out between her and most of the male apostles. It is unclear at this point whether other secrets were revealed by Mary to make some of the males uncomfortable, shocked, or unwilling to accept. Or did the gender issue finally return with a vengeance, with Peter free to voice his concerns without Jesus around and make it clear to everyone that he couldn't accept this situation of a woman leading the group despite what Jesus tried to do to balance the situation and allow Mary to lead the group. However, for many of the other apostles to do the same as Peter and later go their separate ways as far as we can tell, never to return or ask Mary for her advice, a bigger revelation must have been spoken about. Unfortunately this part of the Gnostic text is missing. Religious scholars simply do not know precisely what happened in these discussions.

The only thing we can say at this stage is that Peter would not accept women as religious teachers, and certainly not the leader of the apostles and the entire early Christian movement. What we know next from the remaining Gnostic texts and other sources is that at least one male apostle decided to go his own separate way. Others would do the same. but Peter made it clear that he would not ask for help from Mary as he went about his own work.

Not all the apostles agreed with this view from Peter. John was still supportive of Mary Magdalene. However, he was seen as a simpleton with limited writing skills and could not formulate an argument to convince his fellow male apostles to accept the woman and any other female disciple in the "Christian male club".

Another supporter for Mary Magdalene is Paul. In the seven epistles widely accepted as authentically written by Paul many years later — such as Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Philippians — he acknowledges and praises several women for their leadership and contributions to the Christian movement. For instance, in Romans 16, Paul commends Phoebe as a deacon and refers to Junia as “outstanding among the apostles,” suggesting that women held significant roles in the early church, and that was acceptable to a number of male apostles. By implications, this would imply Paul had not qualms about Mary Magdalene becoming an apostle as well and even potentially leading the early Christian movement. Of course, there are some people might who will argue against this. They often cite the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11–15, which is part of a letter thought to be traditionally attributed to Paul. In this passage, it instructs women to learn in silence and not to exercise authority over men, citing the creation order and Eve’s deception in Genesis as justification. This passage has been central to debates about gender roles in Christianity with orthodox male Church leaders justifying their need to maintain traditions based on this passage.

On closer inspection of the passage, it turns out the writings is not from Paul. Many scholars now believe it was written by a later follower, not by Paul. Obviously, this would make sense. While scholars argue that the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) reflect a later stage in church development, where more hierarchical and patriarchal structures were emerging, the likely reality is that from the Gospel of Thomas, this gender issue had persisted way earlier than most people think. Essentially it has been going on during the time Jesus was alive and preaching to the people and his followers. And it would appear the gender issue has never been properly addressed and resolved after all this time.

Whatever happened next, it would appear that Mary Magdalene, together with the second Mary who was the mother of Jesus, allegedly walked away together into obscurity. It is possible the two women took final residence somewhere in Europe to live a frugal life until their deaths. Although in a request from Emperor Marcian to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 A.D. about transferring any relics of Mother Mary from a tomb thought to be the final resting place of Mother Mary to be enshrined in Constantinople, the Patriarch explained:

"Mary had died [either in or near Jerusalem] in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

In another ancient tradition — supported by archaeological remains of a house venerated since late antiquity —claims Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived in Ephesus under the care of John the Apostle and died there.

As for the final resting place for Mary Magdalene, this has never been found. In fact, no ancient source — biblical or otherwise— records what happened to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection accounts. The New Testament simply stops mentioning her.

Some ancient traditions place both women in Ephesus with the Apostle John (to avoid showing any rift between Mary Magdalene and the male apostles). However, medieval Western legends claim that Mary Magdalene journeyed to southern France (as if indicating a major rift had developed), though no early sources support this. Her final resting place, like that of Mother Mary, has never been historically verified.

Whatever the situation for the women, we see the special place Mother Mary has in the Church. Her devotion and love for her son is remembered among the Church Fathers to this day. Mary Magdalene, on the other hand, is not quite seen in the same level. Rather her role acknowledged by the Church is either as a first witness of the Resurrection or the one who first announced the Resurrection to the apostles.St. Augustine is one of the few Church leaders who famously called Mary Magdalene as “apostola apostolorum” — the apostle to the apostles. Mot other Church leaders are a little more conservative and somewhat circumspect on what her role in the Church was about. For example, in the West, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom emphasize her transformation from a woman healed by Christ to a devoted disciple who becomes the archetype of the repentant sinner; in the East, she is remembered more as a faithful disciple and myrrh-bearer.

In other words, Mary Magdalene is carefully viewed as not someone to lead all the apostles.

As for the remaining male apostles, they dispersed across the Roman Empire and at least one may have reached as far as India (by the apostle Thomas) to spread the Christian faith.

Peter (also known as Simon Peter or Cephas) and Paul of Tarsus eventually journeyed to Rome, which would later become a central hub for Christianity. Meanwhile, James the Just, the brother of Jesus, remained in Jerusalem, where he played a pivotal role in leading the early Christian community. In Jerusalem, Peter made concerted efforts to persuade Jewish religious authorities to allow followers of "The Way" — as early Christianity was then known — to present their teachings within the sacred space of the Second Temple. These efforts met with resistance, as the Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders remained deeply committed to Torah observance and the traditional image of God as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures (which currently forms the Old Testament in the Christian Bible). The claim that Jesus was the Messiah — a notion that challenged prevailing expectations of a political liberator — was particularly contentious.

Despite this opposition, a significant breakthrough occurred during the Council of Jerusalem (circa 49 CE), where Peter, along with James and Paul, negotiated a theological compromise of sorts. Basically the authorities in Jerusalem decided the Christian religion could flourish side-by-side with Judaism, much to the dismay of the Jewish priests, even if the teachings from Jesus could not be discussed in Jewish temples, let alone any mention of Jesus being the Messiah. It meant that Christians had to create their own "temples" so to speak which they would later call the "churches", or places to worship God and the religious leader who started the Christian movement. It marked a turning point in legitimizing the Christian message within the broader religious landscape of Jerusalem, even as tensions with Jewish authorities persisted.

In the early decades following departure of the young religious prodigy and leader that started the Christian movement, the apostles continued to face intense scrutiny and persecution as they sought to spread the Christian message across the Roman Empire.

The apostle Paul focused mainly on Rome in his attempt to spread the message of his religious leader. His time there was productive, but controversial, and his efforts to spread the word was curtailed somewhat thanks to certain Jewish religious leaders influencing the Roman authorities. It would appear that Paul was being provocative by visiting several synagogues serving its Jewish population in Rome just like he did in Jerusalem and tried to teach the ideas of Jesus among those willing to listen only to be accused by Jewish authorities of defiling the temple and preaching against the Mosaic Law and eventually caused a riot where Roman soldiers intervened to protect Paul. This only succeeded in creating tensions once more with those unwilling to have anything to do with this man Paul and the teachings he presented.

Eventually, Paul was put under house arrest in an attempt by the Romans to limit Paul's movements and so avoid further unrest among the Jewish religious leaders.

Under house arrest around 60 CE, Paul continued preaching from his rented home, welcoming visitors and quietly teaching about Jesus "with all boldness and without hindrance" (Acts 28:30–31). These gatherings often took place behind closed doors and later in various houses — known as house churches — to avoid detection by Roman authorities and hostile Jewish factions. But this process of changing the views of enough citizens was slow.

To speed up the process, another apostle had to intervene. It turns out the apostle who met the challenge was the one who was most outspoken against women in Christian religious leadership positions as well as being a more influential and effective verbal communicator. Enter Peter. He came to Rome partly to support Paul and the embattled Christian community still trying to take roots in the city and grow, but also to spread the word more effectively among mostly the male population. To some extent, this was successful, but Peter's approach was viewed as subversive by both Roman authorities and traditional religious factions. Eventually, Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome under Emperor Nero’s reign, around 64–67 CE, following the Great Fire of Rome, which led to widespread scapegoating of Christians.

Despite dying for their Christian cause, Peter (and to a certain extent Paul) and their underground efforts to spread the word laid the foundation for what would eventually become the Roman Church, despite the risks and resistance they faced from both Jewish leaders and Roman officials.

Before his death, Peter did have a moment to have his story recorded with the help of an interpreter and scribe named Mark. Mark was not one of the twelve apostles, but he was closely associated with both Peter and Paul. He likely wrote what we call the Gospel of Mark in Rome in which he presented Peter's story in the way the apostle wanted to see it recorded for posterity.

Unlike the other gospels, the Gospel of Mark ends suddenly at chapter 16, verse 8, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear and said nothing about what they saw. This is highly unusual given what is already known after this alleged event. The abrupt conclusion omits post-resurrection appearances of Jesus compared to those written in Matthew, Luke, and John. Why the story should end in this way has been a source of debate among Christian theologians to this day. However, the most likely reason for the premature ending is because of the subsequent events that occurred following the resurrection. In particular, the inclusion of a woman as an apostle and one that was suppose to lead the Christian movement. Such a radical idea had not rested well with Peter. He probably chose to blot out the rest of the events from his memory and hopefully for the rest of humanity, including suggestions of regular kissing between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (presumably on the lips) among other observations, by having the story cut short. At the same time, Peter may well have interpreted the resurrection in a different way that wasn't in keeping with other apostles. Perhaps Peter saw it more as an unconscious person being revived with God's help, but not actually reaching death. Religious scholars can only speculate at this time. The only other reason to consider is the possibility that Peter had been arrested by the Roman authorities and this had the effect of prematurely ending the story-telling to Mark, hence the reason for ending so abruptly.

It would be a couple of centuries before the time was ripe for Christianity to grow and flourish in Europe. It would happen when old Roman leaders were ousted in favour of new Christian-friendly leaders in the city of Rome. When Christianity was able to free itself from the oppression from traditional Roman authorities, one thing was certain. Women would never be able to join the ranks of the men in higher decision-making within the Church. Until this hierarchy is broken at some point in human history and men can learn to see the benefit of gender equality in order to be closer to the true God, it would be a long time before anyone would consider looking at the gender debate in Christianity. Even to this day, the gender inequality issue within the Church has remained a thorn i the side of the religion because of certain "traditions" acquired from the old Jewish religion known as Judaism. While the Old Testament containing this Jewish religious knowledge forms a part of the Bible, men holding positions of power in the Church would retain this Jewish tradition of keeping women out of the religious order.

In the meantime, a new calendar system was established to mark the arrival of Jesus as year zero, and enough nations have come to adopt this change. The reality is, the birth of Jesus was actually 6 years earlier. So technically speaking, if the reader is seeing this web page in 2026, the correct year should be 2032. But heck! What's a six-year difference in the whole scheme of things, especially when we are talking about time on a geological scale, right? And anyway, too many books will have to be updated and reprinted to show the correct dates.

Then came the deliberate efforts by male religious leaders of the Church with their newfound powers in Europe to select their preferred gospels in the New Testament while retaining in its original form the text of the Old Testament. Much of this selection work was decided fairly early on by around the fourth century A.D., and as early as the 2nd century A.D. when the four principal gospels of John, Mark, Matthew and Luke became the star attractions for the religion. Anything else that could be considered by these leaders to be a little too controversial (or potentially undermine certain "traditions" that the males wanted to uphold, such as the idea that only males could learn, teach, and discuss religious matters within the Church in Rome) would be cast aside and known copies destroyed unless certain people made efforts to hide the copies in clay jars and place them in various caves. Thus the close relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus and the idea that Jesus had kissed his very close companion numerous times on a part of her face to cause angst among the male disciples had to be removed. Thus, whatever Gnostic texts (the gospels and additional writings rejected by the Church) that could be found had to be destroyed.

The effort to reject what the Church would regard as not authentic writings related to Jesus and his teachings or showed divergence in thinking and understanding of certain concepts that were not in keeping with the central teachings of the Church can be seen in Athanasius’s letter in 367 A.D. Here, he warned believers (which he called the "ignorant and simple") not to be misled by heretical or forged writings circulating in Egypt. According to the letter, Athanasius identifies which books to be kept (as we see in the New Testament today) claiming these are the only books “handed down and believed to be divine”. Everything else had to be seen as “fabricated books” and “perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science”.

Yet enough church goers, including a number of church leaders within certain communities, felt it was necessary to preserve such contentious writings at all costs.

It may have taken a few centuries to eliminate nearly all of these so-called heretic Gnostic copies from those supporters who wanted to retain them, including spending time to re-write the Gnostic texts to preserve them as best they could, and do it quietly and behind closed doors to avoid the wrath of the Church leaders. Yet the persistent nature of the Church to find these copies would see nearly all Gnostic texts destroyed, except for at least one. A near complete version was smuggled out into Egypt and preserved in a large sealed jar and left in a cave. The only unfortunate aspect about this copy is that once the texts were discovered by an Egyptian peasant in 1945, and not realising its worth, he had decided to burn some of the papers for cooking his meal. Hence the reason why a number of sections of the texts are missing or damaged.

As for women, they would not partake in any intellectual rigour of religious discussions with top male religious leaders in the Church of Rome and certainly were not permitted to climb the hierarchy of the Church to reach the top. And any indications that Jesus could have kissed Mary Magdalene on her lips on a regular basis in front of the male disciples would be almost blotted out of history. Somehow it was felt Jesus' association with a woman was not in keeping with what a number of the men's Jewish upbringing thought a religious leader should be doing. Furthermore, any suggestions of a possible intimate relationship was frowned upon and instead raised Jesus to a level of being a celibate with a purity of heart and mind to be seen as having a closer connection to God. Jesus could never be seen as potentially tempted under Jewish law by a woman or his religious ideas tainted by a woman, let alone anything else that could have gone on between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Even though Jesus said that he felt anyone could learn and apply his knowledge in order to do greater things than he did, the male Church leaders preferred to make Jesus a holier man than any human could ever achieve, thereby elevating him to close to God status, if not God himself in the flesh form, and so perpetuating the misinterpretations of the concept of God well into the 21st century.

Speaking of Gnostic texts being kept out of the officially-sanctioned Bible of the Church, there exists other books that have also been kept out of the European or Middle Eastern versions of the Bible. These books can be found, strangely enough, in the Ethiopian version of the Bible, reflecting Ethiopia’s ancient Christian tradition and its distinct canonization process, as well as the fact that Ethiopia’s isolation from European theological debates allowed it to preserve a broader set of scriptures. Here are the most notable extra books in the Ethiopian Bible:

• Book of Enoch: An ancient Jewish apocalyptic text, influential in early Christianity but excluded from most Western canons.
• Book of Jubilees: A reworking of Genesis and Exodus with a strong emphasis on chronology and angelic mediation.
• 1 Meqabyan, 2 Meqabyan, 3 Meqabyan: Distinct from the Maccabees found in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles; these are unique Ethiopian texts with different content and themes.
• Book of Josippon: A medieval Hebrew history text, included in the Ethiopian canon but not considered scripture elsewhere.
• Ascension of Isaiah: A visionary text describing Isaiah’s journey through the heavens, absent from most other traditions.
• Shepherd of Hermas: An early Christian allegory once popular in Rome, but excluded from the final Western canon.
• 4 Baruch (also called the Rest of the Words of Baruch): A text with apocalyptic and moral themes, not found in European Bibles.

Among Syriac-speaking Christians in the Middle East, there is also the Book of Diatessaron, written around 160–175 AD by Tatian, an Assyrian Christian apologist. Tatian wanted to merge the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) into one continuous story of Jesus’s life, ministry, death, and resurrection. The reason being that when modern New Testament scholars began comparing the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke side‑by‑side in Greek, they observed extensive similarities in wording, order, and content — a fact that Tatian would have noticed too. This comparative approach made it clear that the three texts were literarily related rather than independently composed. A broad scholarly consensus eventually formed to suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source.

Yet Matthew and Luke also share a substantial body of material that does not appear in Mark. Because this shared material often exhibiting close verbal agreement and similar ordering, many scholars concluded that Matthew and Luke must have drawn on an additional written source, likely composed in Greek. This hypothetical document came to be known as “Q”, from the German Quelle (“source”). The Q source is a central component of the widely accepted Two‑Source Hypothesis, which proposes that Matthew and Luke independently used both Mark and Q.

When the Gospel of Thomas was discovered and translated in the mid‑20th century, its collection of sayings led some scholars to wonder whether it might be the long‑lost Q document. Further study, however, showed that Thomas differs significantly in theology and tone: whereas Q is generally reconstructed as an early, mildly apocalyptic sayings source, Thomas reflects later gnostic tendencies and a different theological outlook. Even so, the existence of Thomas—an independent sayings gospel—demonstrates that early Christian communities did indeed produce collections of Jesus’ sayings, lending plausibility to the idea that a Q‑like document once circulated even though no copy survives.

Despite a lack of a source document, it seemed like a reasonable effort for Tatian to consolidate all the stories, as well as potentially iron out some contradictions in different writers accounts. Unfortunately this effort from Tatian had not made the cut into the official Bible approved by the orthodox Church in Rome. The reason for this is mainly to preserve each distinct account presented by the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). What remains of this original Syriac text today are fragments, together with some translations and quotations found in later writings, which give us an inkling of what had existed in the 2nd century before many of the copies were destroyed.

Then there are others that seem to get mentioned, including 1&2 Clement,The Didache and perhaps The Acts of Paul and Thecla or The Acts of Peter.

As for the Gnostic texts, there are currently no less than 50 of them available to this day. Many have been preserved in the Nag Hammadi Library after they were discovered in Egypt in 1945. These include gospels, revelations, and philosophical treatises from various Gnostic traditions. Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of the most well-known and accessible Gnostic writings:

Major Gnostic Gospels

• Gospel of Thomas: Sayings allegedly attributed to Jesus.
• Gospel of Philip: Mystical teachings on sacraments and divine union.
• Gospel of Truth: Valentinian meditation on ignorance and salvation.
• Gospel of Mary: Dialogue between Mary Magdalene and the apostles.
• Gospel of Judas: Reframes Judas as a spiritual liberator.
• Gospel of the Egyptians: Esoteric cosmology and divine emanations.

Revelations and Apocalypses

• Apocryphon of John: Sethian cosmology and the fall of Sophia.
• Apocalypse of Peter: Vision of heaven and hell, with Gnostic reinterpretation.
• Apocalypse of Paul: Mystical ascent through heavenly realms.
• Trimorphic Protennoia: Threefold divine voice revealing cosmic truths.
• Zostrianos: Sethian ascent through spiritual realms.

Treatises and Dialogues

• The Thunder, Perfect Mind: Poetic monologue of divine feminine paradox.
• The Hypostasis of the Archons: Gnostic retelling of Genesis.
• On the Origin of the World: Mythic account of creation and divine conflict.
• The Exegesis on the Soul: Allegory of the soul’s fall and redemption.
• The Second Treatise of the Great Seth: Polemic against orthodox Christianity.

Other Notable Texts

• Pistis Sophia: Dialogue between Jesus and disciples on cosmic mysteries.
• Book of Thomas the Contender: Jesus teaches Thomas about inner struggle.
• Melchizedek: Reveals Melchizedek as a cosmic redeemer.
• Marsanes: Visionary text on spiritual purification.

The origin of these Gnostic texts probably began as early as the first century when Christianity was split into at least two different and competing branches. One branch, which came to dominance later in the second century, was the forerunner of Catholic-Orthodox Christianity. The other is now known as Gnostic (gnosis = ‘knowledge’) Christianity.

The name in history that most notably gets mentioned as championing the side of Gnostic Christianity is Marcion of Sinope. It is said that he broke away to form his own religious sect, and created one of the earliest known Christian canon consisting of a modified Gospel of Luke and Paul’s epistles only. His radical rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures pushed the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Christian leaders to clarify which writings they considered authoritative, contributing to the long process that eventually produced the New Testament canon.

Gnostic groups were diverse and less centralized than proto‑orthodox communities, mainly because the supporters believed that each person had personal access to God and the potential to reveal new knowledge for themselves. As a result, certain secret knowledge helped to develop inner enlightenment, in areas like dualism, the idea of God being unknowable and distant, and a discussion of more complex mythologies with layers of divine beings and realms would appear. At the same time, other supporters felt it was necessary to include lesser known gospels of other apostles, or to create an extra gospel with additional sayings from Jesus (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) that wasn't being promoted or mentioned by the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Christian leaders. Indeed, the latter could be a compilation of sayings that the orthodox Christian leaders may have removed from an original written gospel version that no longer exists (i.e., has been destroyed) and other Christian communities have attempted to preserve those sayings in the hope that one day someone else can piece together the full story of the life of Jesus.

On the other side of the debate, early church leaders within proto-orthodox circles rejected these writings on the grounds that they contradicted emerging orthodox beliefs about Jesus, creation, and salvation, and because they were not considered apostolic in origin or theology. As an example, the general explanation for rejecting the Gospel of Thomas is because it contained sayings attributed to Jesus, but lacks narrative structure compared to the four principal canonical texts of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. Without a proper storyline to link the sayings together, it simply wasn't considered authoritative and coming from an original source, in this case presumably from Jesus himself.

Also, the Gospel of Thomas contains some aspects of gnosticism. Even though the Gospel of Thomas lacks full Gnostic cosmology, any mention of gnosticism in the slightest was enough by the Church Fathers to reject the gospel outright. Is this justified? In the Book of Revelations, we have Gnostic-like themes using symbolic visions, hidden meanings, and apocalyptic prophecy. The only difference is that the book affirms bodily resurrection and a good Creator — opposite of Gnostic dualism, or at least it doesn't attempt to assign the ideas of good and bad to various things, with God seen as on the good side. Even if it has some Gnostic themes, the Book of Revelation was still included in the official canonised New Testament.

Therefore, it seems the only reason not to include the Gospel of Thomas was simply because without a complete and comprehensive storyline, anything said by Jesus cannot be relied on or help to complete the story of the religious leader when combined with the other gospels. How odd?

Similarly, some scholars note that the Gospel of John contains themes that resonate with certain Gnostic ideas. However, the reason here is because mainstream scholarship does not support the claim that it originated in a Gnostic community. Instead, proto‑orthodox Christians preserved and transmitted it, and it was consistently treated as authoritative.

So it seems that whoever is capable of writing a gospel needs to be on the right side of the fence to be given favouritism by proto‑orthodox Christians. Otherwise, everyone else would have nothing to contribute to the bigger discussion of what happened and the broader views of a greater number of people at the time these Gnostic communities appeared.

Or is it simply because gnosticism helped to reveal Jesus to be an ordinary man who happened to be in the right place and time, and possibly been given a little help from what people would call God and knew about a broader type of religion that humans were getting closer to understanding but not yet crystallised? Is it possible that Jesus may have been closer to Mary Magdalene than proto‑orthodox Christians would want to see. And was the views of Jesus a little too all-encompassing and balanced to allow women to become Church leaders?

Yet another line of argument to make the rounds is that the mere proliferation of such Gnostic texts laid open to the claim that many, if not all, must be forgeries because they were not written by the apostles. Only the four canonical gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — were treated by the proto-orthodox leaders as coming from or having a direct line of sight or connection to the apostles. However, the idea that the four canonical gospels were written by the apostles is not as clear-cut as the Church leaders would make it out to be. The consensus among scholars is that all the accepted gospels were written by people who were not the apostles. The choice of the names for each of the gospels suggesting authorship from the apostles were actually decided by early Christian writers in the late 2nd century and later, but modern scholars debate whether the Gospels of Matthew and John, for instance, were actually written by those apostles or even have a direct connection to the apostles (perhaps was heard from someone who may have talked with some of the apostles). As for the Gospel of Mark, the writer who is likely named Mark was not an apostle. The general belief is that he may have spoken to the apostle Peter and Paul. But again, no one can be absolutely sure about this. There is simply no verifiable evidence by way of clear indications of who actually wrote the gospels within the text itself and with supporting documents from other writers confirming authorship.

If it is not possible to be sure who wrote the four principal gospels lying at the heart of orthodox Christianity, then how much better are we with Gnostic texts of the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Mary, to name a few? If they could have had some connection to other lesser-known apostles, should we not include them in a more comprehensive Bible for everyone to see, and let others decide how they should interpret the writings? Clearly people in the Middle East had reasons to write what they did. Without a compilation of all writings for people to compare, we may not know the bigger picture about the life of Jesus and certain knowledge he was trying to bring forth into human society, which could help to complete the bigger picture, and possibly resolve any remaining contradictions we have in the existing four canonical gospels.

Ultimately, the Gnostic Gospels were excluded because their theology diverged sharply from what became orthodox Christianity, not simply because they were "too different", but because early church leaders judged them inconsistent with apostolic teaching and the broader Christian tradition.

Better still, perhaps all texts written in the 1st to 4th century B.C. should have been compiled into a single comprehensive book. Let the people decide on how to interpret the texts and determine what is important and relevant to their lives. Unfortunately, this has never happened.

With the preferred canonised gospels and books now firmly at hand and a new vision set for the main central character of the religion called Jesus, a new unified religious text for Christianity was created in Rome. It combined the Jewish Old Testament views (thereby acknowledging those male apostles who could not let go of the Jewish traditions and associated religious knowledge) with the New Testament teachings of Jesus designed to show the more loving and compassionate (or feminine) side of God. The name given to this book is the Bible.

Of course, some people were not happy about the decision by Christian leaders to select the texts that would form the official New Testament. Worse still, we learn that even the existing selection of gospels have had some changes made compared to the original and more reliable Greek manuscripts.

A respected textual critic and agnostic, Dr Bart Ehrman, not only believes Jesus existed, but he also believes much of the New Testament was tampered with, and mythologized.

As an example of the tampering that goes on, most modern Bibles render 1 John 5:7–8 like this:

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." — NIV, ESV, NASB

This version is based on older and more reliable Greek manuscripts.

However, in the King James Version (KJV), it reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This passage explicitly supports the Trinity, but it is absent from almost all modern Bible translations.

As a result of this deliberate and careful selection and some judicious editing and embellishments over the centuries (depending on which Bible version is on offer), it helped the Church in Rome to justify and cement its position and claims as the sole lighthouse of all Christian religious knowledge, and to maintain its (Jewish) tradition as a male-dominated religion, extending right throughout all leadership positions, including the Pope.

Yet, irrespective of how these Church Fathers would like to think, the reality is, a true God would not discriminate. It would see women as always having an equal footing in the new religion. To find that Jesus also had the same expectation for women to be part of all aspects of the religion, including positions of power, this would strongly suggest that at least the Gospel of Thomas has something valuable to contribute to Christianity and society as a whole. So not only should certain (if not all) Gnostic texts have been included in the full version of the religious Christian text for all to read, the males running the Church should have transformed themselves to become more balanced and inclusive of women. It is just that a few Jewish men pretending to be transformed Christians still could not handle the fact that women can do the work of a religious leader just as well as any of them. And to make matters worse, at a time when people were experiencing hardships and poverty in Europe, Christian males within the Church did not want to lose their position of power and all the luxuries and comforts men could receive by dominating the Church and forcing others to support it. With women at the helm, this could have changed.

Would Jesus have been pleased by such a move within the Church?

YEARS AGO

At around A.D. 66, Jewish historian Titus Flavius Josephus and many other witnesses throughout Judea claimed to have seen UFOs on the eve of the Jewish War started after centuries of ethnic differences and subsequent financial greed, before finally escalating into the religious intolerance that led to the destruction and pillaging of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Roman army in A.D. 70. Even though Josephus was himself born in Jerusalem and was initially one of many who fought against the Romans, he claimed to have received a divine revelation from God during the UFO sighting about the future Emperor Vespasian rising to power. Following the success of Vespasian’s military campaign against the Jews, he later called Josephus a "prophet" for anticipating the events preceding the ethnic conflict-driven Jewish War. Josephus was released and quickly rose the ranks among Roman nobles.

As for the UFO sighting, it was considered spectacular enough to warrant a recording in his book, "The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem", which dates to A.D. 75. As the sighting occurred over Judea and, therefore, over a wide enough area, enough people were able to verbally testify to its veracity at the time. As Josephus wrote, based on the best available modern translation into English:

"On the 21st of the month Artemisium, there appeared a certain prodigious and miraculous phenomenon, passing belief. Indeed, what I am about to relate would, I imagine, have been deemed a fable, were it not for the narratives of eyewitnesses and the subsequent calamities which deserved to be so signalized. For, before sunset throughout all parts of the country, chariots and army of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding the cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner temple...they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise..."

An interesting choice of words to represent an "army of soldiers" in their metal armour riding what looks like chariots in the clouds. Could this be a fanciful way of saying large circular metal wheels (or discs) were flying in the sky and creating the clouds as they moved across the sky? Symmetrical and cigar/cylindrical shaped UFOs in modern times have been know to generate clouds (most likely for reduced air pressure near their surfaces in regions of extra water vapour in the atmosphere). Given the bad omen the sighting represented in the past, such visual imagery could have helped remind people of chariots being moved by horses across the desert from a distance as the wheels whip up clouds of dust in their wake.

As for the choice of a word to describe who is riding in the sky (and hiding behind the metal armours and circular wheels), this can vary with different witnesses accounts, different times, and who is likely to be leading the group of riders. For example, the word "soldiers" might get replaced by "angels" according to the Book of Revelations where it is claimed that Jesus, on his second-coming and judgement day, will come to earth via an "army of angels". Of course, such a passage does assume Jesus had survived the crucifixion and was taken away by God (or a god or gods to be more precise) and is planning a return to Earth with some alleged aim to sort the good people from the bad.

YEARS AGO

The last known major eruption of New Zealand's Taupo caldera on the northern island, and the most violent in the last 5,000 years. Taupo began erupting 300,000 years ago and ever since then there would be a major eruption arriving in a cyclic manner roughly every 1,000 to 3,000 years. Today, the caldera is partly filled with a large body of freshwater called Lake Taupo.

to YEARS AGO

Around the year 426 A.D., a young teenager living in a rich English family was taken away by pirates to be sold as a slave among a group of poorer Pagan people of Ireland. Many years of hardship through hunger, cold, rain and loneliness in a foreign country taught him to rely more strongly on his Christian faith for a sense of stability in a new world that seemed to be lacking the necessary understanding of love.

One day, as he tended to the sheep of his captors, he realised how the one true God in the things he observed in nature was essentially sustaining him and keeping him alive (i.e., find foods that were keeping him alive, the sunshine for warmth, the fresh water satisfying his thirst, etc.) despite all the suffering. Then he heard a voice in his head suggesting that he can return home in a ship if he followed his faith.

After 6 long years being held against his will in a foreign land, his creative and defiant spirit finally took over. He chose to follow the voice he heard in his head to see where it would lead him. The young man decided to make his daring escape on foot across Ireland despite the considerable risk to his life if he was captured, relying simply on the water and food of the land for nourishment and his intelligence and creativity to avoid detection.

Miraculously he managed to reach the Eastern coast of Ireland where he found someone who was prepared to take him back to England after observing how this strange man was able to pray like a Christian. Clearly this was no ordinary Irishman.

On his return to England, he was welcomed with open arms by his family and the people of his own township. Soon everyone learned of the man's incredible story of capture, living in Ireland, and how he escaped the land. It was considered at the time the first person to ever do so as a slave.

It wasn't long before his remarkable story and strong Christian faith would see English priests sufficiently impressed to allow the young man to become a priest himself and later a bishop. Yet his life's work had only just began.

The voice of God seemed to call him again saying the people of Ireland needed him. He may have felt a little reluctant to follow this voice again. Understandable considering the hardship he went through. Yet somehow he must have realised the people of Ireland were missing something in their lives. The multiple gods in this ancient and brutal Pagan society and not seeing the power of love was not helping the people to see a better way of living.

It took a while and some thinking, but eventually the lack of love and./or direction in a nation yearning to be loved and/or led in the right direction eventually brought the man back to Ireland.

Over the next few years he convinced an incredible number of Irish people to follow the one true loving God by using a simple language spoken in the native tongue of Ireland, which he had learned during his time as a slave. The ideas of God and love and in solving many social problems in an alternative way helped the people to understand life more clearly and to reach for yet another higher level of existence through the Christian faith.

In return for this knowledge, the people of Ireland gave him the love and the things he needed to survive and live peacefully.

Back in England the Christian king and some of the bishops were getting jealous of the man's increasing fame and success. They wanted to pick on his weaknesses in a vain attempt to see him as a sinner. The man had to return to England to answer charges that he had sinned unto God.

The man tried to convince his fellow Christians in England that what he did for the people of Ireland was right. For example, he did not speak Latin to the people of Ireland and his methods were somewhat unorthodox. Yet this should not have made a difference when speaking the language of love. Unfortunately the behaviour of his colleague priests and bishopsweren't in keeping with the Christian faith and the true principle of love as he understood it. The man felt disillusioned by the Christian leaders in England. In the end, he realised that he could no longer stay in a country that forgot so easily the true principle of love and instead wanted to maintain traditions so rigorously. The Christian faith in England was preoccupied with following too many specific rules from the head of the Church in Rome as if this is the only way to do things. The place he once called home was forever abandoned. He returned to Ireland where he felt the people could benefit more from his teachings than he could ever achieve from his so-called Christians in England. He wrote letters explaining his strong convictions, how God spoke to him, and gave a clear account of his entire life story in vivid detail.

His courage and persistence in writing eventually saw him left alone by the religious authorities in England. Perhaps the man felt abandoned in Ireland by the English religious authorities. Yet the Irish people made him feel at home as he continued to help them until his death.

The man's incredible strength, sacrifice, determination to survive, conviction and support for his own understanding of the principle of love as taught by the original religious leader in the Bible, appreciating the simple life, realising how nature was supporting him as God would, to allow his mind and body to acutely be sensitive to his natural environment, to think about problems and be an excellent problem solver, and his tremendous love for the Irish people, even those who the English Christians thought could never be helped, had turned him into a Saint.

Today the Irish people remember the man as St Patrick, which is celebrated on 17 March every year.

YEARS AGO

On a night when an unusually bright star was seen by Jewish religious leaders in the Middle East and thought this was the sign of God having brought forth a prophet and looked everywhere in the Jewish community for this likely child and failed, a male infant was born in the Arab world who would bring forth a new religion. He would be named Muhammad (570 CE - 632 CE), nicknamed Mammat according to Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis, in a quote he gave around 660 CE. His appearance in the world came under somewhat unusual circumstances in the sense that the mother — Amina bint Wahb — apparently felt no pain during childbirth.

As is common practice among Arabs, the child's full name encapsulates his lineage, family traditions, and significance in Islamic tradition. Hence the newborn was named Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim. The name's meaning is explained below:

• Abū al-Qāsim: This means "Father of Qasim". It refers to his son, Qasim ibn Muhammad, who died at a young age.
• Muḥammad: His personal name, which means "the praised one".
• ibn ʿAbd Allāh: "Son of Abdullah". His father’s name was Abdullah.
• ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib: "Son of Abd al-Muttalib". His grandfather’s name was Abd al-Muttalib.
• ibn Hāshim: "Son of Hashim". His great-grandfather’s name was Hashim.

As a matter of brevity, we will refer to this individual as Muhammad.

Muhammad was born around the year 570 CE in the city of Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula, into the Quraysh tribe. His father Abdullah (Abd Allāh) died before his birth and his mother Amina died when he was a young child, so he was raised first by his grandfather Abd al-Muttalib and then by his uncle Abu Talib.

Muhammad's grandfather played a significant role in Muhammad's upbringing. The old man held the key to a sacred rectangular-shaped stone building considered the most important mosque known as the The Kaaba (or al-Ka’ba al-Musharrafa), also referred to as the House of God. This is a sacred building for Muslims originally built in the days of the prophet Abraham, and rebuilt in 683 AD when it was damaged by fire during the siege of Mecca by the Umayyads. Today, Muslims pay their respect to God about three times a day and use the opportunity to memorise the teachings of Muhammad by facing in the direction of this stone building anywhere in the world during prayers.

As a young man, Muhammad worked as a shepherd, and later as a merchant. He earned a reputation for honesty and was called al‑Amin, "the trustworthy". By the age of 25 years, Muhammad married Khadijah (either aged 40 or 23 years), a wealthy widow, and successfully raised six children, including a daughter named Fatimah. This marriage gave him financial security and social standing before his prophetic mission began.

Following Khadijah’s death around 619 CE, Muhammad entered into several other marriages, one of which was with Aisha bint Abu Bakr, the daughter of his close companion Abu Bakr. According to traditional Islamic sources based on Hadith literature, especially narrations found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, Aisha was betrothed at a young age and the marriage was consummated later, with her age reported to be around nine at the time. However, modern scholars and historians have debated the age, citing the lack of corroborative evidence from independent sources and a number of chronological inconsistencies in historical records. With this in mind, it is likely Aisha was closer to 16 to 19 years old based on her reported age during key events like her participation in battles and her memory of early Islamic history. At any rate, this union took place after the migration to Medina and played a significant role in Islamic history, as Aisha would go on to become a prominent scholar and narrator of Hadith, contributing extensively to the preservation and understanding of Muhammad’s teachings.

With freedom to think, and with likely skills in meditation, Muhammad had numerous opportunities to wander off, found a cave to sit quietly, and visualise the world around him in his attempt to obtain higher enlightenment. Then, something strange began to affect Muhammad's life at the age of 40 while in solitude in a cave on Mount Hira near Mecca. From what can be gathered from his followers, it would appear that Muhammad received revelations from what he believed to be God, but in Islamic tradition is named Allah. These revelations were passed down through an angel named Gabriel (Jibril).

The angel proceeded to tell Mohammad that the Arabs — descendants of Abraham’s son Ishmael — had strayed from monotheism and must return to the worship of Yahweh (Allah in Islam, or God in Christianity) in continuity with earlier Abrahamic traditions. To achieve this observance of a single God, the angel told him to "recite" certain ideas presented to him. Later, his utterances of this sacred religious knowledge were compiled into Islam's holy book known as the Qur’an, much like way the Christian and Jewish communities would have their own holy book of the New and Old Testaments for keeping all the important sayings from God (or a messenger of God) through the various prophets or wise old men in the past who claimed to have received this information while living in the Middle East.

For the first few years after the initial revelation, Muhammad shared his message privately with close friends and family. Early followers met discreetly in the house of al-Arqam, known as Dar al-Arqam, to learn about Islam away from public scrutiny. Once Muhammad was commanded to preach openly in Mecca, his proclamation of tawḥīd (the oneness of God) quickly proved to be at odds with numerous rich traders from the dominant tribe of the Quraysh in Mecca whose economy and social order were deeply tied to polytheistic pilgrimage and idol‑based commerce. The idea that "power and authority belong only to Allah" challenged the elite’s control over Meccan society.

The Quraysh tried to use tribal customs to stop Mohammad. They approached his uncle Abu Talib, the clan leader who protected Muhammad, and demanded he restrain his nephew. When Abu Talib refused, they escalated their pressure. As the number of converts grew, the Quraysh began targeting the most vulnerable followers with torture, and lower-status tribespeople were beaten or starved. This persecution is widely documented in Islamic tradition and referenced in modern summaries of the period.

To Muhammad, this action on his followers was not to his liking. Instead, he migrated to Medina in 622 CE. That migration (the Hijra) marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. In Medina, Muhammad became both a religious and political leader, mediating among tribal groups, including Jewish groups, and forming a new community (ummah). Then he established the "Constitution of Medina", which promised religious freedom and communal co-operation.

Over time, Muhammad united the tribes of Arabia under a new monotheistic faith. However, on realising this valuable source of income from the people was in jeopardy, the traders came up with devious ways to stop Muhammad from teaching his ideas and to disband his growing followers. Methods to persuade and prove to his followers that the God promoted by Muhammad does not exist was attempted. But all such efforts ended in failure.

For example, the traders wanted to test this "one God" theory by asking Muhammad if his God would perform a miracle. One of those miracles was to show the Moon being split in half for a short period of time. Somehow this spectacular event was achieved, but the traders were still not convinced, as if looking for something to use against Muhammad instead of acknowledging his abilities and connections to a singular God of his own religion. When that wasn't forthcoming, the traders turned their attention to killing Muhammad and his followers.

Speaking of the Moon splitting apart, this strange aerial phenomenon has been seen before by some individuals. For example, a man on the York Road east of Leeds, England, allegedly saw a Moon-like object split into two halves. This unusual event happened at around 11:00pm, on August 20, 1829. Not only that, but the upper half also gave off a shaft of light. In the darkened middle region, he could observe two human figures visible from the head down to the waist of which one had a red cloth wrapped around its head. The object remained in the air for more than an hour, allowing other witnesses to corroborate on the sighting before the object was eventually hidden by a cloud passing in front of it and disappeared afterwards once the cloud moved away. ("Celestial Phenomena," York Herald, August 22, 1829, p. 2; Chris Aubeck and Martin Shough, Return to Magonia: Investigating UFOs in History, Anomalist, 2015, pp. 111–125)

In another example, on September 10, 1798, just before midnight, schoolmaster Alexander Campbell and one other person observed what was thought to be a "remarkable comet, or meteor" at Alnwick, Northumberland, England. It increased its brightness until the star-like object looked like "two half-moons, back to back, having a short luminous stream between the two backs". The whole sighting lasted 5 minutes. (Annual Register 1798, p. 83)

In Muhammad's time, it is unclear whether the prophet observed a single or two hemispherical-shaped glowing UFO(s) during this particular "Moon splitting" event.

When the traders decided unwisely to wage war on Muhammad and his followers, Muhammad had another revelation in which he received word from God through the angel that it was okay for humans to fight. This led to the second half of the Qurʾān to speak of the need to fight if it meant one could preserve the teachings and protect the followers and leader. A unique inclusion into any sacred religious scripture making this the only religion to promote violence by its followers and leader if no other way to solve the conflict peacefully was available. Otherwise, its primary goal is to promote a single God and to solve problems peacefully and with compassion.

Hence Muhammad played a significant role in several successful battles, including the Battle of Badr and the Battle of the Ditch. He also negotiated the Pact of Al-Ḥudaybiyah with Meccan leaders.

Following Mohammad's success in restoring peace and creating a diverse intellectual environment where new religious ideas flourished, Muhammad experienced another unusual moment in which it would appear he was permitted to travel above the clouds with the help of the angel Gabriel. Whether this was a reward for bringing peace to the region where he lived, Muhammad claimed he saw a representation of God inside a flying object located in space before he was returned to Earth. The best that one could describe this image of God was of a bright light.

In other religions, this is similar to Christian approaches in using the light concept except religious leaders tend to relate light and dark with a more moral-based form of understanding of God called good and evil, with the good side being God. In Jewish traditions, God is simply a localised entity of apparently human-like form seen by Moses that can speak in a masculine voice, promotes love and obedience, and does not appear to be too different in how it appears to selected wise old men in the Middle East compared to humans. Well, certainly it did not frighten Moses. Apart from that, this God allegedly travels around inside some kind of object immersed in a cloud and glows at night inside the cloud. As for Eastern mystics, the true God (if one must put a name to this entity) is nothing more than a paradoxical behaviour flickering between two opposites (such as dark and light) leading to a form of unity and creation of the Universe. Precisely what this entity is remains unclear, but generally mystics use paradoxical statements, poems and so on, to emphasise this paradoxical nature of the true God. However, in science, electromagnetic radiation is often used as an example of a paradoxical entity due to its ability to exist only when its energy swings from negative to positive and back again. And since the term light can be used in a general sense to represent all radiation, it is often seen as the link between science and religion when understanding the nature of a true God in the Universe.

Whatever was allegedly seen, before he died, Muhammad performed what is now called the Farewell Pilgrimage. During this pilgrimage he delivered sermons summarizing core teachings and ethical guidance for the growing Muslim community. Shortly after returning to Medina, he became ill and died on June 8, 632 CE (11 AH in the Islamic calendar) at about 61 years of age; he was buried in Medina where his tomb remains part of the Prophet’s Mosque.

Muslims would see him as the final prophet and the central figure of Islam.

For the complete list of prophets the people of Islam support are as follows:

• Adam (first human, and considered the first prophet)
• Idris (Enoch)
• Nuh (Noah)
• Hud (Heber)
• Salih (Saleh)
• Ibrahim (Abraham)
• Lut (Lot)
• Ismail (Ishmael)
• Ishaq (Isaac)
• Yaqub (Jacob)
• Yusuf (Joseph)
• Shu’aib (Jethro)
• Ayyub (Job)
• Dhul-Kifl (often identified with Ezekiel)
• Musa (Moses)
• Harun (Aaron)
• Dawud (David)
• Sulaiman (Solomon)
• Ilyas (Elijah)
• Al-Yasa (Elisha)
• Yunus (Jonah)
• Zakariya (Zechariah)
• Yahya (John the Baptist)
• Isa (Jesus Christ)
• Muhammad (final prophet and messenger)

After Muhammad’s death, leadership passed to a series of caliphs, and Muslim-ruled polities expanded rapidly. Within a few decades, Arab-Muslim forces had overthrown the Sasanian (Persian) Empire and taken key Byzantine territories such as Syria and Egypt. Jerusalem came under Muslim control, and Islamic rule spread across the Middle East and North Africa (and into southern parts of Spain). Over time, distinct religious and political traditions formed within Islam, including Sunni and Shia branches, largely rooted in disputes over rightful leadership and succession after Muhammad. The early caliphates laid the territorial, administrative, and cultural foundations for later Islamic empires.

In 750, the Abbasid family seized power and established a new caliphate based in Baghdad, which they founded as their capital. Baghdad grew into a major urban center of administration, commerce, and scholarship. Under Abbasid patronage, a complex scholarly environment developed that drew on Greek, Persian, Indian, and other bodies of knowledge. A key symbol of this milieu is the House of Wisdom (Bayt al‑Hikma), an institution in Baghdad described in medieval and modern sources as a major library and intellectual hub where scholars translated and studied works of philosophy, science, and medicine. Whether it was a single building or a broader network, historians generally agree that Abbasid Baghdad became a focal point for translation and scholarship during what is often called the Islamic Golden Age.

During this period, many influential scholars wrote in Arabic within the Islamic world. Al‑Khwarizmi contributed foundational work in algebra and mathematical algorithms; Ibn Sina (Avicenna) produced major philosophical and medical texts that were later used in both the Islamic world and Latin Christendom; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) wrote extensive commentaries on Aristotle that shaped medieval European philosophy; and Ibn al‑Haytham (Alhazen) made significant advances in optics and scientific method. Their works were translated into Latin from the 12th century onward and became part of the intellectual basis of the European scholastic tradition and, eventually, the Renaissance. Knowledge circulation thus moved not only within the Islamic world but also from it into Christian Europe.

The Abbasid Caliphate’s political power gradually fragmented, and in 1258 the Mongols captured Baghdad. Many later writers associated the city’s fall and reported destruction of libraries with the symbolic end of the Islamic Golden Age; modern historians are more cautious but agree that the conquest marked a major rupture in Abbasid political authority and Baghdad’s role as a central hub.Intellectual and cultural life, however, continued in other centers such as Cairo, Damascus, Isfahan, and cities in Anatolia and India. From roughly the 14th to 18th centuries, large Muslim-ruled "gunpowder empires" emerged — the Ottoman Empire in Anatolia and southeastern Europe, the Safavid Empire in Iran, and the Mughal Empire in India — each blending Islamic traditions with local cultures and maintaining significant military and political power.

Meanwhile, in Europe, translations of Arabic and Greek works (often via Islamic Spain and Sicily) enriched medieval scholasticism and later helped fuel the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. European scholars built upon mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy that had been preserved, critiqued, and expanded in the Islamic world. Over time, new institutions such as universities, printing, and formalized scientific societies supported sustained inquiry and debate in Europe. By the early modern period, these developments, alongside economic and political changes, contributed to European global expansion and technological dominance, even as significant Muslim empires remained important actors in world history.

YEARS AGO

A group of Polynesians known as the Rapanui sailed east to reach a large uninhabited island in the South Pacific. A place of remarkable beauty, the island had a seemingly unlimited supply of trees and fresh water, and to a certain extent this was the kind of thinking a number of the first settlers had on arriving at this untouched tropical wilderness. Not knowing how the fresh water was maintained and the importance of the trees in sustaining the water cycle and other natural resources, the new inhabitants were poised to create an imbalance in the natural ecology with a decision to cut down trees to build homes and boats. The eventual disaster would not happen straightaway. It would take time. Time for humans to go about using up the natural resources over the next couple of centuries.

The place where this happened is called Easter Island.

As the people settled on the island, they did not realise the amount of fresh water was highly dependent on the availability of trees to condense the moist air on the surface of the leaves. To further enhance the condensation effect, the island's natural landscape helped the moist air to rise and form water droplets called clouds or fog over mountain tops. The droplets on leaves enlarged and would fall to the ground at night. Trees provide a secondary benefit of preventing the ground water from evaporating. Enough water on the ground ensures not all the moisture is absorbed in the soil or lost through evaporation. Excess water flows downhill and later combine to create small streams. They then collect in ponds and small lakes. Eventually they overflow, and the water continues to flow downhill until it reaches the oceans. Having extra moisture on the island to create adequate clouds and enough rainfall or foggy conditions to help maintain the whole natural cyclic system was the key to why the island remained so lushes and self-sustaining.

In terms of the number of trees, scientists have estimated that there were a healthy 20 million in total, comprising mostly of palm trees. In the summer time, rain clouds could be seen forming regularly over the island thanks to the shape of the land to raise its moist air to a suitable height, and its abundance of trees to condense the moisture into droplets of water and prevent evaporation. While the trees remained, everything looked to be in plentiful supply to the new settlers. Together with the abundant supply of fish in the oceans acquired by the fishermen in boats made from the trees on the island, it seemed the place was just like back home in Polynesia.

Then, some time around 1,100AD, the number of trees diminished significantly, and the ability to gather enough food from the oceans or grow food on land was getting harder. Freshwater supplies were also diminishing rapidly for some inexplicable reason to the inhabitants. Perhaps the population was getting too large. Or was there greed and power in the minds of a handful of men? Or did some men blame it on the gods for being unhappy about something? Whatever the reason for this situation, the population split into several different tribes, each with a different approach to solving the problems on the island. Unfortunately the one causing all the problems still remained and had a way to stay in power on the island longer than the other tribes. It is the people of this successful tribe, mostly men and lead by a man, who maintained the view that "she will be right, mate!" and to continue using up the resources while doing things to appease the gods. Just give it enough time and the rains will return if we can keep the gods happy.

This kind of thinking of the males is the real problem. One of the tribes thought the remaining resources could still be plundered and the gods will grow back the trees and provide everything the people needed to survive. As a result, that tribe probably used more of its fair share of the resources to stay strong and win the equivalent of the annual Birdman competition to see which tribe would lead all the other tribes and tell them what should be done on the island. The benefits of a comfortable life after acquiring the resources were too much. The unsustainable tribe wanted to win the competition more often to maintain the status quo of unlimited resources. No doubt the other tribes on the island were not happy even if more and more people could see the island's natural forest was being decimated from human activity and the winning tribe would not instigate some from of adequate recycling of the resources.

As the food supplies went down and the number of trees diminished, a religion was formed. The leaders of this stronger tribe directed other tribes to build statues to keep the gods happy on the assumption that they would provide an abundance of food for the following year. This approach was repeated for many years.

Not everyone in the other tribes agreed with this approach. Some people believed it was better to plant new palm trees and other plants. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the trees.

One further complication to the life of the people on Easter Island was the presence of seasons. In the summer time, the island felt very much like one of the Polynesian islands — moist and hot. In the winter time, temperatures would drop far more than expected. The island's geographical location being further south of the equator would create this seasonal change in climate and temperature. Combined with the need for wood to build boats for fishing, burning palm trees for warmth would have placed a further strain on the island's natural forest.

There were attempts by people in the other tribes to reverse the trend in the tree populations. New trees were being planted, but to reach a reasonable size would take time.

Time was not on the side of the people living on the island. Before the last big tree was cut down, some of the people from the opposing tribes thought the idea of carving out statues from the volcanic rock was a waste of time. Several large boats were constructed and some of the people went onto the high seas to escape the insanity. Some travelled further east until they reached South America. Others made the decision to go west following the winds to return to the other Polynesian islands.

A time came when the last tree was cut down. This was a dangerous time. No more trees meant no more replacement canoes or even to keep warm in the winter. And no canoes quickly saw a growing number of people experiencing regular malnutrition. Only enough crops growing on the land was just sustaining a smaller population. Something had to change.

Soon a decision was made to stop building the great Easter Island statues. The religious aims of certain fixated leaders from this unsustainable tribe would collapse. It was likely that the leaders who supported the religious views were rounded up and burned in a ditch.

Afterwards, food became carefully rationed.

The population grew slightly as the people adapted to a different way of life and method of growing food.

Then in the 18th century, visits from Dutch and South American sailors added further pressure to the Rapanui people. A fight broke out with the Dutch in 1722 in which 12 Rapanui men died, mainly because it was thought the foreign visitors would impact on the resources of the island (and understandable thought considering what the inhabitants had went through). Eventually a truce was made once the people of the island understood the purpose of the visit.

Then the Spanish sailors arrived 48 years later. They brought with them new diseases such as chicken pox. Up to 1,500 of the islanders were also brought to South America. When a number of them returned, many had sexually transmitted diseases that soon wiped out many of the remaining inhabitants on the island.

Despite all these factors affecting the survival of the people in various ways, approximately 100 of the original inhabitants have survived. Today the island has a stable and thriving population, only because tourism and the availability of ships to bring supplies to the island has made sure the original inhabitants can survive. Without this help, it is likely the last of the inhabitants would have died out in the early 20th century, leaving behind only a handful of birds and insects finding a tiny niche in this barren part of the world.

Will the people of Western society in the 21st century go in the same way as the people of Easter Island? Or will we be forced to adapt to a world without trees and rely on tourism to somehow keep the economic system ticking over? Or will there have to be a new world order, and one that is more closely aligned to the re-building and protection of our natural environment?

YEARS AGO

Not all UFOs in Earth's skies have to be unnatural or inexplicable. Some can have a logical and natural explanation. A good example of this is the bright light in the sky over China on 22 July 1054. Today, astronomers can confidently explain that this was due to a massive supernova explosion, the remnants of which can be seen in photographs taken of the Crab Nebula.

to YEARS AGO

The Black Death was a catastrophic pandemic that swept across Eurasia, killing tens of millions of people and profoundly reshaping societies, economies, and cultures.

The pandemic began in Central Asia and spread westward along trade routes. By 1347, it reached the Crimea, carried by Mongol armies and traders, and from there entered Europe via Genoese ships docking in Sicily. Within months, the disease spread rapidly through Mediterranean ports and inland cities, devastating populations with incredible speed. Between 1347 and 1351, the Black Death killed an estimated 25–50 million people in Europe alone, amounting to 30–50% of the population. When including North Africa and the Near East, the death toll may have reached 50 million or more.

The disease manifested in several forms: bubonic plague, marked by painful swellings (buboes) in the groin and armpits; pneumonic plague, which attacked the lungs and spread through airborne droplets; and septicemic plague, a blood infection that was almost always fatal. Bubonic plague was the most common, but the pneumonic form made the pandemic especially deadly, as it could spread directly between people.

The cause of the Black Death is now understood to be Yersinia pestis, though medieval people attributed it to divine punishment, bad air (“miasma”), or astrological alignments. Modern genetic studies confirm the bacterium’s role, and evidence suggests that both rat fleas and human parasites contributed to transmission. The lack of medical knowledge at the time meant that treatments were ineffective, and fear drove extreme social responses, including persecution of minorities (such as Jewish communities), the rise of flagellant movements, and widespread religious fervor.

The consequences of the Black Death left behind massive labor shortages, empowering peasants to demand better wages and conditions. This shift contributed to peasant revolts and long-term changes in land use and economic organization. The pandemic also altered cultural and religious life, intensifying apocalyptic thinking but eventually fostering new intellectual thinking, paving the way toward the Renaissance age. In short, the Black Death was not only a demographic disaster but also a turning point in European history, reshaping the trajectory of so many communities for centuries.

to YEARS AGO

The time of the Aztecs would reign supreme in central Mexico.

It began around 1150 AD when as many as 175,000 people came into the Valley of Mexico — a fertile area containing a plentiful supply of water and rich fertile lands. Any wars that may have existed between feuding tribal groups prior to this time — probably over food and territory — had suddenly vanished as if by agreement, or the realisation that in a land filled with abundance there was no need to fight each other. The kind of thing old prophets in the Middle East keep telling us is the key to ending wars and guaranteeing human survival while living in the kingdom of God (or place of plentiful and recycling everything). Do we need more examples?

A number of years went by. People from the surrounding countryside saw how well the settlers in the valley were doing, so they thought to do the same. Slowly the population levels increased in the area.

As more people came to the area, some of the original people who owned the fertile land decided it would be better to lease it to others to do the work of growing food and so free up the land owners time to do other things, which is mainly to enjoy the luxuries to come from people working in this society, as well as exercise powers in making decisions and telling others what to do (does this remind you of any modern civilisation in the 21st centuiry?).

As the population swelled to around 1 million in the late Aztec period of 1350 to 1519 AD, people were placing considerable stress on the environment. By early 1500 AD, all available fertile land and surface water in the valley were virtually exhausted. Why? Because the land was being frivolously and carelessly cleared of the trees, rain washed the valuable nutrients away from the soil making it harder to grow food, the swamp was drained of its waters to create raised fields and places for some of the inhabitants to live, and where the trees were cleared, it exposed the soil to increased evaporation of the water under the hot Sun. Things were not looking good for the people.

As resources dwindled and populations expanded even further, a hierarchical system of powerful Aztec rulers, religious leaders and elite overlords began monopolising power in the city. The early abundance of food and other goods hoarded by the rich and powerful and later leased the land to other people to help make more riches created a separate class of people called the commoners. As a matter of survival, the commoners created their own markets free of state control. People could produce their own goods consisting of growing water-thirsty cotton crops and making cotton textiles, as well as pottery, statuettes and offering other kinds of services.

Yet no matter how much richer the rulers got, or how many people worked the land, the environment wasn't getting any better. The rains became increasingly infrequent and the crops were not as plentiful as they once were. Before long, some diseases started to set in among the crops resulting in a number of commoners struggling to feed themselves and give enough to the rich leaders as payment for the lease of the land.

The rich and powerful with their lack of environmental knowledge and a preference for selfishness in their own needs and wants probably passed laws into Aztec society making it a requirement for commoners to work harder and for longer or pay the upper class more money as well as food as if the leaders thought too many commoners were dole bludgers and were not providing adequate contribution to society to help explain the low resource situation. The truth, however, was that some of the rich and powerful were probably asking too much from the commoners. Those in a position of power could not see why things have changed and the commoners were struggling. They were locked away in their own world of luxury and strange rituals that made them oblivious to the environmental destruction that was taking place all around them, or thought things would return to normal some day. An occasional bit of rain might make the leaders think everything is fine and life must go on. While others, namely the religious leaders of later generations immune to life on the land and thus no understanding of what it means to perform hard work in growing food, had no practical knowledge to give to the commoners and were increasingly resorting to religion for a solution as people sought answers.

So where is this knowledge to protect the environment? Weren't the commoners given practical (or more scientific) knowledge) of how to look after the environment and recycle everything they produced? Unfortunately not. Part of the reason was because the rich and powerful had no knowledge to give to the commoners. They were too self-absorbed in their own lives. But it is also because the rich and powerful were afraid of giving too much knowledge to the commoners. Knowledge is a dangerous thing to have in the wrong hands. It could undermine the power of those who are rich and supposedly leading society along the right path. The other reason could be to do with the way some rich and powerful Aztec rulers and overloads became obsessed with death and their own gods.

Some of the questions that may have filled the minds of the rich and powerful at the time included, What's the purpose of life? Is there a greater meaning to our existence? Is it really to fill one's belly with food that the whole meaning of our existence and the purpose of life and the Universe can be understood? If this is true, why do people still die? Why is death so much a part of this Universe and life cannot escape from it? And why do people continue to suffer?

This fatally flawed obsession consumed the life of the rich and powerful, and also the religious leaders whose job it was to support the elite in finding a solution to this great problem of death and in understanding the environmental disaster taking place. No practical knowledge of how to grow food and look after the environment was provided, only religious knowledge. Religion became the dominant feature of the Aztec's lives. Once the rich and powerful accepted religion as the only solution, the scene was set for the destruction of a great civilisation.

Towards the end of the Aztec empire between 1500 and 1519 AD, the commoners became very poor as they tried desperately to resort to non-food products such as cotton and increasing the production of textiles to sell to whoever could afford to buy it and so help them to pay the elite overlords for the land as well as import any food from towns and villages far away. Soon religious activities increased as a way for the people and the leaders to solve the food shortages. Indeed, the leaders felt that the gods were somehow unhappy about something. To make the gods happy again, something must be given to appease these supernatural beings. A kind of nourishment like we see maintained for those elites in order for the people to be nourished and maintained with an abundance of food.

How did this belief come about? It seems the religious leaders found a way to appease the gods by observing how the dead buried in a plot of land after a period of time and receiving some water can suddenly grow a abundance of vegetation than in an area not containing the dead as if somehow the bodies were helping to restore the land and bring back fertility. Then a decision was made for someone to sacrifice a bit of blood on the ground to see what happens. Surprisingly for the religious leaders, something grew out of the ground. Was this the way to keep the gods happy?

Now a new and dangerous religious idea and precedent was born: why not sacrifice more blood to the Earth as this may somehow nourish the gods, the soil, and ultimately grow more food? As crude as the idea may seem to us today, it does provide a primitive way of understanding why death exists in the Universe and how life suddenly appears in the spot where the blood-letting takes place.

We know without death, life in the Universe would not exist. No one could survive in an infinite population of the living. Death is an inherent part of this Universe in order for life in the Universe to exist and with reasonable comfort (depending on the population levels and how sustainable it is). However, for those who are alive today, it does require the natural recycling systems of the Universe and the diversity of life itself to work in order for balance to be restored. Thus one could create a story to help explain this inherent nature of the Universe by saying death is a way to make God happy and restore balance to the Universe for the rest of life to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately some religious leaders in Aztec society took the idea too literally and to the extreme. This was desperate times calling for desperate measures to solve the food shortages.

At first some blood letting performed in rituals under these leaders may have coincided with some periods of rain to help reinforce the idea. When the rains stopped again and would not return for a longer period of time, the leaders thought more blood-letting was needed to make the gods (i.e. the environment) happy. Soon many people had to die in brutal sacrifices to help bring a sense of balance in the environment (i.e., appease God, or the gods — well, whoever or whatever is responsible for controlling the production of food and water in the valley).

To further add to the woes of the Aztecs, the constant war between the Aztecs and Tarascan people eventually saw enough weapons smuggled cross the border from Tarascan and into the hands of the commoners through the Aztec market system. The time was ripe for a major revolt.

The tipping point finally came when certain religious leaders were asking too much from the commoners. And too many people from outside the Aztec community were being sacrificed (including babies because of how some religious leaders were developing a psychopathic view of blood and tears of the babies representing the rain in the eyes of the gods). Too much was being destroyed to appease the gods. On top of all this was the fact that the elite in the Aztec civilisation could no longer be paid properly and too many people were beginning to starve for food as society began to descend into chaos.

The rich and powerful must have sensed something terrible was about to happen. They probably tried to protect themselves through its own crude military force. Yet the stupidity continued. Rather than meeting with the people and searching for alternative solutions, the leaders hid themselves in their fortified and luxurious homes. Finally, the massive population of commoners eventually saw through all the religious crap. The decision to bring back balance in their own way started and there was nothing to stop it. What happened next turned out to be brutal and violent to return the favour to the elite people. The loyal soldiers for the elite could not stop it, or more likely they joined with the commoners knowing they had no chance to protect the rich and powerful and they too had to survive. Now the people had the power to change the future. No longer would they continue working for the dysfunctional leaders and support the outrageous religious rituals. The final act was really a bloody end, followed by looting and a great fire consuming all the resources and representations of deities and gods held by the rich and powerful. What could have been a prosperous and peaceful society if it took a balanced and more frugal approach to living and had understood the power of recycling everything including the biggest natural recycler of all — our environment — instead caused the civilisation to take the road to self-destruction.

We can only hope modern human society will take heed of these warning signs before it is too late.

YEARS AGO

By no later than 1445AD, the last of the big flightless wingless birds were hunted to extinction on the islands of New Zealand by the Maori within a century of human arrival. Known as the Moa, these docile birds stood up to an impressive 3.5 metres in height. Now scientists believe they know why they disappeared. After analysing the growth rings in the stored bones of extinct Moas, scientists discovered the two Moa species may have taken several years to reach reproductive maturity and up to a decade to have a strong enough skeletal frame to defend itself and run away from the humans as well as support their offsprings. Without adequate time to reproduce, humans became the idiots (yet again) in the demise of this bird. Instead of looking at the situation like a giant Kentucky Fried Chicken experience, they could not learn to be sustainable and protect the resources available to them. Blame it on the males of the human species whose egos and demand for food are suddenly inflated every time they kill an animal much bigger than themselves. Such a macho thing to do, isn't it?

Or do as most males do — blame it on the gods! You cannot tell males they are wrong. They will resent you for it.

For an animal having the largest brain in comparison to its body, we are acting more like we have the smallest brain in comparison to our body.

YEARS AGO

As human language reached a level of sophistication in describing things, some people began to report UFOs as "coloured globes", "fiery lights", "flying shields" and "chariots of fire" to name a few. Where a mysterious column of light appeared below these UFOs or from strange clouds moving around in the sky, it may have been described as a "pillar of fire". In other observations, flying crosses and cylinders were not unheard of.

If an unusual aerial event was seen as significant, humans were likely to draw pictures of what they saw to make a permanent record of it. For example, a woodcut made in celebration of a momentous hour-long event that occurred in the sunny sky over Nuremberg, Germany, on the morning of 14 April 1561, suggested that a number of flying spheres, hollow cylinders with spheres inside, other cylinders without the spheres, as well as flying crosses made their presence known to observers on the ground. Not unheard of observations for UFOs today, as we shall see.

The spheres made their triumphant return at sunrise and sunset on two days in July and again at sunrise on 7 August 1566, in Switzerland, where the following picture was produced.

A student from the Swiss town of Basel reported the sighting in the following way:

"…[M]any large, black globes were seen in the air, moving before the sun at great speed and turning against each other as if fighting. Some of them became red and fiery and afterwards faded and went out."

In both sightings, it would appear the UFOs were engaging in a type of aerial battle as some of the objects collided and faded off as they fell from the sky. Could this be evidence of the early introduction of fireworks into Europe from the Arab world, where such technology had been known since the 12th century? Or were these UFOs something more mysterious?

YEARS AGO

The first deliberate effort by humans to separate electric charges for the purpose of doing work with it was successfully achieved by humans thanks to the invention of the electrostatic generator. The earliest type was friction-based using a sulphur globe that was rubbed by hand — first discovered in 1663 by Otto von Guericke. The design was improved, with Sir Isaac Newton recommending a glass globe, while his assistant Francis Hauksbee (1660–1713), whom Newton later appointed curator, instrument maker and experimentalist of the Royal Society, used an electrical machine, enabling the rapid rotation of the glass globe against a woollen cloth.

As for realising that negative charges flow toward the positive end forming an electric current, this was first observed in 1781 when Luigi Galvani, professor of anatomy at Bologna University, Italy, saw the effect of electricity on the nerves and muscles inside the legs of a dead frog. It was an accidental discovery. Galvani's assistant just so happened to be playing with an electrostatic machine in the same room as he was dissecting a frog with his steel scalpel. A spark was generated by the machine, which managed to complete a circuit, whereupon Galvani observed the muscles in the frog's legs twitch significantly. As Galvani said:

"…[S]uddenly all the muscles of the frog's limbs were seen to be violently contracted just as though they had been seized with a violent cramp."

In 1800, Alexandro Volta became credited with inventing the battery. It may not have been the world's first battery in the strictest definition, if the Baghdad jars are anything to go by, but it would be the moment when people actually recognised the usefulness of batteries as a means of storing electrical energy.

Electricity would be exploited further following the development of magnets and coils for generating power. The prolific inventor Thomas Edison made the most of this power by redesigning the light bulb in 1879 to ensure a reliable source of light using lower electric currents thanks to an improved vacuum inside the globe.

Of course, the reverse situation of using electrical power to turn magnets and coils also had its benefits too. In particular, it became the basis for creating many modern electric motors for performing work. However, when it came to transport, humans in the 20th and early 21st century took the easier route of using fossil fuels (mainly for the sake of profit) principally to turn wheels and push aerodynamic objects for lift in the air. While this wasted a lot of fuel and has resulted in global warming, in the 21st century, humans would return to the electric motor for vehicles on the ground for essentially the same purpose. In terms of flying machines, the principle of radiation propulsion would be applied. The only additional requirement for human society to become sustainable was to find renewable solutions to generating electrical energy.

It would take a long time before humans finally make the transition to a purely electromagnetic and sustainable society.

YEARS AGO

We see battles continue throughout history between people of different religions as if some people were trying to prove one's faith (or God) is better than another and thus allegedly closer to the Truth. The classic example is the battle of Vienna on 11 and 12 September 1683.

In this battle, Vienna was besieged by the Ottoman Empire led by a well-respected Turkish warrior and leader named Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha. No less than 90,000 and as many as 300,000 men under the rule of Mustafa had amassed on the grounds outside the walls of Vienna. The aim of the Turkish leader was to take back the territory the Ottoman Empire had once occupied for a brief period over what was effectively a long and bloody battle lasting over 300 years between the Christian believers of the Holy Roman Empire living in Europe and those who believed in the Islamic faith, as can be found among the people of Turkey and some parts of Eastern Europe.

The battle ended almost as quickly as the Turkish leader arrived when Mustafa made the fatal decision just before the battle began of not securing a mountain ridge nearby despite one of the leaders of an alliance group recommending this should be done. As a result, an ageing Polish General on the opposing side saw an opportunity to inflict considerable damage and casualties to the large numbers of men that Mustafa had concentrated on the ground. With agreement of all other leaders from various supporting Christian-based European countries, the Polish leader ordered his men to lift a number of heavy cannons into position at the top of the ridge during the night and in the rain. It was a gruelling job. Mud hampered the work considerably.

By the following day and with the canons in position and pointed at the enemy, the battle for Vienna quickly swung around in favour of the Christians thanks to the terrible damage caused by the canons on Mustafa's army. The remaining soldiers on the ground forced into disarray were taken care of by Polish forces and the various other groups forming the European alliances.

It was a humiliating defeat for the Turkish leader. And since Islam does not believe in forgiveness as Christians do, Mustafa had to pay with his life by being strangled by two men with a piece of rope in front of Turkish soldiers as a witness to the rest of the remaining army of what happens when leaders fail to deliver.

Over the next 16 years, European armies largely removed any remaining pockets of the Ottoman forces, thereby ending any dreams of Turkish leaders occupying much of Europe.

But why should a battle of different faiths have to take place at all?

What people don't seem to realise is that the way certain individuals express their faith in a God does not make their God any more important or different from anyone's else's faith in a God. There is only one God. What are we trying to prove by going to war with regards to our faith? All the names we may give to God and the places we may worship (whether it is a Moslem temple or a Christian Church) are what men have created for themselves in order to help them better understand this one God and to get closer to understanding this entity. No single faith that people have created will ever represent the ultimate true faith or religion of God. This is something we must work together and approach. And the only way this can be done is by combining all the faiths into one, showing what is in common in all the knowledge, and so make it easier for everyone to see the same God. It is not about proving whose God is better than whom.

Any battle over people's faith is a waste of time because all you are doing is fighting over the one and same God. Having enemies in such a war is like fighting your own brothers under the principle of love. There is no such thing as an enemy when you have the true God promoting true love. The only reason for having these pointless battles over so-called faiths in a God are based on non-religious reasons. Many leaders often hide their secret agenda behind the veil of religion. Usually this agenda is merely for materialistic gains in terms of acquiring wealth or territory, or love for another person, or a lack of understanding of God by allowing hatred to fester on another person without truly understanding the principle of love. What leaders often forget is that bringing religion into wars is not the true religion of God. The one and true God never teaches us to fight battles against other living creatures. Wars have no place in a true religion. Only love, even right down to our greatest enemies.

to YEARS AGO

The grand 300-year solar cycle lasting up 50 years (as opposed to the standard 11-year cycle) reached the Sun's lowest output of heat and light between 1650 and 1700, leading to particularly long-lasting and severe winters in England and Europe. The coldest was in 1683 when the river Thames froze.

NOTE: Europe and England can experience colder winters than usual during periods of global warming. As the planet heads into this phase in the 21st century, a moment will come when enough ice melts in the Arctic ocean thereby reducing the winds from the north. As a result, the winds from the Arctic do not come down to stop the flow of cold winds from Siberia moving in from the East. As the difference in cold and warm waters becomes non-existent (because there is very little ice in the Arctic and elsewhere), the warm ocean currents from the Caribbean reaching Europe stops flowing as well because of this extra colder water and ice moving down from the Arctic, the cold weather in Europe will be much more severe. On the other hand, during the summer times, temperatures under a global warming environment can rise quickly. Snow and ice across Europe and England will melt and create massive floods in low-lying areas and along major European rivers. The summer will also bring initially more rain than usual followed by intense and very hot days. Soon, the conditions will dry up. For other parts of the world, global warming will see continents experience severe droughts. If the droughts don't occur, it is only because the warm ocean currents are able to add extra humidity in the air and this can reach the coasts to provide extra rainfall. But once the ice in Antarctica and Arctic regions fully melt, these ocean currents are expected to stop flowing. Then the weather will be more constant of an extreme and mostly drier nature over land.

to YEARS AGO

The Scientific Revolution marked a significant turning point in human understanding of the natural world. Thinkers like Nicolaus Copernicus challenged traditional views by proposing a heliocentric model of the universe, placing the Sun rather than Earth at the center. Galileo Galilei advanced this vision with telescopic observations, providing evidence that planets and moons moved in ways that contradicted long‑held beliefs. Later, Sir Isaac Newton unified these discoveries with his laws of motion and universal gravitation, laying the foundation for modern physics.

This era emphasized empirical observation, experimentation, and mathematical reasoning, replacing reliance on religious authorities with their doctrines and simplistic views of the universe with systematic scientific inquiry and more detailed evidenced-based observations.

to YEARS AGO

The Industrial Revolution commences in Europe around the late 18th century. This was the time when economies and societies were transformed through large‑scale mechanization and new energy sources. Beginning in Britain in 1760, innovations such as the steam engine, textile machinery, and iron production fueled rapid growth. Dependence on coal and fossil fuels enabled factories to operate at unprecedented scale, while urbanization accelerated as people moved to cities for industrial work. While it brought prosperity and technological progress, it also introduced challenges such as harsh labor conditions, environmental impacts, and social upheaval, setting the stage for modern industrial society.

Speaking of environmental impacts, according to the United Nations InterGovernmental Report on Climate Change, global warming increased from the moment human's began burning wood and coal for energy to support their business ambitions and creature comforts in the home, but quickly accelerated as the demand for wood, oil and coal by businesses in the industrial age increased. As population grew, the demands for businesses to expand and produce more items and services for the people expanded as well. Irrespective of any efficiencies, a growing population increases the energy demands.

High energy demands to run factories and certain types of product in the early stages revealed the highly energy-inefficient nature of what humans were producing at this time, not to mention the size of the products needed to be produced and their energy requirements to operate the productys, and the number of people demanding those products, not to mention how people went about producing those products. The early forms of the products were expensive and this initially reduced the demand and restricted its use to the rich members of society. Later, as the scale of economies reduced the price, more and more people were able to afford the products. Then the energy demands to use certain products naturally increased even further. Even when new energy-efficient products are produced, the sheer size of the growing population will see to it that the energy savings are lost. Until population levels are controlled, there will always be a need to use up energy from wood or coal unless something else can supply the energy.

This is the problem with businesses. Business owners at this time generally see no limits (just like the Rapanui people of Easter Island saw no limit on the number of trees). More customers are better, and continuous growth is essential. There is no such thing as a perfectly recyclable product. Well, at least not on the minds of most business people. Unless the packaging can also be eaten, it just doesn't happen. Businesses do not pay the true cost from cradle to grave of what is needed to produce something, recycle it properly, and give sufficient time to grow or re-create a new product.

Another thing that also went out the window at this time was the idea of working only so much as needed to survive. Rather than "work to live", the new motto for business people and the expectations of their employees became closer to "live to work" as individuals realised materialism was the key to building untold wealth and business people could become incredibly rich simply by selling as many products as possible to the consumers (and keeping a larger share of the profits while convincing the workers the pay they are getting is better than receiving no wages). Of course, to sell products, someone has to make them. And the more time people spend to make them, the more products there were. This explains why workers in the early days had to work longer hours in poor conditions and age was no limit to who could work for these business people. Today, conditions have improved. Despite the existence of weekends to allow workers to rest, employers today still think in a similar way with demands for overtime work from workers increasing, or else find ways to reduce costs, such as sacking permanent full time staff in favour of younger and more naive workers who think the lower pay is good while working under contract in order to give more power to employers to sack them without giving a reason.

In essence, the principle of love was not high on the agenda for a number of business people (except for their own families, friends and like-minded business people).

From this industrialised society came a predominantly two-party political system in Western democratic nations. Different names might be used to describe these parties. One party (e.g., Liberals in Australia, Republicans in the United States, etc.) focused on the employers and their needs and deregulating the markets while ensuring people work for the employers to help keep the taxes coming in regularly and substantially. The other party (e.g,, Labor in Australia, Democrats in the United States) is focused on protecting the workers and providing essential services for everyone. In the late 20th century and into the 21st century, things got a little more complicated as the environment showed enough degradation that a third-party had to appear to influence the political landscape, known as the Greens Party. Beyond that, other parties will have diverse opinions and agendas about why they exist and these tend to come and go with each election. The only countries that do not experience this type of political system are those described as socialist nations. Here, the aim is for one leader and supporting members receiving benefits to maintain power and wealth at all costs and eliminate any opposition from the people. The workers' pay is always very low and the treatment is often quite bad. Only those running a business are permitted to do better and have enough wealth so long as they pay their dues to the dictator running the nation. Also, looking after the environment is an even lower priority compared to Western democratic nations.

Not surprisingly, we see many of these early businesses run by males. Their strong L-brain skills helped to improve the efficiency and complexity of various products in an attempt to meet demands as well as provide unique selling points to the products for the more discerning buyers.

YEARS AGO

As for the hunting techniques employed by white settlers in Australia, this has effectively wiped out 20 mammal species weighing between 35 and 5,500 grams in size. All we have remaining are a few small animals and only a very few large "high breeding" mammals like kangaroos and emus to survive on the remaining tough, more fire-resistant vegetation of the Australian continent. As a result, the Australian continent combined with increasing carbon dioxide emissions from the growing industrialised world would see the land dry up significantly and lay the foundations for bigger and more devastating droughts and bushfires to sweep across the states.

By the time the 21st century would come around, the pressing issues on many Australians would be where to find enough fresh water, how to allocate the remaining resource in an efficient way to maintain their way of economic and social life, how to combat the bigger and more intense bushfires, and what to do during the longer and more intense droughts that arrive (as well as the occasional bigger floods when the few rains do come). These are the latest issues to preoccupy people trying to maintain the current economic system with its limited recycling solutions and over-emphasis on the economy and supporting businesses with poor environmental practices, and at the same time demand more consumers to magically appear from new families to help maintain and expand the economy.

Sure humans may enjoy the occasional and rare climatic conditions known as the "El Nina" to bring back some of the rains and give a false sense of security to the Australian people as they say "She'll be right, mate!". But unfortunately it is all too short lived. Australia is just one of those countries where it will experience longer spells of more intense and extreme droughts conditions under global warming.

Perhaps the Australian people should concentrate more on rebuilding the environment, re-establishing the great inland sea, and developing fully recyclable products and services as the key to solving all the water issues. Or will profit drive the ambitions of many Australians in the 21st century towards self-destruction?

YEARS AGO

In the last 75,000 years, there have been only three massive volcanic eruptions that stood out in the minds of humans today, and probably even for those who lived at the time they occurred depending on where humans were located.

One of them was not officially recorded by humans as it occurred 75,000 years ago — too early for writing to have been invented. This was the Toba volcanic eruption in Indonesia considered the biggest as far as scientists are aware of. The size of this eruption was so massive that it caused a global volcanic winter lasting anywhere between 6 to 10 years, and kept the planet cooler than expected for another 1,000 years. This was an event that could have put an end to the human species and perhaps allowed another hominid species to evolve and take our place.

The second volcanic eruption, and considered the biggest in the last 10,000 years, occurred on the island of Santorini. The hapless Minoan civilisation took a massive gamble to live on the island nearly 3,500 years ago thanks to its relatively fertile soils and close range to major trading partners. Unfortunately the gamble did not pay off. Things took a turn for the worse when the volcano erupted abruptly and almost without warning. It would appear from the archaeological evidence that few, if any, people had an opportunity to escape this cataclysmic event. The only mention of such an event was more indirect and can be seen in the Bible after the story-teller gave some vivid accounts of certain disasters that took place in Egypt within a matter of a couple of days of the eruption.

If we think the Bible is a dubious source of historical information, then the only other volcanic eruption that was recorded with certainty and in a direct sense is the one that occurred on 15 April 1815. The aftermath of this explosion can be seen today as a 2,850 metre high (it was originally 4,300 metres) mountain topped with a large 6km wide caldera, known today as Mount Tambora (or Mount Tamboro). This one is also located in the same volcanic hotspot country of Indonesia.

There was one other relatively massive volcanic eruption that took place in recent times. Getting its more than fair share of volcanoes, Indonesia also gave the world another almighty bang from a place called Krakatoa in 1883, located in the Sunda Strait between the islands of Java and Sumatra in the Indonesian province of Lampung. The resultant explosion blew apart the small island, leaving behind its own large caldera to almost rival that of Mount Tambora.

YEARS AGO

In the mid-1800s, we had another "enlightened" male individual named Mikao Usui in Japan who decided to not only practice martial arts but later entered a Zen monastery to study the ancient texts of Buddhism known as the Sutras. It is here that he noticed the healing practices of an ancient religion called Reiki or Usui Shikiu Reiki Ryoho. Still unsure of the effectiveness of the practices, at some point in his life, Usui made the climb to the sacred Mount Kurama to fast and meditate for 21 days. As a way of counting the number of days, Usui collected 21 stones.

Then, something unusual happened after he threw the last stone. It is claimed a "brilliant light" approached Usui as he was meditating. He felt an energy came over him and had intense feelings of well being. He then saw certain symbols and methods of Reiki which gave him confidence he was on the right track with Reiki before he lost consciousness.

He eventually awakened and realised he had received what he described as the power to heal.

As healing is a form of love, today the religion of Reiki continues as a handful of Reiki leaders attempt to re-kindle the positive side of the ever-flowing light energy of the universe as a healing method (most probably electromagnetic radiation concentrated by our bodies and emitted usually through the hands to produce a sense of warmth, and so opening up blood vessels and helping to enhance the healing process within living tissue). It also teaches the importance of the principle of love during the healing process (perhaps by getting the body to emit the right hormones and other biochemicals for raising the immune system response to fighting infections).

Or exercising and massaging the tissues regularly can probably generate the same level of warmth, extra blood flow, and hormones to help with the healing process?

It is interesting to see these stories of men who once lived a rich and/or comfortable lifestyle and later changed to a more frugal and simpler life, learning some skills to heal, and after seeing the injustices and/or inequalities of modern society, try to do something to bring back balance. These are not unusual events in history. The question is, are we learning from these "enlightened" men and applying them in modern society to ensure all problems are solved? Or do we need an "enlightened" woman this time to sort things out? We hope humans won't need to go that far.

Or else you can be sure God will find a solution. Why not throw down an asteroid or two on Earth and then maybe people will quickly get their priorities right?

Then again, with the way the planet is warming up and too many people are living and becoming excessively profit-motivated, perhaps God will not have to do anything. We will solve our own problems in a way that ensures we are no longer around on this planet.

Let us hope there is time for humans to do the right thing.

YEARS AGO

The possibility that something alien could be travelling around in the skies of Earth inside glowing symmetrical flying objects surrounded by a cloud on occasions especially during the time of Moses may have returned. Although such objects have been observed throughout history, a greater number of sightings began to get reported at a time when humans developed primitive balloons and airship technologies in the late 19th century to help lift people off the ground. It is possible people might be misinterpreting UFOs as man-made balloons, but sightings of fast-moving (often against the wind) glowing disks started to emerge and get reported in some newspapers (around 1890s).

The flying objects would reappear towards the end of World War II. Very little details could be discerned other than as bright glowing objects chasing or tailing the aircrafts of American and other allied forces in the daytime. During the time they appeared, pilots called them foo-fighters, only to move away and reappear again in northern Europe where they would act like mysterious rockets coming down from the sky. In Sweden, you will find a handful of interesting UFO reports showing a more close up view of these unusual-shaped objects. They would disappear and concentrate their presence in the lower south-western corner of the United States where a lot of the testing of new aircraft, the first atomic bomb, and other military and scientific activities were taking place.

About two years after World War II, sightings of unusual symmetrical flying objects proliferated in the United States and other developed nations. What makes this period more interesting is the level of detail in the UFOs. Indeed, people were reporting quite specific features and characteristics relating to these objects and not seen in man-made aircraft. And they were looking decidedly artificial and real. The most logical and rational explanations for these uninvited visitors by scientists were based on what was familiar and known at the time, which was mainly either secret U.S. military experiments or natural phenomena. And if the observations are a little too unusual, why not categorize them as hallucinations or hoaxes?. Much easier to solve the problem using these rational explanations while the more unusual and close-range UFOs have no logical solution in the eyes of most scientists as yet.

However, the USAF was finding unusual UFO reports of "electromagnetic disturbances" involving "radiation" and "induction fields". Something that the first Project Blue Book director, Captain Edward James Ruppelt (1923 - 1960) remembered and wrote about in his 1955 book, Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. So for some people investigating these objects, it wasn't a straightforward "find a natural or man-made explanation and be done with it" kind of scenario. Rather, something else was going on.

Whatever some of the more unusual close-range UFOs were meant to be, the rapid technological developments in the U.S. would become a prime focus for a series of intense UFO waves between 1947 and 1964, including a remarkable event in New Mexico of something symmetrical in shape flying in the air and dropping pieces of a super-tough shape-memory titanium-based alloy (of a purity that could not be manufactured to any reasonable quantity in 1947 and 1948 by anyone on Earth) from its outer hull, and eventually crashing in New Mexico together with unusually small and very thin bodies and large heads on the night of 2-3 July 1947. Since the event occurred, the USAF and Army have done everything possible to cover it up to this day, but not perfectly as we will discover. The efforts to maintain secrecy would include a complete denial of the existence of UFOs (there can be only a natural or man-made explanation even if more scientists in the 21st century are coming around to the view that there must be life, and intelligent and technological as well, in the universe). Never would the military like to see the possibility of aliens, let alone anything to suggest the UFO reports could advance science , such as the potential to reveal a new electromagnetic technology. Yet despite such efforts, more and more cracks in the cover up would emerge as people continue to report them, and the UFO observations get more closely analysed with some scientists discovering important discrepancies in the official explanation given by the USAF (the people responsible for allegedly recovering and analysing the original crashed disk materials and bodies, as well as looking at the UFO reports in Project Blue Book and other taxpayer-funded investigations).

YEARS AGO

On 30 June 1908, an object was seen hurtling from space at approximately 7.15am. The object entered the Earth's atmosphere and turned into a bluish-white ball of fire as it raced across the summer sky, leaving behind it a trail of multicoloured smoke. Soon afterwards, at 7.17am (Siberian time), it exploded at an altitude of 16 kilometres above the ground with a blinding flash of light and releasing the energy of a thousand Hiroshima atomic bombs in a desolate region near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River, in remote central Siberia.

As a result of the massive explosion, over 3000 square kilometres of pine forests ignited and continued burning for days, ferocious winds rattled doors and windows of people's homes and 600 kilometres from the epicentre, and tremors were recorded at Irkutsk's seismographic centre nearly 900 kilometres to the south. The explosion was of such tremendous proportions that almost all trees within a radius of 64 kilometres around the blast site (approximately 80 million trees) were flattened outwards like match sticks.

The accompanying thunderclaps could be heard up to a distance of 80 kilometres. Dirt and burnt debris was sucked-up and thrown 20 kilometres above the Tunguska region to fall as a shower of 'black rain' within 24 hours. Massive glowing silvery clouds suddenly appeared over northern Europe and Siberia, which became so bright during the next few nights that in some places it was possible to read a book at midnight without the aid of artificial lights. When Russian scientists finally investigated this remote and mostly uninhabited area notably Leonard Kulik, a mineralogist nearly 20 years later, no crater or meteor rock was found.

Further discussions with witnesses near the scene of the explosion reported a blinding flash, expanding shock waves, black rain of debris, and an apparently mushroom-shaped cloud formed immediately after the blast. This made some scientists think that perhaps it was a nuclear explosion of some sort. However measurements of radioactivity in the Tunguska soil using sensitive equipment were performed some fifty years after the incident. Scientists found little signs of radiation. The only that could be found was radioactive caesium-137 traced in much higher quantities than normal in the inner rings of living trees that would coincide with the 1908 explosion. Consequently, some people have proposed that a nuclear-powered spaceship went out of control and crashed in this sparsely-populated area of swamps and forests.

Today scientists have opted for a natural explanation: that an icy comet fragment (or possibly a small asteroid covered with ice) previously lost in the glare of the Sun weighing between 100,000 to more than a million tons, and measuring up to 70 metres across, collided with the Earth at a speed of perhaps 100,000 kilometres per hour, leaving no trace of itself after impact. Or if it was a rocky asteroid, the size would be about 10 metres across.

Whatever it was, scientists are confident it was of natural causes.

to YEARS AGO

Conflict between nations in Europe culminated with the advent of World War I from 1914 to 1918. The war’s immediate spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in June 1914. This event triggered a chain reaction among the major powers bound by alliances. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, prompting Russia to mobilize in defense of Serbia. Germany supported Austria-Hungary, while France and Britain aligned with Russia. Beneath this trigger lay deeper causes:

• Nationalism fueled tensions, especially in the Balkans.
• Militarism and arms races made war seem inevitable.
• Imperial rivalries between Britain, France, and Germany heightened competition.
• Alliance systems (Triple Alliance vs. Triple Entente) ensured that a local conflict escalated into a global war.

The war quickly spread across Europe and beyond, with battles fought in trenches on the Western Front and large campaigns in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. It became one of the deadliest conflicts in history, with over 20 million death.

By 1917, the United States entered the war, tipping the balance in favor of the Allies. Exhausted by years of fighting, Germany and its allies collapsed in 1918. The war formally ended with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which imposed heavy reparations and territorial losses on Germany.

People would naively describe World War I as "the war to end all wars". We now know this to be untrue. As if we have not learned anything about setting a brighter future for generations to come in all nations, World War II began in the 1930s among essentially the same nations (e.g. Germany, France, the UK, Australia and Russia) with assistance from the United States at a late stage (the attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii by the Japanese got the Americans involved) over what was believed to be economic hardship placed on Germany by European nations after the previous world war and how a German leader emerged with delusional ideas of turning his nation into the greatest on Earth at the expense of other nations and a willingness to invade other nations to achieve this goal.

YEARS AGO

Albert Einstein completes his most ambitious theory yet. Expanding on his Special and General Theory of Relativity linking mass (and the gravitational field), time and length with speed and acceleration, he finished off his work with a look at how the electromagnetic field affects the gravitational field (which in turn affects mass and all the other factors covered in the special theory of relativity). Without giving away too much, it would appear Einstein had realised that the oscillating electromagnetic field (or radiation) not only creates the gravitational field, but may, in fact, be the gravitational field. If the latter is true, we probably live in a purely electromagnetic universe ruled by radiation. Radiation is likely to be the only fundamental force of nature to look at. All other forces of nature is expected to have an electromagnetic explanation.

Even though Einstein kept his unified field idea quiet, we learn in by 1943 of the U.S. Navy's interest in rendering a ship invisible using several large degaussing devices to generate a powerful pulsing magnetic field in resonance (i.e., radiation). The aim was to create a powerful gravitational field to bend the light from the ship back on itself and allow other light to bend around it in order to allow an observer to see what is behind the ship. Unfortunately, without adequate protection to the sailors involved (whoever they are, as no names were ever revealed) in the experiment through the use of skintight metal suits to dissipate the extra current, heat generated by the current (on belt buckles, watches, and other metal instruments and tools), and interruptions to electrical brain activity in the frontal lobes of the sailors, many were burned or suffered mental disorders. On seeing the adverse biological effects, the secret project was allegedly abandoned.

The concept of an oscillating electromagnetic field having a link with the gravitational field would make a come back in the 1950s when the USAF started to understand the electromagnetic propulsion system of at least one recovered crashed disk from the late 1940s.

YEARS AGO

Another man emerges into the world with, yet again, the same realisation as some other broader-thinking male leaders in the past of how important the principle of love is in solving world problems and why we should focus more on the spiritual adventure aspect of our lives rather than our constant obsession with the materialistic universe and using it to be rich and powerful. He was born in India. Many years of personal experience and in watching the oppressed people in his nation get controlled under British rule in India, not to mention the considerable time he had to think about the issues of the day, allowed him to develop the necessary personal moral behaviours and discipline based on the principle of love which he believed would help his people to solve their problems at the time.

His name would be Mahatma Ghandi. A quietly-spokened eccentric character with a unique way of dealing with the repressive and profit-focused British authorities in his time. Of interest in this regard is his propensity to make things very expensive, socially embarrassing, and difficult for the British elites to handle the sheer numbers of Ghandi supporters as well as the man himself even when he was sent to prison. He was also media savvy to the point of showing the worse side of the British authorities during a time when it seemed the British empire was fixated on protecting its acquired wealth and maintaining control of India, and trying to create the perception that everything is fine and under control. Yet the reality has no where near what the authorities had hoped, at least not in the country of India.

For British citizens occupying foreign lands, there was this view of unlimited resources to acquire and sell and so benefit from the power of economics as a means of getting rich. Such a financial goal and the chance to live an easy life had allured many British males at the time. For a while this view looked as though it would continue to march on unimpeded as if there is no tomorrow no matter what could be happening to the environment and to other people. The power of love was not going to stop this kind of thinking. It would take World War II to nearly bankrupt the British Government to eventually force the authorities to let go of India and allow this nation to become independent and so fulfilling a lifelong dream Ghandi had for his homeland.

However, the religious tensions between Muslim and Hindu people in India escalated. There was a separation of old India into a new India and Pakistan (the new and secure home for Muslim people). The dividing of old India was not to Ghandi's liking. He continued to fight for equality, this time among the Muslims living in India. Unfortunately, this ended up being too much for one Indian man who felt strongly against the Muslims, and it was enough to see Ghandi get assassinated by this misguided individual.

People still have not learned the principle of love.

When will we finally learn?

YEARS AGO

According to witnesses at the time of the incident, a strange symmetrical glowing object allegedly flew over the city of Roswell in the late evening of 2–3 July 1947. It was said to be heading in the direction of a large thunderstorm that was sweeping over New Mexico.

A couple of hours later, an odd explosion was heard by a rancher named William Brazel in the midst of numerous lightning strikes over one particular area of the desert. It sounded like something was attracting those lightning strikes before it all suddenly died down immediately after the explosion.

As can be gleaned from the testimonial evidence, unusual wreckage was discovered the next morning in the direction of the odd explosion by the rancher (and observed by a young boy from a neighbouring rancher's family while sitting on his horse and watching the rancher inspect the materials). As the rancher could see and touched, he noticed a shape-memory dark-greyish metal foil (the most abundant material), an unbreakable and thin plastic parchment sheet that he could not burn with his cigarette lighter, and a number of semi-flexible and unburnable plastic beams with strange symbols on them. Again these beams showed the same unbreakable quality that would astound even his own experiences of man-made materials, and yet it was clear to him that something had stressed these unusually tough and unimaginably lightweight beams to beyond normal tolerances. Did the lightning strikes somehow played a pivotal role in all this damage? The rancher was not entirely sure, However, the thing that did get him excited the most was the plastic sheet pieces. Not being able to burn and break them for something so lightweight and extremely thin was nothing he had ever seen.

Based on a general inspection of the site and what we know from eyewitness testimony of the UFO heading in the direction of the thundercloud, it would appear that, just prior to the explosion, the object had changed course to a west to north-westerly direction and was accelerating away to avoid the thunderstorm. Unfortunately, whoever or whatever flew the object had made the wrong decision to increase power causing one of the lightning bolts to hit the outer surface of the object (probably closer to the back end where the extra energy to propel the object would be found). Whatever it was on the surface of the object to attract the lightning bolt, the object incredibly remained in the air despite sustaining significant damage as it flew at high speeds to get away from the thunderstorm, according to an expert military airman sent to investigate the debris field and noticing the distinctive pattern left behind by the materials on the ground when it was dropped from a height (it probably flew not too high above the ground, but was travelling at high speeds). Numerous highly tough, high-temperature resistant, and extremely lightweight materials were stressed beyond normal limits, resulting in a shattering and tearing apart of the materials into a great quantity of smaller pieces. The most abundant of the pieces came from the outer hull (where the most damage occurred) made of a dark grey metal foil, followed by a breach of the interior symmetrical metal compartment for protecting instruments and possibly some people inside. A thin plastic sheet acting as an insulator between the compartment and outer hull as well as some structural plastic I-beams to give this artificial object extra strength and rigidity were broken and torn apart. The shattered materials were blown out by the internal pressure of the cabin. When combined with the lightning bolt that initially tore through the flying object, the materials fell to the ground in a fan-shaped pattern, with most of the materials concentrated at the narrowest end and spreading out to over 600 metres from ground zero of the explosion, showing the object remained in the air and flew very fast as it tried to get away from the thunderstorm. If the object attempted to accelerate away from the area, it was a bad decision.

Whatever it was that flew and dropped a significant amount of materials on the ground, the rancher eventually went to Roswell to notify the authorities. He carried two boxes containing the materials to support his observations and showed them to the local sheriff, George Wilcox. Even when armed with the materials to show the city sheriff, and later an experienced military airman named Major Jesse Marcel sent from the Roswell Army Air Field to inspect the materials, everyone remained baffled by what kind of object had lost these pieces. Marcel was particularly disturbed by the materials. Despite his complete knowledge of every conceivable and known man-made flying object and the type of materials used to construct them, he could not find an explanation for what flew over the rancher's property. Not even the materials themselves looked familiar. Of particular interest, and which intrigued the military official the most, was the shape-memory metal foil pieces.

Marcel returned to base with one of two boxes of the materials to show to his commanding officer. He even showed the shape-memory effect of the foil. Not much help from his boss. He too was stumped to find an explanation, and surprised by the properties of these materials. So the boss decided he would send this military airmen with his experience in flying objects and a colleague to check on the crash location and carry as much of the material back to the base. Another USAF representative later visited the Sheriff's office to collect the second box brought in by the rancher.

A whole day was spent by Marcel and his colleague, Sheridan Cavitt, looking at the materials scattered on the local rancher's property and collecting as much as possible and as far as they could walk, They were left scratching their heads about the nature of the mysterious object. Apart from working out the direction the object flew but could not notice any complete machine or object on the ground as far as the eye could see in the distance, the only thing they could do was carry as much as they could to the base in two vehicles and later told the commanding officer more of the materials still remained.

A group of military personnel in several trucks was assembled and sent to the wreckage site. The soldiers carefully combed the area. Some of the men traveled further along the route allegedly taken by the flying object to a point approximately 30 kilometres from the initial explosion site. It is here where some men made a startling discovery: bodies had been found, and they were small and unusual looking individuals. Investigators later learned that potentially up to three small bodies were recovered, all of which appeared deceased (one was badly burned, another was partially burned, and a third showed no obvious signs of injury but seem to have fell out of the "craft" in an unconscious or deceased state).

It was at this point that things began to get very secretive at the Roswell air base, as one reporter had noticed when he tried to arrive at the site of the recovery operation but was promptly taken away by the military. This reporter was held at the base against his will but overhead some of the people talking about what was happening. Given the reaction and quiet discussions taking place among some of the military personnel, the reporter realised some bodies were found on the rancher's property. Excited by the possibility of "little green men" being picked up, he secretly used a phone on a table nearby to make a call to his radio station to let them know about the discovery. But suddenly the person on the radio station's teletype machine getting ready to prepare the scoop for a news story was cut short by a call from an unknown person in Washington, D.C., requesting a complete cessation of the news item. As for the reporter at the base, news arrived to inform military personnel of what was happening. The call ended abruptly and the reporter was taken aside for a firm rebuke and threatened with his life and those of his family if he spoke out about what he had heard. Since then, he remained quiet on the matter.

As for the rest of the object, it is claimed a civil engineer and some archaeologists and students came upon the object and additional bodies some 200 kilometres to the west. All this happened presumably on the same morning that the rancher first discovered his unusual debris. Why this belief? The things that were linking the two, apart from the unusual bodies, is the dark-greyish metal skin found on the disk, and the civil engineer's mention of having seen the disk sometime in the summer of 1947. H didn't want to be too precise in case he might get into trouble with the U.S. government. In terms of the metal foil making up the hull of the disc-shaped object, it was described as a "dirty stainless steel" material by the civil engineer. Dirty in the sense that it was like the metal had a thin film of black grease spread evenly over the surface to make the metal look darker, yet there was no grease to account for this darker colour. It looked clean and smooth on the outside. The colour would not be too dissimilar to the metal lead (or perhaps tinfoil) if not a bit more darker, but certainly not bright silvery in colour. It was definitely not aluminium. This darker appearance of the metal on the disc-shaped object is highly reminiscent of the dark-grey foil found at the rancher's property with its distinctive shape-memory effect and extreme toughness. Is this the disk that dropped dark-grey metal foil and other debris over the rancher's property?

On closer examination of the object, it would appear that it had been ripped open, either by impact with the ground or from an explosion, but it was hard to tell just by looking at the object. A number of bodies could be observed lying around outside of it as if the object had made a solid impact with the ground with the intent of killing all the crew members, or perhaps that was the way it turned out while the object flew at high speed into the ground. The interesting thing about the impact was how there was hardly any pieces of the object separated from the main body as if the materials were indeed very tough. Clearly something had opened up the object even if it had not lost pieces on hitting the ground. Everything about the object remained reasonably intact except for the obvious rip. At any rate, a few other people arrived claiming to be part of a university archaeological team. They too had noticed reflections off the metal object in the early morning sun at a distance thinking a plane had crashed. The main focus for everyone present at the crash site were on the bodies themselves. Just as the civil engineer did, they all looked intently at the bodies. What caught the eyes of everyone present was the unusual looking nature of the bodies in the sense that their heads were quite large compared to their short and unusually thin bodies. A one-piece dark-grey skin-tight suit was worn by all the dead crew members with no signs of different genders. Not seeing any breasts or any other feminine features in the crew member's faces, the civil engineer naturally assumed they were all "male". No buttons, zippers or other sharp-edged objects can be seen attached to the suits. There was something about the bodies that made them look too real to be dummies given the length of time spent by all the witnesses to observe the bodies (no one made an effort to look inside the object and test the materials). Were they hoping to find a survivor? Not likely after a short while of observing. They were too transfixed by the sight of these unusual bodies. It seemed the unusual appearance of the dead crew members and looking too realistic had made them wonder who or what these people were that had died.

Not long after, a group of U.S. Army military vehicles, including a truck, came up and started to cordon off the area. The civilian witnesses were told in no uncertain terms to forget what they saw and, as part of their patriotic duty, to never mention it to another soul. There was mention of the possibility of a secret military experiment, or so the civilians were told. However, to the witnesses who heard this claim, it was unlikely to be man-made and owned by the military after looking at the bodies in great detail. Without a thorough explanation of who or what the crew members were, they had no choice but to comply with the request from the military. They all had to leave the area with haste.

The archaeological team appeared to have kept quiet, and to a certain extent so did the civil engineer. However, the engineer was already an old man and knew he would not be around for much longer. To protect himself, he mentioned what he saw to his closest friends and his employer and asked them not to repeat it while he was alive. And he also did not give a precise date when it happened other than it occurred in the summer of 1947. Beyond that, the friends and employer could not give an explanation as to why he would mention his unusual experience other than it had to be real event given how serious he spoke of his discovery.

All the materials at the rancher's property and presumably the disc itself and bodies were sent to Wright-Patterson AFB for scientific analysis. Later, the materials and bodies would be sent to a more secret location for further analysis. During the initial analysis of the Roswell foil, we learn the first attempt by the USAF to seek outside scientific assistance to understand one titanium-based shape-memory alloy of dark-grey appearance known as NiTi. Together with examples of other more bright silvery-coloured titanium-based shape-memory alloys, such as ZrTi, it looks as though the USAF had discovered a new shape-memory alloy and didn't want to advertise this fact with scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI). Instead, the USAF needed help to purify titanium to a much higher level in order to reveal certain physical properties (a fact needed to reveal the shape-memory effect in NiTi and other titanium-based alloys), and for the BMI to supply highly pure samples of NiTi in the titanium-rich end of the alloy's composition and at different temperatures due to the limited information on the crystalline structure in this range.

NiTi, or any NiTiX (where X is one or more chemical elements added to NiTi and not more than 3 per cent in total to help enhance certain engineering properties), is distinctly dark-greyish just like the original Roswell foil. Could the Roswell foil be NiTi or NiTiX?

Did any president learn about the event and seen the original materials and bodies?

There are indications that President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a personal glimpse of the evidence during a secret trip he made one night with assistance from the CIA and the military. But that was believed to be the last time any president would get the privilege to see what was recovered. Rumours have it that his reaction to the materials and bodies was enough for him to visit the church the next day (not something the president was noted of doing on a regular basis) and never spoke again of what he saw. Since then, the CIA has chosen to go at it alone by not telling other U.S. presidents of the discovery.

Only one president posed the biggest security risk for the CIA and the U.S. military (i.e., the USAF) when he wrote a UFO memo on 12 November 1963 to the CIA director. There is rumour that he had a private viewing of the Roswell object and bodies. Because of this knowledge and his willingness to get to the truth and potentially expose the UFO evidence using his position of power thanks to his revealing memo, ten days later the president was assassinated. The memo was never enacted and pursued. The UFO problem was solved and the public would remain in the dark of what the USAF and CIA knows about UFOs.

We will learn more later about what happened to this president.

7 JULY 1947

On 7 July 1947, Lieutenant General Nathan Twining suddenly changed his travel plans to attend a matter of utmost importance in New Mexico. This is confirmed by a 17 July 1947 letter from Twining to Mr Eric Schaefer of the Boeing Airplane Company, as well as directly by the Air Force which has since downplayed the event as a "routine visit".

Following the visit, a document from Twining dated July 15th, 1947, has provided details of a preliminary examination of a flying disc recovered in New Mexico. The report explained some of the internal aspects of the disc and the electromagnetic effects the disc could perform, such as:

• "…the craft itself comprises the propulsion system…"
• "…the reactor to function as a heat exchanger and permitting the storage of energy into a substance for later use…"
• "…storage battery…"
• "…no moving parts discernible within the power room…"
• "…The activation of an electrical potential is believed to be the primary power to the reactor…"
• "…the air outside would be…ionized…"
• "…Crew compartments were hermetically sealed via a solidification process…"
• "…No weld marks, rivets or soldered joints…"
• "…craft components appear to be molded and pressed into perfect fit…"

The choice of words in the document are interesting in the sense that they strongly indicate some kind of electromagnetic technology associated with the recovered disc. In particular, we are dealing with a "craft" that generates a high electrical potential (or voltage/charge), can store the energy in a battery or some kind of storage unit and used elsewhere, resulting in some ionisation of the air when in operation, no moving parts are involved in generating the charge and moving the object, and everything has to be designed to avoid electrical sparks from taking place around sharp points and edges, as if a high amount of charge was being used on its external surface for some unspecified purpose. No further information could be gleaned at this early stage of the investigation into the mystery flying object.

MARCH 1948

Not long after witnesses had observed a new shape-memory metal and other odd materials near Roswell, the USAF showed considerable and unexpected interest in the manufacture of a new titanium-based (the principal element of sudden interest to the USAF after the event and the ones to request new technology to increase the purity of titanium alloys) dark-grey alloy known as nitinol immediately after 1947 (i.e., in 1948) with assistance from scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute in Ohio. However, the shape-memory effect of this alloy was not detected by the scientific community until after 1958, and since then the world of shape-memory alloys officially began in various nations.

Together with the unusual bodies, it would appear that the U.S. military had quickly realised the importance of the find and have decided (initially for fear of creating a mass panic) to keep it a secret.

The reason for doing so can be understood by looking at our history and the way the public would react toward anything weird reaching the Earth. At first the U.S. military generals, intelligence chiefs and U.S. President Harry S. Truman were deciding behind closed doors whether or not to reveal the truth to the public according to several documents released under U.S. FoI and interviews by UFO investigators with several retired top military brass willing to state on the record what had happened. However, as soon as evidence of panic and social chaos emerged from events such as the CBS radio broadcast of Orson Welles War of the Worlds, Truman decided it was in the best interest of his people and the rest of the world to maintain secrecy at all costs.

The original Roswell materials, including the shape-memory foil, were sent for analysis at Wright-Patterson AFB. This is the place where nitinol was first studied in pure form immediately after 1947 with assistance from Battelle scientists as revealed in recently declassified USAF/Battelle reports written at this time at the request of the USAF at Wright-Patterson AFB, and by Dr John P. Nielsen of Phillip Laboratories (part of the USAF) who later became full professor in metallurgy at New York University so he could do his research on NiTi using the newly acquired vacuum furnace invented by BMI and used to create highly pure alloy samples starting in late 1947 (when the university re-opened after the summer holidays to start a new teaching year).

Not long after this, much of the original materials were moved to another more secret location. Some scientific reports from the period may exist in secret vaults held at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, but it would take a major Congressional hearing and a courageous U.S. President to order the vaults open for public scrutiny and force the USAF to reveal the evidence they have kept of this momentous event.

NOVEMBER 1950

The first the public learns of an electromagnetic technology in UFOs comes from an anonymous "magnetic science expert" mentioned in Frank Scully’s Behind the Flying Saucers in 1950. Apart from operating on electromagnetic principles (the exact process remained unknown but suggestions of working with magnetic fields to derive some of its energy was mentioned), it was claimed by the scientist that the flying disc was constructed to follow these principles, such as:

• The very smooth outer metal surface.
• Any separate metal components on the exterior must touch and provide a perfect fit to other external metal components.

In other words, there were no sharp edges or points on the outside of the disc. Portholes and the door were set flush and smooth. When the door closed, you could no longer see where the door was as it simply became part of the exterior hull as needed to hide any sharp edges. This latter observation has been noted of other UFO reports, in particular, the world famous Antonio Villas Boas UFO abduction case in which he observed looking back from inside the UFO how the door seemed to merge perfectly with the wall to reveal no gaps or edges to show where the door was. And in the Alfred Burtoo UFO abduction case, the corners of the door was rounded, and a rubber-like black material was used as a flooring inside the object.

Then there are the electromagnetic effects when the flying disc was in operation. The scientist mentioned a few of them. Such effects are not an unheard of situation for numerous genuine UFO reports from people worldwide.

DECEMBER 1950

Canadian radio engineer Dr Wilbert Smith of the Department of Transport in Ottawa, noticed the electromagnetic nature of UFOs in a number of UFO reports. After reading Scully’s book, Behind the Flying Saucers and noticing the link of alleged crashed disks in the United States to electromagnetism, he recommended a study into UFOs to his government. The Canadian government agreed. The project commenced in December 1950, and went under the auspicious name of "Project Magnet".

The aim of the study was to find the electromagnetic principles that might be employed by UFOs and why. Part of the work also involved setting up instruments in a wooden hut to measure electromagnetic and gravitational fields of UFOs as they flew within range.

Even though one significant reading on all instruments was measured on the afternoon of 8 August 1954 during a foggy day showing that something had flown overhead, behind the scenes the U.S. government heard about the project and felt it was necessary to "encourage" the Canadian authorities not to pursue the project for some unspecified reason. Officially, the Canadian government claimed it was nothing unusual, but Smith believes his work was probably embarrassing his government as certain people were made to believe UFOs were nonsense.

Since then, Smith continued working privately. Before he died in 1960, the results of the measurements made on the instruments when the mystery object flew overhead convinced him of a connection between the gravitational field (i.e. gravimeter measuring the strength of this field) and the electromagnetic field (using a compass and other instruments). All the instruments went off simultaneously when the mystery object flew overhead, and no ordinary aircraft could have been responsible. He wrote a 3-page paper trying to establish what this link is as a final legacy of his work, and his best understanding of UFOs at the time.

1951-1959

Happy to talk the walk to the Canadians in not pursuing projects into UFOs and the electromagnetic connection, the U.S. government would do the opposite by instigating major secret projects into advanced and controversial electromagnetic concepts in the 1950s.

Picked up by one newspaper and published in a page 1 spread for the public to learn about in January 1955, the projects of interest to the USAF at the time included Albert Einstein’s Unified Field Theory linking gravity with the electromagnetic field. By 1959, two researchers from the USAF investigated the highly controversial concept of classical electrodynamics known as the "radiation reaction force". This is the concept that looks at charged objects emitting radiation and how the mathematical solution reveals an astonishing exponential acceleration effect. Soon after this work, the interest in electromagnetism suddenly went quiet. The 1960s was the time for the USAF to issue some secret contracts to selected American aircraft companies to develop anti-gravity devices based on whatever the USAF had understood gravity to be following their work to understand Einstein's Unified Field Theory. By 1974, the contracts ended and the USAF was confident to go ahead with the work on its own. By December 1980, the USAF (with assistance from the U.S. Army's Chinook 47 black helicopters to help with transport should any malfunction take place) tested a new EM aircraft and allowed three American witnesses to observe the object at close range just before single-rotor and double-rotor Chinook 47 black helicopters arrived to escort the diamond-shaped UFO away from the area. It was not without leaving some evidence behind of its existence with Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and her son Colby receiving various degrees of radiation poisoning caused by the electrons on the outer charged surface of the UFO streaming off at high speeds and striking the stainless steel car body, causing ionizing x-rays to be emitted as the witnesses stood outside their car. After successfully avoiding responsibility in the incident by claiming to a U.S. court of no knowledge of the UFO and military test (and hence no compensation given by the U.S. government for the injuries suffered by the civilians), the USAF ran off to a secret location in the Nevada desert known famously as Area 51. Here, the USAF hoped to secretly test more examples of EM aircraft technology away from the prying eyes of the American public. But for how much longer can the USAF cover its backside on this secret "EM aircraft" project? What exactly has the USAF managed to achieve after all this work?

Outside of the USAF, we see the civilian world is a little slow off the mark to understand certain concepts and realise the true situation with UFOs (with many people choosing to take the easy route of denying UFOs exist or certainly not anything new we can learn from, let alone something alien visiting our planet). Indeed, while physicists continue to debate the reality of this type of acceleration of a charged particle emitting radiation to this day (as well as the link between the gravitational and electromagnetic field), we see that Thomas Townsend Brown, an American physicist and inventor, was one of the few people on the planet to get close to working out how UFOs move in the air through his patented asymmetric capacitor. He called his capacitor an electrokinetic device (in the latter stages to help get approval for some U.S. patents), or an electrogravitic device (a term used in the earliest patents, including one from the United Kingdom showing Brown's belief in a link between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields in his device, and technically he is probably right, except he did not know an oscillating electromagnetic field generates a gravitational field, and hence he never realise his devices were emitting large-scale radiation to accelerate his devices). He was also the world's first person to observe an unusual acceleration of his device when given a sufficient high oscillating voltage and frequency, forcing him to reduce the voltage to prevent his device from flying away. It is here where the practical proof for the existence of exponential acceleration is expected to be found.

However, the inventor had not studied the Abraham-Lorentz formula to make him realise the importance of measuring the rate of acceleration to determine whether this is a non-linear or linear pattern. Instead, he focused on trying to gain interest from investors in the United States, and wanted to learn more about how to prove this link between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Over the many years, he faced many setbacks when it came to trying to convince others of a new technology through his devices due to appreciable way his devices moved. Occasional break-ins of his laboratory and damaging his equipment did not help his situation. The continual denial and property damage was almost like someone in the United States knew the importance of his work, but did not want him to succeed or discover something else about his devices. With no support from the U.S. government, and no satisfactory explanation for why his device moved (other than some people claiming it could have something to do with the flow of ionised air over the capacitor's electrodes), he was never able to complete his work and solve the UFO mystery before his death on 27 October 1985.

The bad luck also reached Professor Morris Ketchum Jessup (1900-1959), who was found dead in his car under suspicious circumstances in 1959. He too was another person close to working out the secret of how UFOs worked. At the time, and with a Master of Science Degree in astronomy obtained in 1926 and lecturing at the University of Michigan and Drake University, Jessup was on the verge of discovering the secret behind Einstein’s Unified Field Theory, and with it an insight into how UFOs move. Indeed, the secret could help to explain the exponential acceleration of charged objects emitting radiation.

As Dr J. Manson Valentine remembered from his discussions with his colleague Jessup in 1959:

"An electric field created in a coil induces a magnetic field at right angles to the first; each of these fields represent one plane of space. But since there are three planes of space, there must be a third field, perhaps a gravitational one. By hooking up electromagnetic generators so as to produce a magnetic pulse, it might be possible to produce this third field."

In other words, a pulsing magnetic field is just another way of saying we have an oscillating electromagnetic field, or radiation. Therefore, the concept behind Einstein’s Unified Field Theory is that radiation generates a gravitational field of its own. So when people talk about a link between the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field whenever Einstein's Unified Field Theory is mentioned, we are talking about an oscillating electromagnetic field. You need a time-varying electromagnetic field to generate its own gravitational field.

If we go back in history, we learn that it was the paradoxes arising out of light that got Albert Einstein pondering the true nature of radiation. At first it was the way radiation could eject electrons from a metal plate known as the photoelectric effect that started Einstein's quest to better understand the true nature of light. Back then, he proposed the photon concept in which light came in bundles of compressed energy called photons. But after he published his General Theory of Relativity in 1916 and saw the results of an experiment carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington in 1919, Einstein returned to the question of light.

To be more specific, Einstein wanted to know why radiation is able to move uncharged matter. Einstein saw this in Sir William Crookes' invention called a radiometer. Then he really got into radiation in a more serious way once he realised an experiment in 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington had proved Einstein's light bending effect does occur in the gravitational field of other objects of mass (e.g., the Sun). This is just like throwing a tennis ball and watching it fall to the ground. Light, or radiation, is not only acting as though it is ordinary matter, but it behaves in the presence of other matter of bending towards other objects as if it has a gravitational field of its own. So why leave out the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field? There is no way Einstein could see light as any different from ordinary matter. And what does ordinary matter possess? Obviously a gravitational field. It was enough for Einstein to make the bold decision in the 1920s to write his Unified Field Theory to help mathematically cement his idea that radiation does carry a gravitational field of its own.

Of course, all this is good and fine. But there was one more thing to keep Einstein pre-occupied for the rest of his life. It is to do with the true nature of the gravitational field. In fact, the only question remaining to be explained after publishing his Unified Field Theory in 1929 is, what is the gravitational field? Is the gravitational field controlled entirely by radiation? Or could there be other ways for solid matter to create a gravitational field with radiation merely contributing to this mysterious field?

Until a solution could be found to explain the true nature of the gravitational field and how it is created, here we have a practical application of Einstein's Unified Field Theory. The idea that people could render objects invisible using a pulsing magnetic field started to take shape.

But there is more. It wasn’t simply the fact that radiation could render objects invisible when immersed in this radiation using its own gravitational field as Jessup discovered about a so-called U.S. Navy’s secret experiment on invisibility. There were other implications, some of which relate to UFOs. For example, some of the ideas to start making the rounds in secret studies carried out by the USAF were as follows:

1. Gravity is likely to have an electromagnetic explanation according to the Unified Field Theory. Since the oscillating electromagnetic field generates its own gravitational field, the gravitational field itself that causes matter to clump together is likely to involve radiation pressure and the application of the radiation shielding effect of matter to lower the pressure over the inner surfaces of objects compared to the outer surfaces that receives the universal background radiation. Here we have a kind of "electronic rain from outer space" could be taking place to push solid matter together.
2. Radiation is the key to explaining how UFOs move, not just as a side-effect of the glowing regions revealed by these objects and how some witnesses receive burns and radiation poisoning, but an actual direct application of radiation for moving charged objects that somehow achieves significant acceleration.
3. There is a controversial area of electromagnetism involving charged objects emitting radiation predominantly in one direction. It reveals a disturbing mathematical solution supporting exponential acceleration. This is the kind of dramatic acceleration one needs to travel the stars very quickly and would allow biological entities to participate in the flights if they are clever enough to implement techniques to minimise inertial forces on the body at high acceleration. In fact, the way scientists must interpret the solution is the idea of recycling electromagnetic energy at sufficiently high energy density of the radiation. How high should the energy be to achieve this type of recycling of energy to help create exponential acceleration? Nobody knows as no scientist has ever carried out the experiment outside of any particle accelerator. However, the key to understanding how this can be achieved in reality and applied in a real-life flying technology seems to come down to what is contained in the radiation to make it recycle its energy. As some UFOs have been observed to render themselves invisible to the naked eye of witnesses, and we have seen at least one scientist learning about a pulsing magnetic field capable of rendering objects invisible when immersed in this high energy density of the radiation, scientists could be facing a situation where the gravitational field of the radiation could be helping UFOs to recycle its own emitted radiation for propulsion, which in turn leads to the dramatic acceleration rate shown by this famous radiation reaction force on a charged object. Indeed, the scientific interpretation of the "runaway" exponential solution of the Abraham-Lorentz formula is a recycling of the energy as the radiation bends back on itself and re-exerts its pressure again and again, with the charge recoiling each time. And as the charge accelerates "exponentially", it increases the energy density of the emitted radiation even further by this moving charge, making the next application of the force on the charge by radiation even stronger than before.

It is here, in the UFO scene, where someone had tried to leak information to Jessup to help him gain a proper understanding of the unified field concept and perhaps use it to explain how UFOs work (but was being extremely subtle about it by mentioning a so-called U.S. Navy project on invisibility).

Unfortunately for Jessup, he was not aware of the Abraham-Lorentz formula. He did not know about an unusual form of acceleration could be present for a charged object emitting radiation. All he knew was that a pulsing magnetic field was likely creating a gravitational field and somehow this was related to UFOs.

Could this be the reason for Jessup’s untimely death so soon after he had figured out the concept behind Einstein's Unified Field Theory and the U.S. Navy project on invisibility? And, was this concept the key to understanding how UFOs move so appreciably and showing unusual accelerations rates? If so, Jessup was getting too close to the truth about UFOs. The official explanation for his death was suicide, but some people disagreed saying certain people did want him to keep quiet and not pursue this line of questioning for whatever reason.

Maybe at last we can understand why.

4 AUGUST 1962

Hollywood actor and socialite Marilyn Monroe(6) (1926-1962) had her life abruptly cut short by certain people within the U.S. government (most likely the CIA) with help from a doctor and Robert Kennedy (who may or may not have been aware of a UFO connection) after learning a bit too much about UFOs (and specifically about the Roswell UFO crash of July 1947). Whether this is true or not depends on the veracity of a leaked CIA document discussing the results of a wire tap on Monroe’s phone, as well as the testimony of several key witnesses (including one who was willing to vouch for Monroe's secret relating to what she allegedly heard from her former lover and U.S. president John F. Kennedy) versus the official explanation given by the authorities at the time for her death on either August 4 or 5, 1962.

If we accept the official position, it would appear that Monroe was found dead on her bed at around 3:40am on Sunday, August 5, 1962. She had either accidentally overdosed on prescription sleeping pills, or she committed suicide (7). As the official and final coroner's report written by Thomas Noguchi, M.D. concluded (but not the original report before it was modified to support the suicide theory):

"Miss Monroe has suffered from psychiatric disturbance for a long time. On more than one occasion...when disappointed or depressed, she has made a suicide attempt."

The alternative version of events as they are emerging today is that Monroe died between 10:30 and 11:00pm on Saturday, August 4, 1962, because certain people (probably those from the CIA) wanted her dead to prevent her from revealing a certain secret in relation to the Roswell UFO case to the public.

So, what really happened to the famous Hollywood star? Was it murder, or suicide?

What we do know is that written letters have surfaced(8) confirming a number of secret affairs have taken place between Monroe and U.S. President John F. "Jack" Kennedy. Historians are in agreement that at least one sexual encounter definitely occurred on March 24, 1962, at a hotel in Palm Springs. However, the letters also suggest repeated encounters starting in February 1962, only to raise public suspicion of what might be going on between the two by May 19, thanks to her sexually provocative rendition televised nationally of the "Happy Birthday" song to the president. Afterwards, the president, who was still married to his wife Jackie, decided to end the relationship with Marilyn on July 16, 1962, fearing it could affect his career and marriage. Indeed, Jackie was the influential person who more or less told John to have it sorted very quickly or face consequences for their marriage. John did the right thing, and luckily this didn’t prove too difficult to do, as Monroe had become infatuated (9) and eventually had secret affairs with Kennedy’s younger brother, Robert Kennedy, who was the country’s attorney general at the time. But even after the affairs ended with John Kennedy, Monroe continued to attend social functions with the president right up to July 26, 1962 as confirmed by a confidential FBI memo.

The only tricky part in all of these affairs with Robert Kennedy is that Monroe was falling in love with him. This meant that any end to this relationship with him could turn out to be a much harder proposition for Monroe to handle. She could easily get upset and angry, as she may have felt like she was being used by Robert (and his brother) for his sexual gratification and that he never really loved her to begin with.

Perhaps a good enough reason to commit suicide?

However, the CIA document alludes to another possibility. One that is more disturbing.

The alleged CIA document first came to light in the spring of 1992 when security officer and private detective Tim Cooper allegedly received a poor-quality photocopy of the CIA memo from Thomas Cantwell, who Copper believed to be a former CIA employee. In 1994, Cooper sent a copy to another private detective Milo Speriglio, writing anonymously as "an unknown well-wisher". Speriglio passed away in 2000 at the age of 62 without commenting on the document. Mr Steven Greer reviewed Speriglio’s work and his vast collection of documents. He came across the anonymous "well-wisher" note attached to what was purportedly a genuine top-secret CIA document. Further investigation eventually led to an identification of the man who sent the document. However, in an attempt to avoid creating undue attention, Cooper sent an email on April 23, 2009, to UFO researcher Robert Hastings claiming the document is a fraud.

The only other indication that the document could be a fake is the appearance of the word "MJ-12".

In other leaked government documents mentioning MJ-12, many of them have been found to be fakes due to the type of typewriter used to create the documents (it was only available well after the alleged dates shown) as well as the obvious effort by someone to forge a presidential signature (it was photocopied from another document)(10). However not all MJ-12 documents are fake, such as the memo written by General Nathan Twining discussing an alleged examination of a flying disc recovered in New Mexico dated July 15, 1947. According to this memo, it claims that a preliminary examination of the main wreckage had revealed a disc-shaped object with various unusual internal components that appeared to serve some sort of unknown electromagnetic function to help move the disc during flight using high electrical potential. The memo also refers to the presence of large metal balls below the floor arranged in a symmetrical way and capable of moving into an asymmetrical configuration, as well as an unknown fluid moving around a torus-like component together with a coil at the center. On reading this memo, neither Twining’s son, Nathan Alexander Twining, Jr. (1933–2016) of Baltimore, nor his daughter, Olivia B. Twining (1935–2017) of San Antonio, Texas, have categorically denounced the document as fake. They believe the document supported their father’s claims of something artificial and foreign crashing in the New Mexico desert. Twining further vouched that all materials found at the crash site (together with bodies allegedly present at the scene) were closely examined at Wright-Patterson AFB before being moved to another undisclosed location. He made this confession only 6 weeks before his death, and had no reason not to be truthful with any of his revelations. Furthermore, an examination of the document’s construction showed no obvious signs of forgery using modern means of reproduction. The general consensus is that the typewriter used to create this document is consistent with state-of-the-art technology used by the military in 1947. Hence, this is one of the very few documents in the Majestic-12 bundle to be considered genuine.

The same is true of MJ-12. In other words, it need not be the case that an MJ-12 group had never existed in history. Apart from Cooper choosing (or being helped along) to change his mind when the MJ-12 group appeared in his document, there is virtually no other evidence to put this CIA document on Marilyn Monroe into the "fake" category at this stage. Not even the choice of typewriter used to create the document, which appears correct for the date shown.

Furthermore, the unusual chain of events surrounding Monroe's untimely death cannot be explained properly unless we consider Monroe did have a secret she was willing to share with the reporters after the weekend that could affect national security at the deepest level, and that the nature of this secret (although the exact details have never been revealed, including her diary that alleges to have kept the details) can be seen in the contents of this intriguing CIA document, not to mention the latest testimony from key and new witnesses who were present on the day of Monroe's death. For all intents and purposes, the document could potentially be genuine, especially considering the way Monroe kept mentioning a certain "earth-shattering" secret being kept in Washington, D.C. It is reasonably confident that such a secret had nothing to do with the secret love affairs of the Kennedys given that the public already had suspicions, and John Kennedy's wife told John to end any possible secret relationship with Monroe, and members of the public having seen Monroe and John Kennedy visiting a particular hotel.

Therefore, the real secret had to be relation to something else. Something more devastating.

Analysis of the CIA document dated Friday, August 3, 1962, suggests that not only was Monroe's phone wiretapped(11) for several months prior to her death following her earlier relationship with John Kennedy(12), but also Monroe told Howard Perry Rothberg, an antique dealer who also acted as a designer for the rich and famous in New York and a close associate of journalist Dorothy Kilgallen with insightful and reputable articles on UFOs to her name, that her diary contained sensitive secrets obtained from the president. Unbeknownst to both women at the time, the CIA also had allegedly wiretapped Kilgallen’s phone as if her efforts to get to the truth with UFOs was ruffling a few feathers for the CIA. If the CIA document is meant to be a fake, it must be a particularly good one considering one would expect the CIA to monitor Kilgallen. Her work on UFOs was already enlightening and showed an effort to reveal the truth, far more than most other researchers at the time. It just wouldn’t be proper for the CIA not to have a tab on her whereabouts, what she was doing, and who she was talking to. It makes the CIA document seem probable and realistic as if it could be a genuine document. What makes this document even more interesting is how, in the conversation between Kilgallen and Rothberg, the R word was mentioned in relation to the most famous crashed UFO in history. Given what we know of the continuing secrecy behind the Roswell case and the USAF’s lack of transparency in explaining the work it was doing in shape-memory alloys and the bodies that were found, we can be sure the Roswell case remains of utmost importance to the U.S. government. It would make sense, therefore, for any mention of Roswell to affect certain people in this government, especially the CIA. More a reason to wiretap Kilgallen's phone. But the CIA was not expecting Monroe to know more about UFOs than Kilgallen. The wiretap on Monroe's phone was probably just a precaution knowing her close connection to John Kennedy. But to learn that Monroe had a secret about UFOs and was willing to tell the media about it? Well, that sort of thing would be enough for the manure to hit the fan for certain people who knew the truth about Roswell. The only question is, could there be a way to stop Monroe from telling what she knew?

So why did Monroe approach Rothberg? Rothberg may not have necessarily known who Monroe was. But it seems like Monroe probably knew who he was and his connection to Kilgallen. She may have read further into the UFO situation, and Kilgallen's name may have cropped up in relation to the Roswell case. She probably thought she was being clever by making herself anonymous and talking to Rothberg. Unfortunately for her, the CIA could easily make the link considering Rothberg told Kilgallen over the phone of the mystery woman's secret.

If anyone would be interested in the Roswell case and could cause the most damage to the U.S. government, it would be Kilgallen. And if Monrow had a secret to share about the Roswell UFO case, Kilgallen would be the right person to share it with. More of a reason for the CIA to find ways to put a lid on this secret. Knowing it was Monroe who had the secret and was willing to divulge what she knew, it made sense to target her first before dealing with Kilgallen if the secret could get out in time.

But how could Monroe have learned about this secret? For this scenario to have any traction, there must be a moment in history when the U.S. president could pass on such a secret to Monroe. This can be observed during the period when the two were cavorting with each other between February and March 1962.

So apart from sharing his naked ambitions with the famous Hollywood actor, the president could have been a little too relaxed and willing to share certain government secrets with her. Not an inconceivable situation. Looking back in history, it was well-known during the Cold War with Russia how the KGB in the Kremlin made full use of female spies to have sex with targeted men in order to obtain certain secrets. The tactic did prove to be highly effective on more than one occasion. In the case of the president and Monroe, it is not difficult to imagine a similar situation. All it would take is for Monroe to be sitting back on the bed rest in a hotel with John Kennedy and watching the evening news after having a torrid love affair moment with the president. She could have asked John what he thought about these stories of flying saucers, and John may have spoken a little more than what the CIA and the USAF would have wanted to see from him. The topic of UFOs could have cropped up easily enough, which was a popular topic at the time. The only thing we do not know was the precise words the president said. Clearly the president knew more than she realised, and later she wrote down in her diary what she heard. Certain details could have been in her diary to validate what she heard and confirm the likely truth of Kennedy's frank admission about UFOs. At the very least, based on discussions with a UFO researcher Kilgallen, Monroe had spoken about the Roswell incident as if this was the focus of John's admission. Therefore, it is quite possible that the president may have told Monroe of a secret visit he made to an air base to view the remains of the original Roswell debris and recovered bodies. The exact details of what he saw is unclear or where the viewing had taken place and when, and whether anyone else of repute or standing in the community was present with him. Any names of military officials to vouch for Kennedy's whereabouts? Whatever was said by the president, it gave Monroe considerable confidence in the reality of UFOs because the president was the one to have seen the evidence in person, or so it was believed by the Hollywood socialite. It was enough for her to write down what she heard in her diary, including all the specifics. Enough for a good reporter to check the details and find enough evidence of something devastating that could force the U.S. government to admit the reality of UFOs to the public if Monroe's claims prove to be correct. But unfortunately she did not share enough details with Kilgallen over the phone. In fact, no one else was aware of this entry in her diary until she decided to speak to Rothberg and mention her diary as containing certain secrets, and this is where the Roswell case gets elevated and essential to this whole story. But without those details leaked to Kilgallen, Monrow was in an extremely vulnerable position. And one that could have fatal consequences for the Hollywood socialite.

So, what was Monroe going to do with this secret she had allegedly recorded in her diary? It would appear that Monroe was preparing to make a public announcement to the media on Monday morning to explain what she learned (perhaps together with details of her intimate relationships with the Kennedy brothers and where they took place, although such sex scandals wouldn't be a total surprise to the public considering there were already rumours circulating of secret love affairs with the president and possibly with his brother and how the wives of the two men were already convinced their husbands were cheating on them, so a bigger secret than any secret love affairs had to be revealed to get the media to really listen to her. A secret like the Roswell UFO case could potentially achieve this goal). Unfortunately for her, the CIA was listening in on the conversation with Rothberg, and she left it too late to carry out her action. Before the weekend ended, she would be dead.

Indeed, her death was on either the night of Saturday, August 4, or early hours of Sunday, August 5, 1962, depending on which version of events one wanted to believe, which is either the official position taking by the authorities or those witnesses present at and near Monroe's home.

It is probably worth mentioning at this stage that rumours did circulate of another U.S. president who allegedly viewed the original Roswell materials and bodies. It occurred on one mysterious day in which the whereabouts of President Eisenhower were said to be the least documented in history. As the story goes, a certain time frame for the president on a particular day was allegedly spent meeting a dentist. However, the dentist in question had no recollection or written evidence to support this visit. No one else has seen the president on that day to vouch for his whereabouts, either. Then, within days of the time frame in question, people noticed Eisenhower had visited a church with his wife to pray for which he was not known to do previously. Before Eisenhower was alleged to have seen the evidence, Truman was the only other president to be aware of what happened near Roswell (and probably seen the evidence). Therefore, it is not inconceivable for John Kennedy to have been the next president to get a private viewing of the evidence, However, if John Kennedy was the third president to have had a secret private viewing of the remains of a flying disc and bodies, this may have occurred just before Kennedy suddenly made his ambitious announcement before a special joint session of Congress that he would put the first human on the Moon in his speech on May 25, 1961, and not long after his inauguration to become President of the United States. From this moment on, John Kennedy felt confident in the reality of UFOs and became personally interested in the subject ever since. In fact, for UFOs to be seen by skeptics as natural or man-made phenomenon, Kennedy would not act as though these UFOs had a simple explanation. He was convinced UFOs were real.

Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, on the other hand, may or may not have been aware of his brother's secret. This part we will never know for sure. What we do know is that he was not so open and willing to divulge government secrets, even when lying in bed with a famous Hollywood celebrity(13). He probably did not have the top clearance from the CIA to view the original Roswell materials, but the way people who knew the situation very well were keeping quiet and able to affect anyone who knew the truth and could rock the boat, Robert felt he too had to maintain the status quo at all costs. If anything, the affairs Monroe allegedly had with Robert Kennedy were kept more secret to a level where he could later deny this claim. Of course, if anyone could set the record straight in this regard, it would be Monroe and her diary, as there is no reason to believe she would not have written a reasonably accurate record of these intimate moments with Robert Kennedy, including dates and times. More of a reason for Robert to find this diary and get rid of it even if he had no knowledge of the Roswell secret. But someone else had to inform Robert of this situation and to give him a reason to visit Monroe and try to get her diary. Could this person have originated in the corridors of the CIA headquarters? Was there a secret phone call to convince Robert that he had to do something?

It is unlikely Robert was told of other secrets. Robert's primary concern was to protect his reputation and retain his marriage at all costs. Hence the reason for being secretive of the affairs with Monroe. There would be no good reason for Robert to silence Monroe permanently. All he had to do is find the diary and take it away. Then his problem would be solved, and the rest would come down to hearsay between one woman and the statement of two powerful men in the U.S. government. It is unlikely the public would believe Monroe no matter what she said.

However, we still have this other secret to contend with. The one not related to the secret love affairs, and Robert could have been oblivious to. Here we have a different situation. If there was anything else in her diary to affect the U.S. government, the CIA would have more of a reason not only to see the diary disappear, but also to have the woman killed in some way to prevent her from giving any details verbally to the media. But that would require a powerful "earth-shattering" secret to go to this level of harm to an American civilian. Now what could that be?

At any rate, a time came when it was alleged that Robert Kennedy had to end the relationship with Monroe. Perhaps the decision was made soon after he had the telephone call with someone who knew about the diary and what was contained in it (i.e., the CIA knew for sure).

A de-classified FBI document(14) seems to explain what happened. It claims Robert Kennedy was "deeply involved emotionally" with Monroe and was contemplating on whether to divorce his wife Ethel and marry Monroe. After much thought, he decided against this. Monroe then learned of his decision, which was enough to affect her work at the studio; eventually, her contract was cancelled due to a "reliability" issue—that is, not arriving at the film set on time. Monroe made several phone calls from her home to Robert Kennedy at the Department of Justice in Washington for help. At first, he said he would take care of it. When nothing was done, Monroe made a final call to Robert Kennedy in which some unpleasant words were exchanged. The document claimed "She was reported to have threatened to make public their affair".

This suggests that her other secret was not going to be needed as Monroe thought the love affairs would influence Robert to do the right thing by her. As it turned out, it wasn't enough.

Monroe hatched a plan. There was another secret even more devastating that would almost certainly affect the careers of not only Robert, but also his brother John.

If that wasn't enough to make Robert re-think his position, there would be one more secret she could reveal. The CIA document gives an indication of what this is. And an interview with one of Monroe's closest friends also support this secret and the claims made in the CIA document. This was a dangerous time for Monroe. With Monroe in love with Robert Kennedy, one can imagine how quickly she became upset over his decision to stop the relationship. She wanted to be with Robert—when she couldn't, she decided to do something to get back at him (and his brother). She wanted to hurt the Kennedy's by doing the one thing that was most damaging to them: revealing to the press all the secrets she kept in her diary.

It would not rest with the secret affairs. There was something else, and one that would hurt the CIA just as much as the Kennedy's if the public learned of this other secret. As the CIA document claims, Monroe contacted Rothberg to let him know she would make an announcement to the press and potentially pass on sensitive information to Kilgallen with his help in relation to this other secret regarding the Roswell case.

As people would say, "Never throw the baby out with the bath water". There could be some truth to this CIA document in relation to the secret wiretaps on Monroe's phone and others with insightful knowledge of the UFO situation. It is either that or the CIA document is not genuine, and Monroe was simply having mental health issues as the simplest solution. Her death was presumably inevitable due to her depression, and there was nothing going on in her life to cause all of this. It was entirely an accidental overdose and that was it.

Perhaps.

However, certain eyewitness accounts of what happened next have given support for the CIA document and its connection to Roswell, not to mention the sinister chain of events that suggest someone was definitely not happy with Monroe and what she was going to do after the weekend. It is strongly suggesting that Monroe had to be "taken out"—but surely not on the grounds of revealing the secret affairs with the Kennedys, of which the two men could easily deny if the diary can be found and taken away from Monroe. Getting rid of the diary means she would face a situation of her word against the Kennedy’s. Not a good legal position to be in for a woman with no other evidence to back her up. Women in those days were not likely to be believed in the face of two powerful men. However, to kill someone suggests that Monroe was aware of something else far bigger and with details that could blow the secret wide open—something that required more drastic action.

In essence, it was murder.

But why go to such drastic action on one woman? What made her so dangerous that whatever she could had said to the media would be so damaging even without her diary? Only the CIA document can shed light on this matter. Nothing else would make sense. The Roswell UFO case, if genuinely of something alien having crashed to Earth and being kept under wraps by the US military, would be earth-shattering to humanity. Because if there is any truth to what happened in New Mexico and something new and significant was found and is being kept secret from the public, it could hurt a lot of people, especially those R-wing individuals in a position of power within the CIA, the USAF, and anyone else in the know.

Indeed, there are enough discrepancies that have emerged even prior to the witnesses speaking to the police and private investigators for a reasonable person to seriously consider the "murder" theory for Monroe. Suicide does not make sense at the present time no matter how the American authorities would like to see it at the time of her death.

For example, when the first policeman arrived at the scene, he became immediately suspicious as if time had been spent preparing Monroe's body to make her death look like a suicide, even right down to the fact that someone later inserted a tall drinking glass on the floor next to the small table beside Monroe's bed to suggest that she had ingested 30 to 40 pills. However, John Miner, the assistant Los Angeles District Attorney, who was present at the autopsy has re-evaluated the autopsy report and has concluded that Monroe did not die by ingesting sleeping tablets. In fact, the number of pills needed to be consumed should have shown signs of crystallization of the chemicals in the lining of Monroe's stomach walls, the upper intestinal tract, kidneys, and urine. There was none. Only her blood showed the chemicals. Therefore, the only way to administer the chemicals into the blood was through an injection of a barbiturate (pentobarbital, also called Nembutal).

Unfortunately, the report did not reveal signs of needle puncture wounds, even though there are ways to hide the mark. For example, by not killing Monroe straightaway and allowing blood flow to heal the tiny wound, the body can assist to hide the site of injection, making it difficult to detect, even by a coroner. However, even despite this knowledge, the level of concentration of the chemicals in the blood would not have killed a human as medical experts have stated—which means Monroe died by another means.

We also have certain witnesses' testimony that casts doubt over the suicide claim.

For example, friends (e.g., Henry Rosenfield, Sydney Guilaroff, Joe DiMaggio Jr. Mickey Rudin, and others) and Monroe's ex-husband and American baseball star Joe DiMaggio recall speaking to Monroe over the phone on that final day. All agree that she seemed happy enough and was looking forward to certain things she would do in her life. Not the type to contemplate suicide. If she was in any way unhappy earlier on Saturday because of what was said between herself and Robert Kennedy, she would suddenly be cheerful and happy that afternoon and well into the night as if she was knowingly aware of something else she would divulge to the media and was ready to act on her decision.

For example, Joe DiMaggio Jr. the son of the American baseball player, called Monroe at around 7.15pm on 4 August. He found her voice cheerful and upbeat with a sense of purpose in life.

If there was ever a moment on the day Monroe was allegedly not quite herself was observed early in the afternoon in the presence of the house keeper Mrs Eunice Murray, and her son-in-law and handyman Mr Norman Jefferies who was working on re-tiling the kitchen in Monroe's home. Jefferies thought Monroe looked a little unwell and sounded grumpy about something, but he couldn't quite put a finger on what it was. She was wrapped in a bath towel and told Mrs Murray and Jefferies that she wasn't feeling well and would go to bed to get some rest. However, by 9:00pm, Mrs Murray and Jefferies were watching a movie on NBC called The Day the Earth Stood Still. Monroe came in to watch some of the movie. There was no evidence she had taken drugs or alcohol. Indeed, she was observed to be in high spirits, even laughing and enjoying the movie. Then she returned to her bedroom.

Jefferies is a key witness of the events that took place at Monroe’s home. He had much to say about the people he saw come and go in Monroe's home. Surprisingly, the police never took his statement—nor did the press. In the testimony he gave many years later to investigator Anthony Summers, he claimed to have suspected foul play on that night but could not pinpoint exactly who carried out the fatal drug overdose on Monroe, assuming this was the cause of her death.

Confined to a wheelchair and terminally ill, Jefferies was not worried about getting into trouble with the U.S. government in giving his version of events. He wanted to tell the story as he recalled it and without embellishment. He said he arrived at the Los Angeles bungalow at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive owned by Monroe with his mother-in-law and Monroe's longtime house keeper Mrs Murray at 8:00am on Saturday 4 August 1962. It was around 2:00pm on Saturday when Robert Kennedy arrived. He was not alone. Actor Mr Peter Lawson drove and accompanied Robert. Lawford entered the house and told Jefferies and Mrs Murray to leave and gave them money to buy a drink. The two left and later returned to the house. The only other location Jefferies was present was in the neighbour's house when he and Mrs Murray were again asked at around 9:45pm, this time by Kennedy, in the presence of two unidentified men wearing dark suits and sunglasses with one carrying a small black bag to leave the house. By no later than 11:00pm, Jefferies saw Robert and the two men run away in a haste. This prompted Jefferies and Mrs Murray to return to the house. Since then, Jefferies only left the house the following morning at 7:30am Sunday, August 5. As he stated:

"I was there in the living room with Eunice when Marilyn died, and after that all hell broke loose."(15)

Robert Kennedy disputes any claims of him having been at Monroe’s house, saying he was in northern California during the weekend. But as the retired Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates has admitted, Kennedy was in Los Angeles on the day Monroe died(16). Mrs Murray (hired by Monroe’s psychiatrist, Dr Ralph Greenson, as a reliable and trustworthy person) stated on the BBC documentary Say Goodbye to the President that she saw Kennedy that Saturday afternoon. And nearing the end of his life, Jefferies reaffirmed the claim, adding that Lawford(17) was with Kennedy. But they were not the only witnesses. A number of neighbors and their friends saw Kennedy arrive at Monroe’s home on two occasions—the Saturday afternoon, and later that night. For example, Monroe’s next-door neighbor Mary W. Goodykoontz, her guest Elizabeth Pollard, and two other ladies having an afternoon of bridge party recall seeing Kennedy leave Monroe’s home at around 2:20pm. Everyone could see that he ran back to a white Lincoln convertible and raced off.

As further supporting testimony, a distraught Monroe telephoned her hairstylist and makeup artist Sydney Guilaroff telling him that Kennedy was at her house and had responded, "If you threaten me, Monroe, there’s more than one way to keep you quiet." In the light of the CIA document and possibly her secret affairs with Jack and Robert Kennedy, it looks like Monroe was prepared to use something significant against her former lover, and use the secret love affairs with Robert to end his career and marriage. It seems he was aware of sat least the secret love affairs. which prompted him to visit her home and convince her to keep quiet or give him what she had to prevent certain details of the secret love affair from being "confirmed" by the media. She learned that Robert would not leave his wife for her, so she maintained her position to reveal what she had. A dangerous decision to take for her. No doubt Robert matched her threat with his own.

After Kennedy left her home and had time to talk to her psychiatrist, sleep it off a bit, and had time to think things through, Monroe called Sydney again between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., telling him that she had just met with her psychiatrist. Sydney thought Monroe sounded fine and certainly better than during the call she made earlier. This time, however, Monroe offered an intriguing hint that she knew of a number of secrets in Washington and that she intended to do something about them after the weekend (apparently first thing on Monday). Not indicating any kind of secret love affairs with the Kennedy's, it seems the secrets centered around what was happening or found in Washington in terms of certain government departments located in the city as well as knowledge of what the president knew while he was in the White House. Again we can only speculate on what she meant by this unless we refer back to the CIA document, but surely it wasn't about the love affairs she had, even though she could reveal these moments with great detail to help reporters confirm the reality of what took place. The only problem is, these intimate moments with the Kennedys took place away from Washington, D.C. For example, according to Marilyn’s close friend and masseur Ralph Roberts, Monroe and JFK had a sexual encounter on March 24, 1962, at Bing Crosby’s house in Palm Springs. There is no evidence left behind to prove this claim, so it remains hearsay. With Robert Kennedy, it was alleged the secret love affairs where held away from Washington,. D.C. But again it cannot be confirmed. Even if the secrets did involve these love affairs and could be confirmed from the details she had in her diary, these secrets are not exactly earth-shattering revelations considering Ethel Kennedy, wife of Robert Kennedy, and Jackie Kennedy, the wife of Jack Kennedy, were kind of already aware of the men's propensity to cheat on them. The most that could happen to the Kennedy's if the secret affairs got out would be a slap on the wrist, but life would go on.

This leaves us with other secrets.

As another indication of Monroe's willingness to divulge certain secrets (but wanted to choose her moment to reveal them), Jefferies and Mrs Murray were unaware that Monroe was on the phone in her bedroom talking to her friend and occasional lover Jose Bolanos at around 9:45 p.m. Bolanos, the last person to speak to her, recalls her happily chatting away with him. There was nothing to indicate she was upset about anything. Indeed, there was a sense of confidence in her voice as if she knew what she wanted to do or had a purpose in life. Then, she mentioned having a secret that "will one day shock the whole world". Before she could say more, she said she heard noises coming from the guest cottage. Bolanos could hear her put down the phone without hanging up and went to investigate. She never returned.

Speaking of "shocking" news, what could be so Earth shattering that Monroe needed to get off her chest? It would highly unlikely be the affairs she had with the Kennedy brothers. As scandalous as this may seem, you only have to mention the words "Monica" and "Clinton" to remind the public of other similar affairs. Talk to the Italian politicians and they would have no trouble rattling off all the sex scandals in politics they have heard about. No one would be shocked by this revelation. About the only truly shocking news that would have everyone reeling and wondering the implications for humanity if it is true would have to do with her other secret that she briefly spoke about (but didn't give all the details because she wanted to choose her moment when to reveal the secret). She mentioned "Roswell" to a UFO researcher just as the CIA were tapping the phones and listening in on the conversations. The "Roswell incident" is big enough to "shock the whole world". It would be the only thing that would make sense based on everything we know she had spoken about towards the end of her life.

For something so sensitive that even a mention of it would cause chaos and affect so many people in the U,.S. government, it is starting to look like the CIA document is the key to everything.

In 1975, Mr Lawford was tracked down. In a recorded interview, he told detectives that he was not at Monroe's house and never saw Robert on the day. He claimed to have spoken to Monroe by telephone (telephone records confirm this). He said the woman sounded about the same as before, which was her usual depressed self. He had a "gut feeling" on that day that something was wrong and regretted not visiting her home to talk to her. As the detectives mentioned in their report:

"She stated she was tired and would not be coming. Her voice became less and less audible and Lawford began to yell at her in an attempt to revive her."

The detectives said Lawford described it "as a verbal slap in the face."

"Then she stated, ‘Say goodbye to Pat, say goodbye to Jack [John F. Kennedy] and say goodbye to yourself, because you're a nice guy'," the report said. The phone then went dead.

So what is going on? Why are there plenty of people willing to testify that Robert was at the house twice and doing something to suggest that these were not social calls to the Hollywood actor. There was even a police officer who stopped a car with Lawford and Robert Kennedy sitting inside, and the same vehicle was seen by neighbours earlier that Saturday. Lawford was definitely there. So was Robert Kennedy. More interestingly, why was Robert seen running away from the house twice and claiming to police he was not near Monroe's home on the day of her death? As for Lawford, he is choosing to play the "depression" story as the likely cause for Monroe's death as if alluding to the possibility that it was "suicide" even though other witnesses who spoke to Monroe later than Saturday night showed she was cheerful and happy. Something isn't quite right, unless, of course, it has something to do with the CIA document. Again, nothing else makes sense unless we refer back to this document.

Only the CIA document can make sense of all these events.

But does this mean Monroe was murdered? Could the contents of the CIA document reveal the true motive for having Monroe gone for good?

Mrs Murray is certainly another key witness. Her version of events would reveal more details of a possible homicide or murder. However, she has been frightened by the events that transpired on the night and the things she was told to do and later had to say to the police by Dr Greenson. As a result she has felt compelled in her initial statement to police to stick to one story.

Jefferies is in general agreement with much of what Mrs Murray has said except for one important detail: Mrs Murray never actually saw a light under the bedroom door and later called out to the woman to see if she was okay. Rather, the two of them returned to the house at around 10:30pm on Saturday night and found Monroe in the guest cottage next to the main house. Beyond that, Jefferies saw a group of men in plain clothes claiming to be the police arrive to move the body to the bedroom and doing other things to prepare for what appeared to be an attempt to show the woman had committed suicide. Later he followed the recommendation of Greenson for him and other witnesses to hide elsewhere in the house claiming Greenson and Murray would handle the situation when the first police officer arrived at the scene. When the police officer was dismissed and taken over by a new group of policemen handling the case, Greenson received an agreement from Monroe’s personal secretary and press agent, Pat Newcombe, to support his story of what happened. Later, as a reward for Murray and Newcombe cooperating with Greenson, Murray was able to pay for a trip to Europe two weeks later, and Newcombe was put on the federal payroll "as top assistant" to George Stevens, Jr., head of the motion picture service for the United States Information Agency.

If Jefferies' testimony can be relied on, then what actually happened was that at around 9.40pm on the evening of 4 August 1962, Robert Kennedy and two unidentified men (one of whom was carrying a small black bag) entered Monroe's home unannounced. Murray and Jefferies were in the house watching a movie when Robert told them in no uncertain terms to leave. The two got out of the house and walked to a neighbour's house. They waited there. Jefferies was watching through the window. They heard noises from the guest cottage as if someone was looking for something. Monroe's large filing cabinet was broken. As if they still couldn't find what they were looking for, more noises could be heard. No one saw Monroe come outside. It was unclear to Jefferies what she was doing.

Jefferies and Mrs Murray were unaware that Monroe was on the phone in her bedroom talking to her friend and occasional lover Jose Bolanos at around 9.45pm. Bolanos recalls her happily chatting away with him. There was nothing to indicate she was upset about anything. Indeed, there was a sense of confidence in her voice as if she knew what she wanted to do. Then, she mentioned having a secret that "will one day shock the whole world". Before she could say more, she said she heard noises coming from the guest cottage. Bolanos could hear her put down the phone without hanging up and went to investigate. She never returned.

The men eventually left the house in a haste, running back to their car. There was screeching of the tires on the road, as Jefferies remembers it — as if the men had done something in the house, or they had found whatever they were looking for.

By the time the housekeeper and Jefferies returned to the home, the two either found Monroe in a comatose state in the guest cottage according to Jefferies, or the housekeeper claimed she saw a light in Monroe’s bedroom through the gap between the door and floor. The door was locked. She had a key herself to get in, but didn’t think too much about it. She took a nap. By the time she came back later to see the light and called out to Monroe at around 3:00am, something was amiss.

Whichever story is true, the two eventually realised Monroe was not responding. Mrs Murray called the ambulance and then the psychiatrist, Dr Greenson. This decision from Mrs Murray is confirmed by Jefferies. Soon Peter Lawford and close friends of the Hollywood star began arriving.

The ambulance attendant James Edwin Hall (and his driver Murray Liebowitz) arrived just before 11.30pm based on the correct chain of events mentioned by Jefferies. With Liebowitz's help, they moved Monroe into the main house. One of the men accidentally dropped Monroe onto the floor leaving a bruise on the "left side of [her] lower back". The autopsy report later showed the site of the bruising as evidence that Monroe was very much alive at the time she was carried as the heart was still pumping blood around the body. Hall decided to rest Monroe on the hard floor and tells Liebowitz to get the resuscitator from the van. He quickly inserts an oxygen tube into the woman to assist with her breathing. Something suggested to him that Monroe was still alive at this point. Hall claims Monroe's colour was returning to normal and believed it might be a good time to take her to hospital.

Suddenly, Dr Greenson arrived and what happened next was unusual to say the least.

Dr Greenson tried to look like he was assisting Monroe. He ordered the ambulance officer to remove the breathing tube. Even though the officer disagreed with this, he had to do as he was told, as Greenson was an MD (the ambulance officer was trained to never challenge an MD). Then, the ambulance officer noticed another odd thing. Greenson then took out a syringe with a long heart needle out of his bag. He filled it with a fluid from a "pharmaceutical bottle of adrenaline". Hall was surprised to see Greenson had made no attempt to dilute the solution. Another strange observation noted by the ambulance officer was how the psychiatrist had to count how many ribs to go down (which an experienced doctor would not need to know). Hall remarked later that it looked like "he [Greenson] was still in premed school and had really never done this before". Then, it occurred to him that Greenson was just a psychiatrist and perhaps he may not have much experience with a needle. He had to let him continue. Greenson became aware his methods were alarming the ambulance officer. He said that his clumsiness and working things out were more of an attempt to make "a show of this" in front of others. Huh? Would it have been easier for Greenson to let the ambulance officer, who were well-trained professionals and knew what they were doing, help Monroe by providing the necessary oxygen to keep her alive and take her to hospital where real medical professional can do the rest? Unfortunately, this would not happen. With that said, Greenson immediately plunged the needle only to hit a rib because of the incorrect angle he chosen. Yet remarkably, instead of pulling it out, he continued to push in the needle. He eventually entered Monroe’s chest by cracking the rib and quickly injected the fluid in or near the heart. If Monroe was not yet dead at this point, the psychiatrist would pronounce her dead within minutes of giving her the injection.

Greenson told Hall his services were no longer required. The ambulance officers had to leave the scene.

It was about this time when some mysterious plainclothes officers in a police car arrived claiming to be from the LAPD intelligence division. They never mentioned their names (and this could not be confirmed from any subsequent investigations into Monroe's death by the authorities).

Jefferies watched the events unfold as he observed the men move Monroe’s body to the bedroom of the main house. The story of "suicide in the locked bedroom" started to take shape as the men placed pill bottles on a small table next to the bed, broke the bedroom window from the inside (later Greenson would claim to police that he was the one to break into Monroe’s bedroom by breaking the window and discover her body even though the glass was lying on the ground outside), and the door was locked from the inside and closed.

After the men left the house, Greenson remained at the scene until just after midnight. He went into Mr Lawford's Lincoln Continental sedan. The inebriated Lawford forgot to turn on the headlights as he drove at 70 to 80 mph with Greenson in the front seat. Beverley Hills Detective Lynn Franklin observed this and pulled the car over. Astonishingly, he chose not to give a ticket because Robert Kennedy was in the back seat. Instead, he gave Lawford proper directions and let the men go. Still no mention on the police radio of the death of Monroe. It would be several more hours before news of her death reached police.

Los Angeles International Airport had records to show that Robert Kennedy boarded a plane for San Francisco sometime between 12:30 and 2:00am in the morning.

By 4:25am, Norman Jefferies, Pat Newcomb, Mickey Rudin, and Monroe's personal physician Dr Hyman Engelberg were at the house when Greenson, also at Monroe's home, decided to call the police (or perhaps Murray was requested to make the call). Finally, to make sure there was no evidence of someone else having rectally-administered a barbiturate enema into Monroe at the time when Robert and his men arrived at the house and had to sedate her properly as if the initial injections through the skin did not have a sufficient effect of keeping her still and quiet, Greenson told Murray to clean the soiled bedsheets in the cottage.

The first police officer to arrive was watch commander Sergeant Jack Clemmons. He was told by Greenson that Monroe committed suicide. Greenson pointed to the empty Nembutal bottle as alleged proof. Clemmons was not entirely convinced. He noticed the way the body was face-down in the soldier’s position with her arms at her side and legs straight. And the bed sheets were too clean. From his experience, the way the body was laid down on the bed suggested that someone was trying to disguise needle marks. Furthermore, he noticed the lack of a drinking cup with water to explain the presumed number of pills ingested(18) by the woman based on the empty pill bottles. Later someone else placed a glass of water into the bedroom without Clemmons awareness. And just to add yet another level of strange behaviour, he also noted Murray was using the washing machine to clean the bedsheets.

Clemmons wasn't aware of anyone else at the house other than Murray and Greenson. He acknowledged not checking all the rooms, including the guest cottage. If he did, he would have noticed that Jefferies, Newcomb and Mickey Rudin were hiding in those rooms at the request of Greenson. He spoke to Mrs Murray for her version of events, followed by Greenson. Mrs Murray was told by Greenson to choose the story of noticing the light beneath the door of the bedroom and calling out. Mrs Murray had to say that Greenson entered the bedroom by breaking the window on the outside where he noticed for the first time Monroe slumped on her bed. Greenson added that he found Monroe dead around 3.40am. There was no need to call the ambulance. With nothing else to go on, Clemmons had to accept the statements.

The Village Mortuary employees Mr Guy Hockett and his son Don arrived at 5:40am. Hockett noted the state of rigor mortis taking place due to a darkening of the skin on Monroe's face. He estimated the time of death was between 9:30 and 11:30pm.

Yet the police did not appear concerned by all of this or by the lengthy delay in being contacted. It was assumed Monroe was in her bedroom the whole time, on her own, and had simply overdosed on the pills.

By the time reporters arrived, Sergeant Marvin Iannone dismissed Clemmons from the scene, and Dr Greenson made his quick exit from the house.

Still more discrepancies would emerge, this time with the autopsy report. When the first official autopsy report was written, it accepted Greenson's time of 3:40am for Monroe's death. However, this contradicts the advanced signs of rigor mortis on Monroe's face (i.e., it was darkening the skin) as seen in photographs taken at the morgue. The report had to be adjusted to show the time of death closer to around 11:00pm.

Also, a confidential source relayed to Jay Margolis claims that in the first revision of the report (which, like the diary, the very first set of police records and many other key forms of evidence, had also gone missing), Thomas Noguchi noted the needle marks behind Monroe's knees, the jugular vein in her neck, and under her left armpit. There was also the needle mark to the heart. When the final revised version of the report was released, however, Noguchi decided to handwrite "no needle mark"—not even the one to the heart.

About the only thing that had not changed in the report was the lack of crystallisation of the chemicals in Monroe's stomach and small intestines given the number of pills allegedly ingested. But because Noguchi wrote "no needle marks", he had to assume the pills were swallowed.

The cause of death was marked as accidental suicide. Case closed.

But now, with the advent of the CIA document and latest testimony from a larger number of witnesses and those not afraid to speak out, it is looking more like foul play had occurred. Either that, or Dr Greenson killed Monroe through gross medical negligence and incompetency. This is unlikely based on the testimony and the fact that the ambulance officer was present at the scene and assisting the patient with signs that she was looking better and the correct decision was being made to take her to the hospital. What more do you need to do to convince a doctor that Monroe was getting the care she needed and had a chance to survive. Take her to hospital and let the professionals handle the situation. To go against all of this tells us there had to be a reason why Marilyn Monroe was killed. And it looks like Dr Greenson had been motivated by someone else to do the dirty deed on Monroe,. thinking this would protect his reputation and keep his career, but unaware of the possibility of a deeper and more sinister reason for why Monroe had to be killed to protect those working in the U.S. government.

One can safely assume the diary was found as Robert was seen running from Monroe's home late that Saturday night and eager to get on an airplane to leave California. He had no reason to hang around, and the desperation to leave Monroe's home would suggest that very situation. Monroe was not dead at this point. She was still very much alive and would survive the drugs she received from several needle injections on her body. The decision to kill Monroe required a much more deeper and sinister reason. The need to have Greenson in the car with Kennedy and Lawford meant that a call was probably made to Kennedy by an unknown source (quite possible someone from the CIA) to finish off the job and Greenson was asked to do the dirty deed of silencing the woman permanently while he was in the car with the two men. Reason? Greenson was probably told there was incriminating evidence in the diary that could implicate Greenson in some inappropriate relationship with Monroe and this could affect his reputation and ability to maintain his position as a trusted psychiatrist. This is something that could have seen Greenson take matters into his own hands. But even if this could be true, there is no reason to kill Monroe. The problem with this theory is that it makes no sense why Monroe had to be silenced. We can be confident the diary was found. Any secret about Greenson could easily be destroyed, along with secrets about the Kennedys. All that would be left is mere hearsay from an essentially unreliable and emotionally unstable woman. However, there is one more thing that makes this scenario even more unlikely. You see, the gripe Monroe had was not with Greenson. It was with the Kennedys, in particular Robert Kennedy. There was nothing Greenson had to worry about even if he did something unprofessional. Monroe was not going after him—only Robert Kennedy. The ones who had more to worry about were the Kennedys, and potentially the CIA, depending on the nature of the secrets and how sensitive those secrets were.

To go to all this trouble to silence a woman reveals a deeper reason. The kind of reason that Greenson would not have been told about, and potentially even Robert Kennedy considering he did not review the entire diary for other secrets. All that mattered to him was to get the diary. Maybe the CIA told Robert about something in the diary that could that could cause Greenson a lot of headaches unless he did as he was told.

But again it makes no sense to kill Monroe if the diary was already in the possession of Robert Kennedy. The decision to kill Monroe must have come higher up in the U.S. government, and most likely within the CIA. The CIA was aware of something, and Monroe knew what it was. It means there was another reason for why Monroe had to be killed. In other words, killing Monroe was essential to prevent her from verbally discussing something more damning. It can't be a secret love affair with Robert Kennedy. The fact that Robert Kennedy could deny the claim especially while he probably had Monroe's diary would be sufficient to protect himself. Rather, the aim was a complete "taking out" of the woman to prevent her from saying anything verbally is indicating something far more devastating. A secret that would have hurt many more people in the U.S. government to a much more deeper level.

Not even a secret decision presumably by the president to kill the Cuban leader Fidel Castro as a possible explanation would have warranted Monroe’s death. If one could somehow show such a secret was true, the most the president would face is a slap on the wrist and a downturn in his polls making his chances of being re-elected later a little harder, but things would continue as usual. Again, not enough to silence Monroe.

It had to be something far more disturbing and secretive within the U.S. government.

Therefore, the only reason to go as far as Greenson did must be because he was told by someone (everything is now pointing to Robert Kennedy with Robert Lawford in on the plan without knowing all the details of what was contained in the diary, although we cannot completely rule out the CIA as not having some involvement in the Hollywood star's death by contacting Robert and laying the groundwork of what had to happen) to silence her permanently because of a more devastating and significant secret contained in Monroe’s diary—one that would hurt the U.S. government right to the very core, a secret so big and sensitive that it could not be told by Monroe at a verbal level to anyone, even without the diary present as confirmation. We learn that Robert did receive a call in his car and something was said to him to do something with Monroe to keep her quiet. He brings in Greenson in the car and after some discussions, Greenson emerges with a mission to end Monroe's life. What was said exactly and why in that car with Robert Kennedy will remain a mystery.

Well, what other secret could be bigger and more sensitive than what really happened in the Roswell case? If it is a genuine event of great significance to humanity, it would be hard to imagine another secret more devastating and "earth-shattering" than this and one that required Monroe to lose her life. More of a reason why the CIA document should not be ignored completely out of hand.

Thanks to the CIA document, we may have one possible scenario to consider. And a particularly good one at that given what we now know about UFOs. The strong possibility that UFOs could be a real phenomenon and remain a highly sensitive matter to the U.S. government cannot be overlooked, and all stemming from that one key moment in early July 1947.

NOVEMBER 1963

Another person to face a similar unexpected life ending event because of certain insights into UFOs (and apparently with knowledge of the Roswell incident if Marilyn Monroe's claim is true) and willingness to divulge certain UFO secrets to the public is former U.S. President John F. Kennedy. (19) Although Kennedy was already causing problems for the CIA on other matters, such as the president's determination to dismantle the CIA from having too much powers after learning of sanctioned CIA killings of targeted head states in other nations (often with the help of the Mafia to do the dirty work), including the Cuban leader Fidel Castro, it is likely the last straw that broke the camel's back was when Kennedy issued a written request for the CIA director to release UFO documents to a certain foreign nation.

To be more specific, Kennedy wrote a memo ordering the CIA director to share all UFO secret intelligence files held by the organisation with the American space agency NASA, and ultimately with Russia, as part of the president's effort to bring world peace and end the Cold War. At the time, Kennedy was not only interested in seeing the first man on the Moon, but he also wanted to make realistic and achievable efforts for greater co-operation and peace with Russia when he asked in a formerly Top Secret memo dated 12 November 1963:

"SUBJECT: Classification review of all UFO intelligence files affecting National Security.

As I had discussed with you previously, I have initiated [unintelliigible] and have instructed James Webb to develop a program with the Soviet Union in joint space and lunar exploration. It would be very helpful if you would have the high threat cases reviewed with the purpose of identification of bona fide as opposed to classified CIA and USAF sources. It is important that we make a clear distinction between the knowns and unknowns in the event the Soviets try to mistake our extended cooperation as a cover for intelligence gathering of their defence and space programs.

When this date has been sorted out, I would like you to arrange a program of data sharing with NASA where Unknowns are a factor. This will help NASA mission directors in their defensive responsibilities.

I would like an interim report on the data review no later than February 1, 1964.

/S/ John F. Kennedy." (Original copy is with Robert and Ryan Wood, investigators of UFO-related U.S. government documents and was originally available from http://www.presidentialufo.com/john-f-kennedy/73-president-kennedy-ufo-articles as of 1 July 2012. If the web page is moved, another copy can be found at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread691191/pg1 as of August 2011. If it disappears again, get a copy from here.)

The memo came at a time when Kennedy succeeded in getting broad agreement in top level dialogue with the former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to work together on all future space and lunar projects and to release classified UFO files held by the CIA to NASA to help show to his Russian counterparts that UFOs were not examples of Cold War psychological warfare plans from his nation. Unfortunately, he never succeeded in his aim to release UFO information, let alone receive a response to his request from the CIA. The highly sensitive nature of UFOs to certain people in top echelons of the U.S. government and military (as certain people in the CIA are fully aware) was made evident when at 12.31 p.m. on the hot, sunny afternoon of Friday November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Who assassinated the president has remained one of the most contentious in history as the man allegedly responsible for the shooting, Lee-Harvey Oswald, was killed by Jack Ruby (born as Jacob Rubenstein), a night club owner with Mafia connections, within two days of being arrested before Oswald could reveal his knowledge to the public. Later, Ruby wanted to get something off his chest and explain to the Warren Commission while in jail what really happened and why he killed Oswald, but he too suddenly died, presumably from natural causes.

How convenient.

As history tells us and can be pieced together from the available evidence at the present time, just before Oswald was led along his final walk through a crowd of media and law enforcement officers (and infiltrated by Juck Ruby who entered an unsecured Main Street ramp down to the basement of the building to join the media) by Dallas police (why this was necessary remains unclear), he did attempt to state briefly to reporters previously that he denied killing the president (together with another man killed on the same day, a Dallas police officer named J. D. Tippit, on a local street nearly 45 minutes after the president was shot). He said:

"I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges. I have NOT committed any acts of violence."

In a chaotic and brief press conference held just after midnight on 23 November 1963 at the Dallas Police Department in the basement with reporters clamouring for an opportunity to see and ask Oswald various questions, someone asked Oswald, "Why are you here?" or "Why are you speaking to the press?"

Oswald responded:

"I was requested to come to this press conference by Judge Johnston, who said that there was a request from the press to see me. I agreed to come, but I do want to say that I am not allowed legal representation. I am being held incommunicado. I don’t know what this is all about."

Due to the highly chaotic nature of the press conference, and based on re-constructions and surviving footage, Oswald had likely received a question from a reporter along the lines of "Do you have a lawyer?" or "Are you being allowed legal counsel?" Oswald responded by saying:

"I'd like some legal representation but these police officers have not allowed me to, to have any. I, uh, I don't know what this is all about."

At this early stage, we can see that Oswald had not been formally charged with the murder of the president or any other person, and he wasn't notified of why he was brought in to the Police Department. Furthermore, Oswald's right to have a lawyer present was not permitted for some reason, or not the one he wanted. Oswald repeatedly asked for legal representation and specifically requested New York attorney John Abt, known for defending leftist causes. Oswald’s request for Abt was made behind the scenes, during his interrogation by Dallas police, not during a press conference. According to historical accounts, Dallas police did not facilitate contact with Abt, and Oswald was never provided with a lawyer during his 48 hours in custody.

About the only local attorney who approached him without a request from the police was H. Louis Nichols. According to H. Louis Nichols himself, he visited Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department around 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 23, 1963. Nichols was the president of the Dallas Bar Association at the time and had received calls from concerned attorneys and law school deans about Oswald’s lack of legal representation. Feeling compelled to act, Nichols went to the police station and was allowed to speak with Oswald briefly.

During their short meeting (about two minutes), Oswald told Nichols:

"I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt. I don't know him personally but I know about a case that he handled some years ago…"

Oswald declined Nichols' offer for legal help, saying: "No, not right now," but remained hopeful he could reach Abt.

After a police interview behind the scenes in which some interesting responses emerged from Oswald on his apparent whereabouts at the time of the shooting of the president and the police officer and a brief moment of rest followed by a decision to allow Oswald to answer some questions from reporters from the press conference the final thing Oswald said (and recorded on film by NBC News) prior to his assassination was as follows:

Reporter (off camera): Did you kill the president?
Oswald: No, sir, I didn't. People keep asking me that. Sir?
Reporter (off camera): Did you shoot the president?
Oswald: I work in that building [Texas School Book Depository].
Reporter (off camera): Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.
Reporter (off camera): Back up man.
Reporter (off camera): Did you shoot the president?
Oswald: No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.

Strangely these statements from Oswald never made it to the Warren Commission, the committee tasked with gathering all the evidence and investigating the case in the minutest of detail in order to determine who was responsible for killing the president. Apparently the statements were not seen as relevant or important. Nor did the Commission find it unusual for Oswald to be denied the legal right to have a lawyer of his choice present.

Huh?

Never mind. Maybe things will get better from here. Let's see.

Next came the moment when Oswald was led vulnerably by detectives Jim Leavelle and L.C. Graves through a crowd of 75 reporters and numerous policemen and civilians. During which time, he was asked by reporters whether he was the person who assassinated the president. What little time Oswald had to respond, he was able to state to the reporters that he wasn't responsible and that his time in court will vindicate him when he gets the opportunity to explain his situation. Other quick responses Oswald gave included the following:

1. "I'm just a patsy." — This is his most famous statement, suggesting he believed he was being framed.
2. "No, sir, I didn’t shoot anybody." — A denial of involvement in the assassination.
3. And when Oswald realised his preferred lawyer would not be contacted, Oswald said: "I want somebody to come forward and give me legal assistance."

Unfortunately, Oswald never got his right to legal representation and have his say in court.

On Sunday November 24, 1963, Oswald was to be transferred from the Dallas jail to the county jail. Oswald emerged from an elevator, handcuffed to Detective James Robert Leavelle (wearing a light-colored suit), and with Detective L. C. Graves on the opposite side of Oswald. A short time later, just when somebody shouted "Do you have anything to say in your defence?" and another good time for Oswald to admit if he did play a role in the president's demise (and perhaps who else might be involved if he was asked to shoot at the president as part of some larger and more sinister conspiracy), Jack Ruby suddenly pushed himself through the crowd, pointed a .38 revolver at Oswald's abdomen and shot him at close range. Oswald later died in the Parkland Hospital at 1.07 p.m.

About an hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was pronounced dead, the Dallas Police Department officially closed its case against him for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and police officer J. D. Tippit. This is because Oswald was dead, he could no longer be prosecuted. Under U.S. law, criminal proceedings cannot continue against a deceased individual. With no defendant to stand trial, there is no opportunity for legal defense and no mechanism for judicial resolution. The case was therefore administratively closed. However, the decision by the Dallas Police Department to close the case after Lee Harvey Oswald’s death left a massive void in public understanding. With no trial, no cross-examination, and no formal airing of evidence, doubt and suspicion spread rapidly. This is why the Warren Commission was established.

About the only thing the Dallas Police Department could do at this stage was to charge Jack Ruby for the murder of Oswald.

Ruby was immediately arrested and sent to prison, but not without wanting to set the record straight of why he did it and potentially who else was involved to chief justice Earl Warren of the CIA- and FBI-backed Warren Commission set up to investigate Kennedy's assassination. He claimed "my life is in danger", and "I want to tell the truth, but I can't tell it here". Before Warren could allow for it, Ruby quickly fell ill and had to be coma-induced in a haste. Doctors diagnosed him with cancer in the lungs, brain and liver. He died three weeks later from pulmonary embolism in the lungs. No written confession or other evidence was found following Ruby's death.

Rather bad timing.

Do we have anything else?

About the only damning evidence the authorities had against the main suspect, Oswald, was what appears to be his fingerprint on a similar-looking rifle to the one owned by Oswald. Or it could be the one owned by Oswald, which he had kept in his garage on the day of the assassination, except Oswald's wife and police noticed the rifle went missing and no one could be sure who took it, or whether Oswald had brought in the weapon to the Texas School Book Depository building where he worked. Whoever rifle this was that ended up being left conveniently on the sixth floor (if Oswald managed to sneak it in without anyone noticing, then why didn't he take it out in the same way and so avoid leaving evidence that could incriminate him in the death of the president?), the Warren Commission wanted to believe that this was the weapon fired at the president, including the third and final fatal shot that put an end to John F. Kennedy's life so abruptly and brutally.

Interestingly, the weapon was not found immediately. Despite an initial search of the room on the sixth floor, it required another search some 30 minutes later by Dallas Texas police officers to notice the rifle wedged between two boxes and a total of three empty cartridge casings lying on the floor. It would imply that the two men who did the initial search were incompetent. Remarkably, no one could explain why the rifle (or the cartridge casings found near the window) wasn't found on the initial search. Now that these pieces of evidence have been located on the same floor near the window confirmed to be the place where bullets were fired on the President (although the Warren Commission did go to extraordinary lengths to accept a total of three bullets as having come from this single weapon to match the number of bullet casings and with no one else being involved) together with Oswald's fingerprint on the weapon, it seems to be an open and shut case. It didn't matter if it looked strange for the rifle and cartridge casings to suddenly materialise in front of Texas police despite a failed initial search to locate this evidence. And it does not matter if it looks strange for Oswald to leave behind what could be his rifle for police to find if his intention was not to get caught. Basically, if we leave aside how the gun and cartridge casings got there, we have the mystery of how his fingerprint got its way onto the rifle. Apparently someone had left what appears to be Oswald's rifle for all intent for the police to find (rather conveniently) and it just so happens to have Oswald's fingerprint on it. Now that all the evidence seems to be in place, everything would seem to point to Oswald as the culprit. No one else could have placed that fingerprint on the rifle except for Oswald. He must be lying. It was probably Oswald who brought in the rifle to the library without anyone noticing. Up to three bullets (20) must have been fired from what appears to be his rifle (which he did own a very similar if not the same weapon, or certainly the same make and model although there were some differences in the way the strap was attached compared to the rifle held by Oswald in personal photographs). It looks as if Oswald had been the one who pulled the trigger in an attempt to kill the president. Might as well point the finger of blame at Oswald as being responsible for the whole event, right? It is the easiest and simplest solution.

Or so we are led to believe.

It would certainly make the job of Earl Warren much easier and quicker to follow this line of reasoning and not go deeper into the case, much to the delight of the CIA and FBI. So long as the findings point to Oswald as the only person responsible for this awful event, everything will be fine. Indeed, the then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wanted President Lyndon B. Johnson to accept an FBI report on the JFK case and have it released to the public. He emphasized the need to quell speculation and conspiracy theories, writing that the public must be convinced Oswald was the lone gunman. Johnson was not convinced the public would accept it. Instead, he decided to establish the Warren Commission in an attempt to have the case more thoroughly examined and investigated and to get a more impartial conclusion.

Or so Johnson thought.

Johnson selected the members to head the Commission that he thought would be impartial, presumably with no clear evidence that the CIA or FBI would influence the outcome of the investigation. However, Allen Dulles, former CIA Director, was a member—raising questions about impartiality, with the possibility that he could easily influence other members to view the case in a certain way to help favour the CIA's preferred position on the matter. This apparently had the desired outcome when the Commission members concluded that it had to be Oswald who shot President Kennedy, and probably also the murder of police officer Tippit some 45 minutes after the president was shot.

Exactly as the CIA and FBI wanted to see in the end.

Unfortunately, presenting what seems like a straightforward and logical answer and one that was supported by the Warren Commission, nothing in life is ever that simple. Looking at the events that unfolded on this day, we see key pieces of evidence either disappeared or get changed to ensure this lone man theory with Oswald as the man responsible was accepted by the public. Indeed, the situation had somehow got dramatically and unusually complicated following Oswald's death, raising the spectre of an extraordinary conspiracy with strong links to other people being involved in the death of the president (with latest evidence now pointing to the CIA as well as the secret service agents who were meant to protect the president), and the considerable effort by these people to convince the public that it had to be Oswald as the only gunman. These people went to elaborate lengths to use Oswald's background as a socialist sympathiser who formerly lived in Russia for two years and seeing what happened in the Bay of Pigs fiascoe in this CIA's attempt (which Kennedy approved reluctantly even though the plan was conceived and given the go ahead by US President Eisenhower) to oust Cuban leader Fidel Castro as the likely motive for him to kill the president, but subsequent checks with people who knew Oswald would paint a different picture of the man, and one who apparently liked the president for his leftist views, new ideas, and willingness to get to the truth. Anything else unusual seen, heard, or detected by other senses of the human body by various witnesses (such as the smell of gunpowder in the air surrounding the secret service agents' car behind the president's own vehicle suggesting someone in that vehicle or general vicinity had also fired a weapon, as well as a couple of witnesses claiming to have seen someone holding what appears to be a rifle on the picket fence on the grassy knoll ahead of the presidential car although others claim it was merely someone smoking a cigarette to look like smoke fired from a weapon) must have an innocent and logical explanation. Yet the big picture is not supporting this simple explanation of Oswald being the culprit. As the evidence is building up, there is a lot of effort going on to confuse the public about what really happened. And if the public were to learn that another gunman was probably present on the day, it seemed necessary to add more confusion with suggestions that the gunman was on the grassy hill in front of the motorcade when it happened. Whatever the truth to this matter, there is no doubt that a bigger secret exists by those in the know. And whatever this secret entails, it seems someone wasn't happy with the president. Still, not a good enough reason to take out a president under such dramatic circumstances in front of so many witnesses. Whatever the president did or was about to do, it must have been extremely damaging to whoever was affected by this. It was enough to go to all this trouble. It has to be something else much bigger and more damning to go to this extraordinary length to kill a president. Most likely there was something the president was doing that ruffled a few too many feathers in the upper echelons of the U.S. government. Whatever it is the president was doing, this leader of the free world was definitely the target and he was seen as doing something to upset the status quo. Just to add to the odd nature of this case, even a presumably humorous note passed around on the day of Kennedy's arrival at Dallas airport in the FBI office claiming "Kennedy is wanted for treason" may actually have some truth (see the 2013 movie Parkland in an attempt to poorly re-enact the events of the day). Someone felt that Kennedy was getting too dangerous and could be affecting national security with whatever knowledge he had and possibly was willing to share with a foreign power in order to achieve something great for his people and potentially the rest of the world. Apparently so dangerous that it required his take down under such horrific circumstances and in front of so many people. Whoever ultimately achieved the outcome in the end, a lot of effort has been made by various people involved in the subsequent investigation and behind the scenes to make sure Oswald would take the blame for this whole matter (and so avoid implicating other people in the killing).

The whole conspiratorial nature of this event began when the full forensic autopsy report on the president that had to be performed in Texas in accordance with state law by Dr Carl Rose was not permitted by those working for the U.S. government. In particular, the secret service agents.

Under Texas law, an autopsy has to be performed in that state where the death occurred. There is no ifs or buts on the matter. It just gets done. But not just any ordinary autopsy. It had to be of the forensic variety. This meant that the president would have received the most detailed examination as needed to gather the most evidence of how the president was killed (21) and potentially help an investigator to determine who fired the final fatal shot. It is the kind of evidence that could have helped anyone serious at getting to the truth to determine the type of bullet that hit the president's head, how it entered and exited the skull, the direction in which it came from and, with it, the likelihood of whether Oswald was responsible or someone else. Forensic experts at this time could also observe the pattern left behind in the remaining part of the skull during an entry and exit of the bullet. Finally, the nature of the bullet that was used to kill the president would give lots of details to a forensic expert about how a part of the skull had shattered so easily as if something entered the brain and exploded internally, causing the back skull to cave in, and the front and right side of the president's head to break and get pushed out with great force. Such evidence would have been ideal information for any investigator wanting to get to the truth. But, as extraordinary as this may sound, this was not what the secret service agents and Kennedy's aides wanted to see, and had not anticipated that this would be required under Texas law.

Fascinating to see how the secret service agents were not expecting this situation to occur and yet they were desperate to have the president's body taken to Washington, D.C., apparently to do the same sort of autopsy. Or was it the same autopsy? Come to think of it, what difference would an autopsy make in Washington, D.C. when it could be done in a timely manner in Texas to ensure all the evidence is gathered?

The answer is simply this: The concern was on the level of service provided to the president. We know there are two forms of autopsies one can perform: the standard one, and the forensic one. The latter is the most comprehensive of the two, and would provide considerable detail about how the whole event transpired and the people involved. It looks like the secret service agents were worried that the latter type of autopsy might reveal too much details and that could cause problems, potentially for them or anyone else who may have been involved in the events of the day.

After a brief and dangerous standoff and likely decision to draw guns on the doctor and police officer in front of other witnesses present, former secret service agent Clint Hill (the man who ran forward and jumped on the back of the presidential car to assist and protect Jackie Kennedy and her husband) said:

"In the end they [the doctor and police officer] accepted the fact that that was going to happen, and it did happen." (Source: NOVA's Cold Case - JFK)

According to Dr Rose's testimony, he accepted the fact only because he wanted to avoid a physical confrontation with the secret service agents. Then again, if he stood his ground, what would have happened? Certainly it would be an absolute public relations disaster for the secret service agents if they tried to violently get what they wanted. Should serious injury or death occur in front of so many witnesses that in itself would have been scandalous and may reveal a far deeper secret that the secret service agents held. It would have led to a separate investigation in its own right which would have brought out this secret. Luckily for the secret service agents, the doctor agreed to hand over the body.

With the president's body now at Bethseda Naval Hospital in Washington, D.C., it became apparent that some kind of an autopsy report had to be written (and released to the public), or else it would smack of a major conspiracy. People had to be convinced that everything was done by the books. However, it wasn't in the sense of gathering all the evidence from the president's body. The aim here has to be as brief as possible about what to include in the autopsy report.

When it came to the time to release the autopsy report to the civilian world, a lot of the crucial photographs of the president's head would go missing (again rather convenient given how crucial this evidence is to helping solve the case and determine the likelihood of Oswald being responsible), and what few photographs were released showed considerable effort to hide the massive hole at the back of the president's head and to stitch up this area with skin (thereby hiding details of how the skull was fractured by the fatal bullet), and certainly no photographs of the front of the skull. All this shows how important it was for whoever was in charge to control the autopsy procedure and have it done by the US military at a specific location hidden away from the public. There would be no independent and professional observer to oversee the process. Instead, the CIA can quietly direct two top military officials on what to do, who in turn ordered two military pathologists with no experience in forensic examinations to carry out the autopsy. Just to make sure the pathologists won't find anything unusual, they had limited access to x-ray images and practically no photographs to make any form of comprehensive conclusion based on their findings.

Here we see the decision was made to go for the standard autopsy in a military-controlled hospital hidden from the public. So much for the idea from J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI director, that all efforts should be made to avoid a conspiracy theory among the public in order to quell all further speculation. A conspiracy to hide crucial evidence had already began in earnest.

Today, we have very brief notes from this standard autopsy. The few poor quality photocopies of photographs of Kennedy's head show only from behind (and well covered up by the stitched up skin). This essentially hides the all-important crucial evidence around the president's right side and front end of the head, especially how the skull got damaged so severely and dramatically as needed to determine whether the bullet that killed the president was an exit or entrance wound (ballistic experts say there is a distinctive pattern created by an entrance and exit wound) and how likely it was that Oswald could have been in the right position to fire the fatal shot from the sixth floor room. Indeed a lot of the controversy and debate (and subsequent range of conspiracy theories brought up by the public, and later added to by the CIA following the release of certain documents in March 18, 2025, which only succeeded in raising more questions than it answers) could have been cleared up right at the beginning with detailed access to the complete autopsy report and all photographs, and preferable of the forensic type.

And if we didn't have another man with Mafia connections interfering in the legal and scientific process of getting to the truth, a complete story of what happened and who was responsible could have been revealed if Oswald was allowed to go on trial and gave his testimony. Otherwise, we could have got the testimony of Mr Ruby if the people involved in the Warren Commission had their sorry excuse of an ass off the seat and get to the truth to the matter while everyone was fresh and had something important to contribute. What a shemozzle.

This is an unusual event with so many crucial forms of evidence having mysteriously disappeared, modified, or latter added to suit a particular and preferred outcome and all done in the shortest period of time after the killing. It was enough to give most Americans the view that there has to be a different story from the one officially being told by the Warren Commission. Namely more than one gunman had to be present on the day of the assassination, and with links going back to the CIA, for whatever reason. In fact, as of 2020, there is a strong possibility that Oswald had not been one of the shooters. Unfortunately, with Oswald taken out by another gunman, it is impossible to listen to Oswald's side of the story. Because if we could, we might learn his whereabouts on a minute-by-minute basis, and whether he was alone and had been present in the sixth floor room when the bullets began firing on the president. Or he simply wasn't anywhere near the sixth floor, but somebody else was and did the atrocious act on the president only to leave behind evidence to incriminate Oswald. Either way, Oswald's testimony in court would have helped investigators to test his claims and see if they could prove his story. This is what happens when people don't do the proper investigations to find out and gather all the evidence before affecting those who are claimed to be responsible for the shooting. The old "shoot first and ask questions later" is a common and particularly poor mentality of American men (and still prevalent to this day with police shootings of black people with no reason given, as well as in the movie Fugitive starring Harrison Ford which shows it does not matter who the person being shot at is — anyone who is seen in a bad light is treated the same "we think you are guilty" way). It is an unfortunate part of the American culture. And if there is a secret agenda for why the shooting had to take place (and so far this is looking like the reality), this just adds another layer of complication. No wonder this event is so messed up.

Let us see if we can sort out this mess.

What we do know is that Oswald did own a gun of the same type found in the sixth floor room. The Warren Commission was quick to highlight this gun as the one owned by Oswald. To add another layer of complication to this story, in recent times, this claim is now being contested with experts having examined at least three photographs of Oswald holding his own rifle and noticing differences in the way the strap connects to the rifle compared to the one found in the Texas library. Whether this is true or not, let us leave this aspect aside for the moment.

In March 1963, Oswald used the alias "A. Hidell" to purchase by mail order a 6.5×52mm Italian-made Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle with a telescopic sight. Looking at the newspaper advert for the rifle, already investigators found something odd. The page showed a variety of adverts for different rifles, and it was determined that other choices for a rifle could have been made by Oswald, and this had gun experts scratching their heads as to why Oswald chose what is considered to be a slow, clumsy, and increasingly inaccurate (as the rifling chamber gets easily worn) to use weapon compared to other much better rifles on offer. If the aim of Oswald was to kill someone, why did he choose this particular Italian rifle? It is almost as if Oswald wanted to purchase this weapon because he felt unsafe living in the United States. He lived in Dallas, Texas, where much of the American population there have strong right-wing views and are fiercely patriotic of the American way of life, which was somewhat at odds with his socialist views. Not the hardline view of Russia which he vehemently detested and the reason for moving to the United States, but more in line with the way Cuba follows socialism. A softer form of socialism you might say, except Americans living in this part of the world see socialism as socialism. There are no differences whatsoever. And such a view that Oswald had of socialism would still have rubbed off the wrong way for certain Americans. It seems the only point in having the rifle was to scare off those specific R-wing people (maybe he received death threats or felt threatened when he was handing out leaflets about socialism on the streets of Dallas). A bit like the excuse that leaders of Russia, United States, China, North Korea, and other countries have when stockpiling nuclear weapons. From Oswald's perspective, he probably saw it more as a deterrent. Having a gun was there to make other people think, "We better not mess around with this guy. He has a gun!" and hopefully this would be enough for American people to treat this guy with a little more respect, or at least leave the guy alone. At any rate, the rifle that was purchased fits remarkably well to what was found on the sixth floor of the library building (assuming we ignore how the strap was attached). Or was it a coincidence? Not likely because the rifle found on the sixth floor just so happened to have Oswald's fingerprint. Unless Oswald touched another rifle of the same type some months before and this other rifle ended up on the sixth floor of the library building, we have to say with reasonable confidence that this was probably Oswald's gun. Of course, we can never be absolutely sure, as there is talk of the strap looking different from the way it attaches to the rifle found on the sixth floor when compared to at least three known photographs of Oswald holding his rifle. Whatever is going on here, the next logical step in any investigation is to get corroborative evidence showing Oswald had potentially carried what could be a rifle into the Texas Library.

This is where things gets murkier.

While there is evidence to show Oswald's fingerprint was on the rifle found on the sixth floor, no witness from the Depository could definitively testify that they saw him bring the rifle into the building—whether in a bag, under clothing, or otherwise. The Warren Commission has heard testimony from Buell Wesley Frazier claiming he drove Oswald to work on the morning of November 22, 1963 and saw him carry a brown bag roughly 25 to 27 inches long, which Oswald allegedly claimed it contained curtain rods. The day before Oswald was picked up, Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up curtain rods for his room. The next morning, Oswald carried a brown paper bag, which he said contained those rods. Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister also claimed to have seen the brown bag. On parking the car, Frazier did not watch or follow Oswald to the building to see what he did with the paper bag. By the time Oswald arrived at the entrance to the library, no one else at the Texas School Book Depository saw Oswald carrying the package, including Jack Dougherty, who saw Oswald enter the building but said he wasn’t carrying anything. Even if the rifle had been disassembled and somehow brought into the building at some point in the day, experts believe the bag was too small to carry the rifle in Frazier's car. When the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was disassembled, its length was about 35 inches. When assembled, the maximum length is 40 inches. But could it still have carried a rifle? Perhaps.

The only brown bag discovered by Dallas Police during the second search of the room was in the southeast corner, near the window from which the shots were fired. The bag was measured by the FBI to be about 38 inches. However, Frazier and his sister were consistently claiming the bag they saw Oswald carry was shorter than this. The only thing is, the FBI did find a palmprint and a fingerprint on the bag from the sixth floor, both attributed to Oswald.

The Warren Commission did treat Buell Wesley Frazier’s testimony about the brown paper bag as strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald brought the rifle into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of the assassination—even though no one saw Oswald enter the building with the bag, and the bag’s size was clearly disputed. So what is going on here?

The likely scenario is that Oswald did carry what he claimed to be curtain rods. The bag being too short, could not carry his rifle inside of it. Therefore, the possibility exists Oswald had not only told the truth to Frazier about its contents, but he wanted to throw away the curtain rods, including the paper bag, before entering the library. The only unfortunate thing for Oswald is that with his fingerprint and palmprint firmly established on the bag, someone else could have been watching (to ensure Oswald had arrived and would be going to work in the Depository building) and later grabbed this bag, removed its contents, unfolded the bag to make it longer and hid a disassembled rifle hidden inside of it. Then all that was required is for this person to quietly and unobtrusively enter the building without anyone noticing, walk up to the sixth floor, and wait for the president to arrive. There’s a compelling theory that the paper bag may have been folded when Oswald carried it, making it appear shorter than it actually was, and so supporting his claim of having curtain rods. This could explain why Frazier and Randle described a bag that was too short to contain the rifle, while the bag found on the sixth floor was long enough to conceal the weapon.

Further investigation also revealed that Mrs. A. C. Johnson, Oswald’s landlady at 1926 North Beckley Avenue, testified that his room already had curtain rods and curtains, which makes sense for Oswald to mention these rods to Frazier. However, Oswald never asked for permission to install new rods, and there was no indication he planned to redecorate. Also, Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine were unaware of any curtain rod plans, and Marina believed he was simply bringing his lunch. In this circumstance, the explanation could be quite innocent. Perhaps embarrassed in having damaged a couple of curtain rods, he decided to temporarily replace them with some old ones from Ruth Pain's garage without telling anyone, including Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine. Later he bought new curtain rods from Irving, installed the new curtain rods while no one was aware, put away the ones he borrowed back in the garage, and the broken ones were put in a bag and ready to be trashed. But instead of putting them inside his own bin at home in case the landlady and/or his wife notices them, he wanted to hide the damage he did by throwing away the old broken curtain rods in a dumpster or bin outside the library building. A fairly simple explanation.

Despite this reasonable explanation, there is no documented evidence to show that investigators had searched bins or dumpsters outside the Library Depository building for discarded curtain rods. Instead the Warren Commission was quick to see this observation of Frazier of a brown paper bag as reasonable evidence of Oswald's wrong-doing of carrying a rifle even if it could not explain the discrepancy in the size of the bag seen by Frazier and his sister, how it couldn't hold Oswald's disassembled rifle, and the fact that no one in the library saw Oswald carry the bag as he walked into the building.

So did Oswald get an opportunity to get to the sixth floor to fire on the president? This is where more oddities would emerge to question whether Oswald was the shooter.

Firstly, four women were on the fourth floor, two of whom were watching the presidential parade through the window. The names of the women were Victoria Elizabeth Adams, Elsie Dorman, Sandra Styles and Dorothy Garner. Within 15 to 30 seconds of seeing the president slump to his right over the back seat and made her think an assassination attempt had been made, 22-year-old Victoria Adams, an employee working in the book depository building, immediately ran down the stairs within seconds of the final shot being fired to go outside and get confirmation on what she saw. At no time did she see Oswald run down the stairs by the time she was in the stairwell. She also recalls Sandra Styles, a co-worker was following her down the stairwell, thereby having further corroborative evidence for her claim. And Sandra could confirm Victoria's story of what happened right down to a tee. Remarkably, the Warren Commission ignored the testimony of both women and, indeed, went as far as to initially rely on just Victoria's testimony, which was put on tape, and quickly (like the full autopsy report from the military pathologists) the tape disappears. Again convenient to have it gone at such a crucial time in the investigation.

It turned out that the Warren Commission had the tape destroyed. Why? This part of the story is not clear. There has been no official explanation from the Commission itself detailing why the tape had to be destroyed. However, the advantage to the Warren Commission in not having the tape started to take shape when it became possible to fudge the time it took for the two women to decide to go down the stairs by as much as several minutes. Either several minutes, or up to 40 seconds to get to the stairwell and go down the stairs is a massive difference. By taking on the "several minutes" theory, the Warren Commission could claim that it was possible for Oswald to run (or potentially walk) down the stairs to the second floor to grab his bottle of Coca Cola before anyone could see him. If this tape had not been destroyed and the Warren Commission had accepted the testimony of both women, and a third named Dorothy Garner, the supervisor of the other two women, who remained on the fourth floor (together with Dorman, who was filming the motorcade from another window on the same floor using her personal camera) and saw her female colleagues go down the stairs, it would have been learned that a United States Attorney had spoken to Garner and she said that immediately after Adams went downstairs, she saw Depository Superintendent Mr Roy S. Truly and a Dallas motorcycle police officer named Marrion L. Baker running upstairs. Under no circumstances did she see Oswald come down the stairs.

So where was Oswald in all of this? Apparently he wasn't on any of the upper floors above the second floor. In fact, the two men who were going up the stairs already saw Oswald on the second floor. There was no need to consider Oswald a suspect.

According to the documentary JFK Assassination: A New Perspective released on 9 August 2025 by Jersey Shore Entertainment, Truly and Baker made a positive identification of Oswald on the second floor. Not suspecting any wrong-doing on the part of Oswald, the two men continued running upstairs. As the documentary stated:

"Patrolman Mariam Baker also heard the shots and observed pigeons scattering into the air from the roof of the School Book Depository. Baker rushed into the building and was met by building superintendent Roy Truly. Running up the stairs, they encountered employee Lee Harvey Oswald in the second floor snack room with a bottle of soda. Truly identified Oswald as an employee, and he and Baker continued to the upper floors."

As theaffidavit by Roy. S. Truly dated November 23,. 1963, stated:

"The officer [Baker] and I...started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes. We then went up the stairs to the 5th floor where we found the elevator open. We took the elevator to the 7th floor and out on the roof. We searched the roof and a small room, also checked the landings....We did not find anything. We started down on the elevator. The officer took a hurried look on a couple floors on the way down. We then met some other officers on the 4th floor searching the building."

In Baker's affidavit dated November 22, 1963, he handwritten the following statement:

"I jumped off my motor[cycle] and ran inside the [Depository] Building. As I entered the door, I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man [Truly] stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said let's take the elevator. The elevator was stuck several floors up so we used the stairs instead.

As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and come back toward me. The manager [Truly] said 'I know that man, he works here'. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor."

This shows that Baker was confused about which floor Oswald was seen.

Later, Baker's testimony to the Warren Commission corrected his earlier statement saying Oswald was on the second floor. The lunchroom was an enclosed room on the second floor which necessitated someone to physically go the door of the room and look inside. Truly was getting ready to go up another flight of stairs to the third floor, but stopped when the police officer paused to look at something. Baker said he thought he saw movement through a small frosted window to the lunchroom. This is what made him decide to look inside the lunchroom. When he did, he saw Oswald walking away after grabbing a bottle of Coca-Cola from a vending machine and turned around when he was spoken to by the officer. This happened at around 12:31 p.m. Under no circumstances did Baker see Oswald breathing heavily or appear to be sweating to any degree from any kind of physical exertion as far as they could tell, which would be required to run up the stairs very quickly to shoot someone and run down fast enough before the officer could reach the second floor. He seemed perfectly calm and relaxed, but somewhat puzzled by the officer's presence.

It should be noted that Baker's affidavit does not mention the man he saw in the lunchroom by name. Truly knew it was Oswald, but never mentioned his name to Baker.

But did Baker really see movement through the small window of the lunchroom?

Critics argue this is unlikely. They say that Baker's line of sight through the small window would have been obstructed unless he made a conscious effort to look in. Researcher Bart Kamp is one such critic. He looked at the layout of the second floor and position of the window and where Baker claimed he noticed movement. What he found was that the geometry of the key positions makes it implausible for Baker to have seen Oswald "by chance", even a shadow on the wall. Without intentionally entering the lunchroom (and hence another correction to Baker's account of what happened would be necessary to keep things accurate), it casts doubt on the spontaneity of the encounter—and possibly whether it happened at all.

However, Truly claims Baker did see Oswald when the police officer showed his head at the door of the lunchroom.

This would make sense because Truly said in his affidavit:

"We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there."

In testimony to the Warren Commission, Baker claimed he had his pistol in his hand and pointed it at Oswald while asking the man in the lunchroom who he was until Truly intervened and mentioned Oswald was an employee (without mentioning his name). So it was actually his whole body that was at the door, and not just his head. Goes to show Baker's statements are in need of another change to make them more accurate.

As we can see, there is nothing in Truly's statement to indicate how Baker noticed someone in the lunchroom unless he deliberately went to the lunchroom to look and find out if anyone was there. Yet he would not methodically check each floor they went to on their way up. Only the second floor. Is this because of the layout of the second floor and how the lunchroom can conceal someone? Well, why not the boxes of books on the other floors? Surely they can conceal someone behind the boxes unless Baker were to pop his head around and check for this.

Whatever the reason for not checking, Truly and Baker can now confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the second floor (if only briefly), which is essential information for the Dallas police detectives and the Warren Commission to get a fix on Oswald's location.

Apart from that, Baker claimed Oswald wore a white V-neckline T-shirt and grey trousers. He was not wearing a dark (brown or red, or grey) shirt or jacket. It seems like at some point during the morning or at lunchtime, Oswald took off the extra clothing, because Buell Wesley Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to work, consistently described Oswald as wearing a gray, wool-like zippered jacket and dark (possibly grey) trousers. There was talk of a red or brown (or dark) shirt Oswald may have worn as well, but Frazier could have forgotten Oswald had worn this clothing the day before. Either that, or he didn't see the dark shirt underneath the jacket. On November 22, 1963, Frazier focused on the outer garments saying consistently that he saw Oswald wear a grey wool-like jacket. Not light-colored as in the tan or grey "Eisenhower-type" jacket found near the Tippit murder scene and shown to him by the Warren Commission as part of exhibit CS162, but something darker.

With Oswald now firmly positioned on the second floor, by all indications, it would appear Oswald was in the clear. There was nothing to suggest that this man could have been the shooter as far as Baker and Truly can determine. No sweat marks on Oswald's underarms. No beads of sweat coming down Oswald's face. No heavy breathing. No funny twitches in one eye when Oswald was asked a question. Not even a smell when Oswald approached Baker to suggest he needed a deodorant. Nothing to make Baker and Truly suspicious of Oswald at this stage.

Yet someone had been shooting at the president from this building, presumably on one of the upper floors. Unfortunately, no one who shouldn't be there or who looked suspicious was seen on any of those upper floors, including the rooftop. This is not because Truly and Baker did such a thorough job of checking each floor as they went up the stairwell. Rather, they went straight to the rooftop and noticed no one, and proceeded to go down each floor to look more carefully (but somehow did not notice the rifle and shell casings). By the time they reached the fourth floor, other police officers were present and already searching the floor on a more thorough basis and other parts of the building.

The only clue that someone may have been on the top floor was the sight of a flurry of pigeons on the roof startled by gunshots, but it could easily have been on the sixth floor where the shooting took place. Either way, it did not matter. Sufficient time had passed while the two men searched the rooftop and eventually the sixth floor. During which time, the real shooter could have been hiding on the fifth floor when he heard people running up the stairs. A great place to stay low and well hidden. And if he were to get seen by Truly and Baker, he can make a brilliant excuse by claiming he was looking out the window at the motorcade just as the women did on the floor below; so long as his fingerprint is not on the rifle left behind on the floor above when police find it—he probably had to carry thin leather gloves in his pocket—he could avoid being a suspect. As the two men scoured the rooftop, the real gunman could have emerged and quietly walked down the stairs. He made sure Garner sitting at the window on the fourth floor was not looking at the stairwell (the other woman Elsie Dorman was at another window and not in direct line-of-sight of the stairwell), and then slipped by and, quieter than a door mouse, went down another flight of stairs. By the time, Truly and Baker went down to the sixth floor to search the area, the gunman had either reached the ground floor and well on his way out the front door, or he slipped in among a growing number of people entering the ground floor, pretending to be an onlooker and looking surprised and curious about what was going on in the building.

Who knows? Perhaps there was the possibility that some employees in the building could have seen this man, but were unaware of the possibility that he could have been the shooter.

How astonishing? The outcome could have been significantly different if the two men had carefully checked each floor as they went up, with one person standing at the stairwell watching for suspicious people going down the stairs, while the other person thoroughly checked the floor. But as history has revealed, the two men were fixated on getting to the top floor that neither men noticed that there was at least one woman (Garner) on the fourth floor.

This would explain why there is no record in either Baker's or Truly's affidavits, or their testimonies to the Warren Commission, to show they had noticed or interacted with Dorothy Garner on the fourth floor. This is striking because:

1. Garner was in a position to see both stairwell traffic and the hallway.
2. If Baker and Truly passed her, it is odd that neither mentioned her presence.
3. Her vantage point would have made it nearly impossible to miss Oswald if he had descended the stairs, or the two men.

As the men testified to the Warren Commission, Truly and Baker did not stop to search each and every room on all the floors as they ascended the stairwell and later the elevator of the Texas School Book Depository to get to the rooftop. With the exception of the second floor after Baker allegedly noticed movement in the lunchroom, their urgency to reach the rooftop meant they weren’t conducting a methodical search. They were focused entirely on getting to the top, not scanning each floor or stairwell for suspicious individuals who shouldn't be there.

Since the two men easily overlooked the witness on the fourth floor, and with it the potential for the actual shooter to be hiding on the sixth or fifth floor, just imagine it. The gunman could have easily hid himself on the sixth or fifth floor (most likely the latter) and waited. Once the two men were looking elsewhere (i.e., the rooftop), the gunman could have had a leisurely walk down the stairs, stopping only momentarily to see if the woman on the fourth floor was looking elsewhere, and quickly walk by without alerting her to any sounds.

To show how easily the men were able to overlook things, Truly testified to the Warren Commission that on arriving on the sixth floor to search the area. Truly did not personally discover the sniper’s nest but was present during the broader search of the building by other men. Officer Marrion Baker stated to the Warren Commission that he and Truly were among the first to begin the search. However, the actual discovery of the rifle and two shell casings on the sixth floor was made by Deputy Sheriffs Luke Mooney and Eugene Boone, not Baker or Truly.

Never mind. At least the cavalry has finally arrived and ready to rescue everyone from a disaster, with more police officers swarming the building and doing a more thorough search of each floor. Better late than never as they say. In fact, so thorough was this search by the officers that they were able to find not just the sniper's nest, but also a third shell casing on the sixth floor of the same type used in Oswald's rifle. Not in the same spot as the other two. It is almost as if the sniper made the decision not to fire a third bullet and just planted a third shell casing away from the other two to lead investigators into thinking that all three bullets were fired from the sixth floor of the building.

And while the police was searching around, what was Oswald doing all this time?

Well, just before the police arrived, Oswald claims he was already downstairs and completely oblivious to what was going on in the upper floors or what was happening outside. He wasn't even aware that the president had been shot and eventually assassinated. According to his post-arrest interrogation (as recorded by Captain Will Fritz and others), Oswald said he was getting a bottle of Coca-Cola from the second-floor lunchroom vending machine and went downstairs to finish eating his lunch (if he hadn't already done so) in the first-floor domino room, a break area used by workers. He said he remained there during what he believed was still the motorcade precession taking place outside. Either that, or there wasn't much to see at this point once the president went off into the sunset. So no need to intermingle among the crowd outside.

What Oswald did not mention is that James Jarman and Harold Norman, two employees who worked on the fifth floor but were not on that floor when the presidential motorcade came by, said they saw Oswald on the first floor between 12:20 and 12:25 p.m. It seems neither of the men said anything to Oswald, so Oswald remained unaware of his two co-workers. However, Oswald did reveal to Fritz one tiny but crucial piece of information. He said that Bill Shelley approached him while he was finishing his lunch (and before he went to get his soft drink) and invited him to come outside to watch the president go by. It would appear that Oswald may have done this, if only briefly, with a suggestion that he was out with "Bill in front". Either he was in front of Bill, Bill was in front of Oswald, or both were out in front while watching the precession. But there is a great controversy concerning this important piece of information as we will discuss later. There is a photograph that has got researchers wondering whether it has been modified in a way that would avoid showing Oswald was outside at the moment when the president had already been hit by the second bullet. With the president moving off into the distance, Oswald thought there wasn't much more to see, so he went to the second floor to grab a bottle of Coca-Cola just a little after 12:30 p.m.

By around 12.31 p.m., all three shots were fired at the president.

We will have more to say about this important photograph later.

Apart from mentioning Bill Shelley, Oswald does not mention his encounter with Baker and Truly, but after the conclusion of his lunch break, Oswald told investigators he left the Texas School Book Depository after hearing other employees were allowed to go home following the assassination. According to notes taken by Captain J. W. Fritz of the Dallas Police during Oswald’s interrogation, Oswald said:

"He [Oswald] went down to the first floor [sic] to get a Coke and then went outside to see what the excitement was. He said that he talked to a colored man [to confirm the president had been assassinated] and then left the building because he heard that employees could go home."

Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository between 12:33 and 12:35 p.m.

Even though Baker and Truly thought Oswald was in the clear and could not be the shooter in the Depository building, Dallas police somehow got suspicious of Oswald. Why? As far as can be determined, there was no time to forensically examine the rifle found on the sixth floor. Even if a fingerprint could have been found in a short time by police on the sixth floor, more time was needed to identify the person who left the fingerprint on the rifle. With no direct link of the rifle (or the fingerprint) to Oswald at this early stage of the investigation, Oswald was essentially in the clear. Yet, as soon as Oswald had left the building, the police were suddenly keen to find this man.

What prompted this interest?

Is it because Oswald was not permitted to have lunch at the time he has having his (which was between 12:20 to 12:30 p.m.) and this is unusual enough for police to find Oswald a possible suspect? This is unlikely. Billy Nolan Lovelady said in his affidavit dated November 22, 1963:

Our lunch period is from 12 to 12:45 pm."

Oswald was definitely entitled to have his lunch at the time he did.

It would appear that the first signs of suspicion about Oswald was raised when Roy Truly told investigators that after the assassination, he noticed Oswald was absent from a roll call he conducted. He then informed police, which contributed to Oswald becoming a person of interest. But here's the catch: there were other employees who were allowed to leave the building to go home, and not one ever mentioned a roll call. So why was Oswald specifically targeted by police? After the shooting, chaos erupted around Dealey Plaza. Many employees of the Texas School Book Depository were allowed to leave early, either to go home or to speak with police (and then go home). There was no formal lockdown of the building at that moment. More interestingly, none of the employees have testified or written in their affidavits of a roll call carried out by Truly.

As Billy Nolan Lovelady stated in his affidavit written on November 22, 1963, he returned to the Depository, "took some police officers up to search the building", and then went home. His statement does not specify who gave permission for him to leave, precisely what time he left work, and whether a roll call was conducted by Truly.

Another employee named Carolyn Arnold, a secretary, initially said in her FBI interview that she left the building at around 12:15 p.m. Perhaps on realising she might get in trouble with her supervisor, this was revised in a second statement saying she left the building at 12:25 p.m., which she signed. Again no indications whether a roll call was initiated by Truly or whether she got permission to leave work at that time. In that case, why is she not a person of interest to the police? Is it because she is a woman and no one of that gender would be violent and use a gun?

Not enough of a reason not to raise suspicions on Arnold as a potential gunman. She already had to change her time of when she left. She may change it again and claim she left at 12:35 p.m.

Just with two people alone, we can already see a number of employees were leaving the building at around the time that Oswald decided he would leave work. And for those other staff who left later in the afternoon (some of whom were helping police with their enquiries and their search of the building), no one seems to recall a roll call. As another example Victoria Elizabeth Adams, one of the women on the fourth floor, gave the following statement to the Warren Commission on March 23, 1964:

"I believe I left the Texas School Book Depository Building between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963 and I went home."

That's it. She never mentioned a roll call. Not even the name Truly gets a mention anywhere in her testimony. So if Oswald was allowed to leave work like the rest of the employees with no official lockdown of the building, and no one knew anything about a roll call, why would the police and Truly single Oswald out specifically as a person of interest?

We certainly can't even rely on any forensic evidence on the rifle found on the sixth floor to target Oswald. The speed with which Oswald became the prime suspect outpaced the forensic process. The rifle hadn’t been tested, any fingerprints on the rifle had to be matched to people in the building, the witnesses hadn’t identified Oswald as a potential gunman, and yet the police were already zeroing in on the man. Something else had got the police into thinking Oswald was the man to get their hands on. This strongly suggests that Oswald’s name was introduced into the investigation through channels outside the immediate crime scene—possibly through intelligence, prior monitoring, or a pre-set narrative.

Here is a summary of the explanations why Oswald had to be singled out:

1. Officer Marrion Baker found the encounter with Oswald in the lunchroom to be odd in some way. One possible theory is that he thought Oswald was acting too calmly, drinking a Coke, just moments after shots were fired. That behavior, while not incriminating on its own, was unusual. The only problem is, Baker has never raised this concern in his testimony to the Warren Commission or in his earlier affidavit.
2. Oswald left the building within minutes of the shooting, and his absence was noted quickly by Truly even if a number of employees had left the building and went home after 12:30 p.m. with some more employees taking leave for the day later in the afternoon after they assisted the police, but with no knowledge of a roll call. This has to be the least likely explanation given that employees were leaving work on their own.
3. Dallas police received advice from an intelligence agency that Oswald was under surveillance and could be the gunman responsible for the shooting.

Whether or not Oswald was already a person of interest to the intelligence community, where did Oswald go after he left work? And did he do anything to make himself a standout suspect and one that had to be tracked down immediately and at all costs because they felt he was a danger to society?

What we do know is that Oswald definitely left the Depository building by no later than 12:35 p.m. He walked to a bus stop, got on Cecil McWatters' bus near Dealey Plaza, discovered some minutes into the trip that there was a traffic jam, he gets off the bus and took a cab to Beckley Avenue, and he walked the remaining two blocks to his rented home. There, he changed his clothes, and went out for a walk.

In terms of the clothing Oswald wore on his trip back home, the bus driver McWatters said:

"I believe he had on a dark shirt and trousers."

McWatters did not specify the exact color, but emphasized that the clothing was dark. He doesn't mention whether Oswald wore a white T-shirt underneath. What he did notice is that Oswald looked "neat" and "clean", but didn’t recall a jacket or any other specific garment. If there was a grey wool-like shirt that Oswald wore when he went to work that day, he must have left it in the Depository building. However, to this day, this specific item of clothing has never been found.

As for the cab driver, William Whaley, he gave a more detailed description. In his Warren Commission testimony (Vol. II, p. 255), he stated:

"He had on a brown shirt and dark trousers."

Underneath his brown shirt was his white T-shirt.

Now what happens next is where things get confusing.

Depending on who to believe and whether people did observe Oswald or not, the first story supported by Dallas police and the Warren Commission (and probably the CIA and FBI) is that Oswald got home to change his clothes. In a bit of a rush and making lots of noises to alert the landlady of his rooming house, he gets outside, stops for a moment to zip up his light-coloured (either grey or tan) "Eisenhower-style" jacket, and then walks hurriedly in the direction of the bus stop. He also decided, for whatever reason (unless he was responsible for shooting the president), to take with him a revolver that no one, not even his wife Marina (based on her earliest statement), saw before. In fact, not even the landlady saw one either considering she cleans the rooming house for Oswald quite thoroughly. And yet Oswald could not hide a rifle from police instead of leaving it amongst some boxes in the Depository building. Assuming he did have a revolver, as he was walking along a street, he was confronted by a police officer in a car. The name of this officer was J. D. Tippit. Something was said between them, and as the officer came out of the car and walked around towards what he thought was a suspect based on physical descriptions given over the radio, Oswald decided to pull out his revolver and shoot the police officer four times, with the final shot done execution style as Oswald stood over the police officer lying on the ground. Tippit died immediately. Oswald ran from the scene, but not without deciding to take off his jacket and throw it in a car parking lot at the back of the Texaco service station for police to find, and wears a brown shirt. He was also seen fiddling around with his revolver as he left the Tippet murder scene in an attempt to throw away several shell casings for the police to find, and then chooses to carry the revolver to the Texas Movie Theater. If this isn't enough, he clumsily drops his wallet at the murder scene as well. Before he arrives to the theater, a shop owner (selling shoes) alleges that he saw a man acting suspiciously outside the Texaco service station (i.e., running, while listening to reports on the radio of a man having shot a police officer nearby), and outside the theater as if sirens from police vehicles in the area were startling Oswald and was looking around frantically to see where the sounds were coming from. Oswald quickly went inside the building without paying for a ticket. The shop owner, who was following Oswald, went inside the building. He observed a female employee whose job it was to observe whether customers had bought a ticket was briefly distracted, which gave Oswald an opportunity to run into the cinema without being seen, except for the shop owner. The shop owner walked over to see the female employee, explained what he saw and recommended that she call the police because he had heard news of the Tippit shooting on the radio. Oswald emerges from the theater's main floor and is seen by the acting manager of the theater to buy some popcorn and, therefore, did not raise any alarm bells. In fact, the acting manager seemed completely unaware of what was happening between the shop owner and the female employee and how they have called the police, and was not informed of the situation regarding Oswald being a potential fugitive and could dangerous if carrying a weapon or, at the very least, let alone someone who was financially evading his responsibility to pay for a ticket. Once Oswald purchased his popcorn, he casually went back into the theater just before the movie started. When Oswald was in the theater floor, he seem agitated as he got up occasionally to try different seats, and eventually settled on sitting next to a pregnant woman. The woman left her seat, and a short while later (at 1:45 p.m.), the police arrived to arrest Oswald. But it wasn't without Oswald attempting to pull out his Iver Johnson .38 revolver he had in his possession and aimed it at Officer Nick McDonald with the intention of firing it. The revolver didn't fire as it was stuck, allowing police officers to jump on Oswald, and this was when Oswald received a punch in the face, giving him a black eye. He was handcuffed and taken out the front door to be seen by witnesses in the building, including patrons, to the Dallas Police Department.

The other story of what happened is that Oswald was no where near the scene of the Tippit shooting. In this story, he changed his clothes, wearing a clean white T-shirt and a dark (most likely black) trousers. He wore no jacket for this sunny and relatively warm day. But he may or may not have chosen to wear a clean brown shirt. Not the same one seen by the taxi cab driver when Oswald was taken home. Oswald must have had another shirt of the same colour. He left his home quietly without alerting anyone. He walked directly to the Texas Movie Theater, bought a ticket, and later some popcorn using the money he had, and sat in the cinema watching the movie. Initially, he wasn't sure if the position to watch the movie was right for him, so he tried different seats. The only problem for Oswald was that he was unaware of another man with similar body type, build and height with brown hair, and resembling Oswald in facial features from a distance, was acting strangely just outside the theater. This man entered the theater and was deciding what to do next. Enough time for a shop owner to enter the building and watch as he saw the man evade a female employee and went towards the theater. The shop owner explained what he saw to the female employee of the theater and recommended she call the police. When police arrived and came to grab the man, Oswald was confused as to why he was the target. He received a punch in the face for no obvious reason other than for police to create evidence that he was resisting arrest or something else. Oswald sustained a black eye. Hours later when a reporter asked him about his injury Oswald looked sincerely upset: “A policeman hit me!", as if he never did anything wrong and was surprised by the excessive force applied on him. At the same time, police somehow carried a revolver to match the shell casings found at the Tippit scene, and potentially a brown shirt (if Oswald didn't wear one initially), which may have been picked up at the theater left there by the suspicious Oswald look alike who, by this time, went to a balcony in the theater and watching the arrest take place. The revolver would be introduced by Dallas police as evidence to claim Oswald was carrying this weapon and had also attempted to use it against one of the police officers as proof that Oswald was a dangerous killer. With no patrons on the floor able to see what actually happened, Oswald was handcuffed, and led out of the front of the building and taken to the Dallas Police Department. In the meantime, another group of police officers arrived at the back entrance to the theater and went upstairs to one of the balconies. There, the police found and handcuffed a man who they thought was Oswald (or perhaps already knew who this man was) and was led out the back door of the theater. No one knows what happened to this man once the police vehicle left the scene.

After that, everyone starts to agree with what happened next as Oswald is brought to the Dallas Police Department.

The question on everyone's mind is, which story is true?

For the first story to hold any credence, witnesses had to firmly observe and identify Oswald as responsible for the shooting of Tippit. Let us see how the evidence stacks up following the impeccably detailed and fine efforts of the Dallas police to investigate this Tippit shooting.

The first witness to the murder scene is Jack Tatum. His recollection of what he saw in the Tippit shooting just outside building number 404 on East 10^th (404 E 10^th) street was based on a fleeting moment while driving his car along a nearby street. What he saw was the shooter standing over Tippit’s body and firing the final fatal shot. He described the shooter as a white male, early twenties, slim build, light brown hair, about 5'10". This description seems to align with Oswald's general appearance. However, he was not asked to participate in a formal police lineup or make a sworn identification of Oswald being the shooter mainly because we was not sure whether the man he saw was Oswald. Apart from that, the witness did describe the shooter's clothing in some detail. He said the man was wearing a light-colored "Eisenhower-type" jacket, which seems consistent with a gray zipper jacket later found behind a Texaco station.

The one witness who was closest and had a little moe time to observe the shooter was Domingo Benavides. He worked as a mechanic at Harris Motors Company located a block away. He was driving his pickup truck along Tenth Street in Oak Cliff when he encountered the scene of Officer Tippit’s shooting. From the closest vantage point he got of 25 feet from the Tippit shooter and moving slowly through the residential area, Benavides could make out at the corner of his eye a police officer getting out of his car, and another man standing on the footpath. Suddenly he heard three gunshots. He realised how close they were from how loud they sounded. Instinctively, he ducked below the dashboard and veered his pickup toward the opposite curb, using the vehicle as cover. For several tense moments, he remained hidden, unable to witness the fourth and final shot that killed the police officer. When he cautiously raised his head, he saw the same man on the footpath running westward in the direction of Patton Avenue, and toward the Texaco service station.

Bernavides later said he briefly saw the killer's face. On recollection, the killer resembled newspaper photos of Oswald, but it wasn't Oswald. To reinforce this view, he also described the man’s hairline as squared off at the back of the head, unlike Oswald’s tapered cut, which left doubt in his mind about whether it really was Oswald.

As Benavides could not formally identify the man he saw as Oswald, he reportedly faced threats and intimidation by Dallas police for some reason, telling him in no uncertain terms not to speak publicly about what he saw. Why it was necessary to intimidate and threaten a witness has never been satisfactorily explained by Dallas police. Furthermore, such an extraordinary claim might explain why the police had not asked Bernavides to view a police lineup that included Oswald, even though he was the closest witness to the shooting. Because if Benavides was to confirm the man he saw wasn't Oswald even if he could see a resemblance, it could shatter the confidence of the police force in getting the man they had hoped for, which is Oswald. The police needed someone to say, "Yep, it must be that man" as the witness points to Oswald. That's the kind of evidence the police wanted to have. Too risky with Benavides as a definite no answer even after viewing Oswald's face would be devastating.

The official reason given by the police for not letting Benavides watch the lineup was that he "didn't think he was very good at identifying people". Bernavides had his own views on the matter. Of course, not being allowed to see Oswald to confirm or deny would not stop him, nor did he comply with the firm advice given by the police. The public soon learned of this witness when journalist David Welsh wrote an article in Ramparts magazine (1966) discussing Benavides interesting observations regarding the Tippit gunman. The only slight problem in being open and truthful on the matter are the potential consequences. In February 1964, Benavides' brother, Edward (Eddy) Benavides—who closely resembled him—was shot in the back of the head at a Dallas beer joint. Domingo believed this was a case of mistaken identity, suggesting he may have been the intended target. Remarkably, the gunman was never identified. The police later filed a cursory report with minimal investigation other than to learn that it was a 41-year-old male who killed Edward. How the police can be so precise in the age instead of saying in his late thirties or forties is a little puzzling (unlessDallas police know who this gunman was), but that was the best the police could do at the time. Since then, the police has marked the case as unsolved, which further fueled suspicions and concerns about intimidation and cover-up.

Also, when the time came for the Warren Commission to listen to the witnesses claims, they did not investigate Benavides' claim in depth, nor did it reconcile the haircut discrepancy. Somehow they felt all this was irrelevant or wasn't officially recorded by Dallas police to take seriously.

On the other hand, a witness that the Warren Commission was willing to listen and accept his testimony even though he decided at a late stage to identify the shooter as Oswald was Warren Reynolds, Reynolds was working at his family's used car lot on Jefferson Boulevard, near the site of Officer J.D. Tippit's murder, when he heard shots fired. He did not personally witness the shooting itself, but saw a man running from the scene. Reynolds later told the FBI in late November 1963 that he could not positively identify the man as Oswald. An FBI investigator wrote:

"Reynolds stated that the man he saw was not Oswald." (Robert Groden, The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald)

Then less than two days later, as Reynolds was locking up the car lot, Reynolds was shot in the head with a .22 caliber rifle. He survived the attack, staggering into the office and collapsing.

Dallas police did look at the Reynold shooting case and found one eyewitness. Sonny Carty, the man who the shooting, was interviewed and his statement recorded, saying he saw a man fleeing the scene with a rifle and described him as a small white male, around 5'5", wearing brown khakis and a blue flowered shirt. Not long after, police arrested Darrell Wayne Garner for the shooting. However, the odd thing was that Betty Mooney MacDonald, a former stripper at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club, gave Garner an alibi. This forced the police to release their suspect. Days later, MacDonald was arrested for a domestic dispute and was found hanged in her jail cell. Her death was ruled a suicide, but the circumstances remain suspicious.

On January 22, 1964, Reynold's official testimony to the Warren Commission stated:

"I believe the man I saw running was Oswald." (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XI)

Reynolds explained how he was able to identify the man. He claimed to have had a good view from his elevated office at Reynolds Motor Co.. Unfortunately, being one block away (at least 100 to 150 feet) from the Tippit shooting site and difficult to see the man's face as he was running away, not towards Reynolds, has led many researchers to question the credibility of his changed testimony. Not so for the Warren Commission (and Dallas police who were delighted to hear the new statement emerge from Reynolds), as it was felt his positive identification of Oswald was reliable (despite his sudden change in position) and a key piece of evidence needed to blame Oswald for the Tippit shooting.

Although unproven, what likely happened was that during Reynold's recovery in hospital, he was approached by unknown person(s) who threatened to put an end to his life if he did not tell the authorities what they wanted to hear. So, to avoid being killed, he decided to reverse his earlier position.

Where witnesses are likely to be killed, sometimes the best strategy is to be anonymous in passing on information.

In October 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison investigated the events of this day and the man allegedly responsible for killing the president and police officer Tippit. Ian interview to Playboy Magazine he said:

"The evidence we've uncovered leads us to suspect that two men, neither of whom was Oswald, were the real murderers of Tippit."

After the interview was published, an anonymous witness from Dallas wrote a letter to the editor. The person wrote:

"I read Playboy’s Garrison interview with perhaps more interest than most readers. I was an eyewitness to the shooting of policeman Tippit in Dallas on the afternoon President Kennedy was murdered. I saw two men, neither of them resembling the pictures I later saw of Lee Harvey Oswald, shoot Tippit and run off in opposite directions. There were at least half a dozen other people who witnessed this. My wife convinced me that I should say nothing, since there were other eyewitnesses. Her advice and my cowardice undoubtedly have prolonged my life — or at least allowed me now to tell the true story…"

One other witness who was not sure whether it was Oswald, but later made a formal identification after a lengthy period of questioning by Dallas police while under pressure to give the police what they wanted to hear, and was getting tired as she watched the lineup, is Helen Markham. She described the person she saw at the murder scene as:

"Short and somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair."

Considering Oswald was about 5'9", slim, and had relatively neat hair, this mismatch is considered a significant discrepancy. Either this showed how tired she was by showing she had confused the shooter for another man seen at the murder scene, or she was quietly protesting at her treatment.

During Markham's testimony to the Warren Commission, she initially confirmed that she couldn’t recognize anyone in the lineup and hence had trouble seeing Oswald at the scene of the Tippet murder. This is not because there were huge numbers of people in the line up for Markham to wade through. Oswald was placed in a lineup with just three other men, all Dallas police employees who did not resemble him closely. Just to add to the unfairness of the lineup to Oswald's defence, he was reportedly the only one in the lineup who had a black eye and looked disheveled, making him stand out like a sore thumb. Markham's main problem she had with this lineup was the lengthy questioning by police. After a few hours, she was getting tired. Then came the pressure she felt because the Dallas police were also under pressure to get a result that would stick to Oswald for whatever reason. Eventually, the most vulnerable witness to the Tippit shooting caved into the demands of the police. She decided to use her knowledge of seeing a picture of Oswald on television when he was arrested to identify the Tippit shooter as Oswald. Well, he kind of looked similar to the Tippit shooter. What harm would it be if she just went along with whatever the police wanted her to say so she can go home?

Though the official narrative treated Markham as a reliable witness (essential for Dallas police and the Warren Commission to build a case against Oswald), her testimony was actually riddled with contradictions: For example, she claimed Tippit was still alive and spoke to her, thereby contradicting medical evidence and other witnesses who said he died instantly. She also said she was alone with the body for 20 minutes, but police and other witnesses arrived within minutes. About the only thing she seems consistent with other witnesses is the description of the clothing. She was certain the man wore a "light-coloured jacket" and "dark trousers".

Another witness who may have seen the Tippit shooter, albeit from a distance (the FBI later confirmed the gunman passed within 55 feet of this witness), was Ted Callaway, a car salesman and manager of Harris Motor Company. He too would rely on his memory of Oswald on television (after Oswald had been arrested) to fit the facts of what he allegedly observed, especially regarding body type and height of the shooter in question. Callaway said he heard gunshots and ran outside, where he saw a man with a pistol running across the yard. He described the man as "white, about 5'10", 165 pounds, in his early twenties, with brown hair and a light complexion". This description is broadly consistent with Oswald, who was 5'9", about 150-160 pounds, and 24 years old, although such a profile could fit thousands of men in Dallas. Furthermore, Callaway's view of the shooter was brief and from a distance, raising questions about the reliability of his identification. Of course, this did not matter to Dallas police. So long as Callaway could identify the man he saw as Oswald, then that's just another nail in the coffin for Oswald. After Callaway participated in watching a lineup and pointed at Oswald as the man he thought he saw, Dallas police has considered his statement to be clear and reliable. Other than that, Callaway reportedly asked mechanic Domingo Benavides, "Which way did he go?", and he jumped into a car and tried to follow the gunman. As for the clothes the shooter allegedly wore, Callaway said:

"Wearing a light-colored jacket and dark trousers."

However, this reliability of Callaway's identification of the shooter was left open for questioning when during the 1986 televised mock trial The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in London, defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined Ted Callaway, the Harris Motors manager who had claimed to witness Oswald fleeing the scene of Officer J.D. Tippit’s murder. Spence challenged Callaway’s ability to identify a running gunman from over 50 feet away. Callaway dismissed the skepticism, insisting confidently that "the accused assassin was the man he saw running from the Tippit murder scene with gun in hand."

Just as Spence appeared ready to end the questioning, he asked Callaway one final question: "Can you identify the man in this picture?" A black-and-white photograph taken by a news photographer at the moment of the assassination of John Kennedy in Dealey Plaza was displayed on the courtroom screen, showing the Texas School Book Depository in the background. In it shows the controversial mystery man whose face has been identified by experts as a younger looking Mr Lovelady (with more hair on top), but the clothing of the individual looks remarkably like the one worn by Oswald. Whether this individual is meant to be Oswald or Lovelady, the face of this one figure in the entranceway was enlarged.

Momentarily confused, Callaway studied the image and responded, “Why…why that’s a resemblance of Oswald!” Spence, satisfied, replied, "No further questions." The photograph (more specifically the face) was not of Oswald, but of Billy Lovelady, Oswald’s co-worker. Callaway’s misidentification cast doubt on his reliability as a witness and underscored the defense’s argument about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony.

Virginia Ruth Davis lived at 400 East 10^th Street, near the scene of the shooting. In her testimony to the Warren Commission, she described seeing a man run past her apartment shortly after the shots were fired:

"I saw a man come running across our yard. He was carrying a pistol in his hand." (Virginia Davis, Warren Commission testimony, April 2, 1964)

Barbara Davis, Virginia’s sister-in-law, also witnessed the same man fleeing. Her account closely matched Virginia's:

"He had a gun in his hand and he was running fast." (Barbara Davis, cited in witness summaries)

In terms of identifying the man, both women believed the shooter was Oswald, although their observations were made from inside their apartment and at a distance, which means they both have the same problem of determining whether the man really was Oswald in the same way as Callaway.

About the only thing the witnesses can be relied on is the fact that they saw the suspect "discard something" as he was fleeing from the scene, and it was presumed to be shell casings. Later, police determined this to be true, and is consistent with what Domingo Benavides reported when he saw the shooter fiddling with the revolver as he fled, possibly ejecting casings.

As for the shop owner of a shoe store who claimed to have seen Oswald entering the Texas Movie Theatre at 1:35 p.m, Johnny Calvin Brewer wasn't close enough to properly look at the man's face with whom he thought was acting suspiciously outside the front of the building. He was more focused on the man's behaviour more than anything else. As Brewer stated:

"That man just ducked into the theater. I think he’s the one they’re looking for."

He can't recall the clothes this man wore either, only his behaviour.

Brewer went into the building and saw the man evade Julie Postal, the woman in charge of checking the customers have purchased tickets. With the man's back towards him and fleeing towards the theatre room, he couldn't see his face clearly enough. Later Brewer claims he could identify this man as Oswald.

Just one problem though. The acting manager of the theatre, seller of popcorn and other foods, and a ticket collector named Warren ”Butch” Burroughs saw Oswald walk into the foyer around 1:00-07pm. There is some conflicting reports about whether Burroughs did actually see Oswald buy a (or show his) ticket, but later he claimed he wasn't sure and went along with whatever his employee Julia Postal said had happened, which at a late stage was to claim Oswald had not purchased a ticket. However, in her earliest statement, Postal was conflicted about whether to say Oswald did buy a ticket, and was most upset when she was asked about this by researcher Jones Harris. Whatever is going on, what we do know with confidence and looking at how the testimony has not changed over the next 50 years is the fact that Burroughs did serve Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m., and certainly no later than 1:18 p.m. The movie started at 1:20 p.m. So this would kind of make sense. Oswald would grab some food and get back in time to watch the start of the movie credits. During which time, Burroughs, who had just sold popcorn to Oswald, was not informed by Postal of the situation regarding Oswald and how he evaded paying for a ticket, and the possibility this man could be connected to the Tippet murder and hence could be dangerous and armed if he is the killer according to what Brewer had heard on the radio. Nor did he know whether Postal had already contacted the police. This is unusual. Could this be because she would only provide this information to the actual manager, John Callahan? Strange thing is, Callahan had already left the building, and rather conveniently before the police arrived and never returned, leaving her and Burroughs as the only staff present. Just to add a strange twist to this story, some police officers who did arrive, including Lt. Cunningham and Detective J.B. Toney, reportedly questioned a young man on the theater's balcony stairs who matched the suspect’s description, right down to the fact that he wore a white T-shirt and dark pants (although any brown shirt was not on this man). This man was later said to have an alibi provided by someone claiming to be the manager, though the theater's actual manager was not present, and the one acting as manager had no idea this Oswald look alike was also in the building together with the real Oswald. In fact, he had never seen this other man. Instead Burroughs tells police that the real Oswald is in the main floor, by which time the detectives already saw other police officers arrest Oswald and take him away. The two detectives stayed behind to interview witnesses.

However, Burroughs claimed he saw—not just heard—that a second man, resembling Oswald, was arrested by another group of police officers and taken out the back door of the Texas Theatre shortly after Oswald’s arrest.

A police vehicle was waiting out the back of the theatre, in an alley way. According to a Dallas Police Department document written by L. D. Stringfellow, a detective of the Criminal Intelligence Section, and directed to Captain W. P. Gannaway and Lieutenant Jack Revill, the man who police took away to the back of the building was named as the suspect: Lee Harvey Oswald. But the location of the man when he was arrested was "in the balcony". Yet the official story and supported by witnesses present in the theater was that Oswald was arrested on the main floor of the theatre. The suspect was handcuffed and taken out the front door of the theater for witnesses to observe.

As the document stated:

"On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater, 231 West Jefferson Blvd and was charged with the murder of President John F. Kennedy and the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit."

Was this document a slip up on the part of Dallas police on the order in which the real Oswald and the Oswald look alike was meant to be led out of the building, but someone picked the "wrong horse" and ended up describing this other man as Oswald?

If that sounds bizarre, we may have another witness. According to multiple researchers, including James Douglass and John Armstrong, Bernie Haire, owner of Bernie’s Hobby House at a nearby shop, saw police activity and went to the alley behind the theater. He said a young white man was taken out the back door and placed in a police car, believing for decades that this was Oswald. In 1987, Haire was told that Oswald was taken out the front. When he heard this, Haire was reportedly shocked, implying he may have seen someone else.

Burroughs sees Oswald get taken by police to the front of the building and into a waiting police vehicle outside. He confirms this is the person he observed Oswald at a very close range and face-to-face at around 1:15 p.m. when he served him the popcorn. It means that it would have been impossible for Burroughs to mistaken him for anyone else, and so confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that it was Oswald.

But this other man Burroughs saw arrested after Oswald left the building was not a twin Oswald. It was someone who resembled Oswald in some ways, but was definitely not Oswald.

If this is true, then how is it possible for Brewer to have seen Oswald at 1:35 p.m.? There is not even evidence of Oswald having walked outside briefly to act suspiciously and alert Brewer of this behaviour and then suddenly came back in. Something is not quite right in Brewer's observations.

It should be noted that Brewer did not explicitly state the color of the trousers worn by the suspicious man he saw enter the Texas Theater, or even his shirt — at least not in his most cited affidavits or oral history interviews. His focus was primarily on the man’s behavior: appearing nervous, hiding from passing police cars, and slipping into the theater without buying a ticket when he heard a police siren in the distance. The only time Brewer even mentioned clothing was when the man had arrived at the Texaco service station. He was wearing a light-coloured jacket, but not of any specific color. But as soon as the man emerges from behind the service stations and starts walking to the Texas theater, Brewer says nothing about a change in clothing other than he was without the jacket.Unless police investigators and the Warren Commission deliberately avoided asking questions about the clothing and the color, there is nothing here to help make a direct link to Oswald. All we have is an observation from a distance of a man that kind of looked like Oswald, and certainly of similar body type and height, and was not behaving in a normal way. Well he should know whether the man is Oswald or not. The colour of the clothing should match exactly what Oswald wore to the theater. If he can't remember or is not sure even on this basic piece of information, then what are the chances we do have a second person involved, and perhaps Brewer had mistakenly identified this second man as Oswald?

As the identification of Oswald at the Tippit shooting scene now looks like it is on shaky ground, let's look at the behaviour of the gunman in question in more detail—whoever this person might be—especially in regards to leaving behind evidence for the police to find and whether this is consistent with how Oswald would do if he does anything wrong or makes a mistake. Would he just leave of his wrong-doing for all to discover and observe?

When the shell casings were analysed, forensics did match them to the revolver that policed later claimed was being carried by Oswald when he was arrested at the Texas Movie Theater. The bullets themselves that killed the police officer, on the other hand, is less certain as coming from the same weapon. The damage on the bullets was too great to get a firm confirmation that they did come from this revolver.

In the case of the light-coloured jacket seen on the shooter, police quickly found the jacket. Relying on witnesses in the area including Brewer, the gunman was seen cutting through a parking lot behind a Texaco service station, located two blocks from where Tippit was shot. Police searched the area and discovered the jacket.

This raises an important question: why would Oswald discard the jacket and shell casings so carelessly and in sight of witnesses as he left the scene in a haste? And why keep the murder weapon, only to be found on him later by police, assuming it was Oswald who did the killing? Although it is odd to see that Oswald knew nothing about this revolver (not even his wife recalls seeing this in her earliest statement), critics have argued why Oswald would leave behind incriminating evidence through the jacket and shell casings in places where the police would be able to find? Put them in a bag if he must, but it makes more sense to keep the items and throw then all away in a more obscure location (while making sure his fingerprints were not on the revolver)? Or better still, bury it somewhere. If Oswald got help to receive a brown shirt to wear, ask that person to take the evidence away. Problem solved. Yet somehow Oswald does not do this at all. It is highly reminiscent of the way the rifle in the Depository building is just left on the sixth floor for police to find. And surprisingly with only one fingerprint on the rifle.

When we look at the way Oswald handled the broken curtain rods, he was careful in discarding them. He went to a lot of effort to hide this fact as he fixed them with new curtain rods purchased from Irving. He decided to put the old ones in a brown paper bag (probably the same bag that held the new curtain rods), and went to work to throw the old broken curtain rods in a bin or dumpster. That way, even Marina and Ruth Paine would not know anything was amiss, especially if they were to open the household bin for themselves. He may have left his palmprint and fingerprints on the bag, but he had nothing to hide. He probably even told the truth about the contents of the paper bag to his co-worker who drove him to work. Yet we can see how careful Oswald was to hide any mistake or wrong doing from others at the time.

Oswald was even careful not to leave the rifle lying around for police to find when the Warren Commission said Oswald probably fired a shot at General Walker (and missed). Yet, somehow, he decides to leave what we presume is the same rifle on the sixth floor of the Depository building for police to find in less than an hour. And about 40 minutes later he drops his light-coloured jacket, and shell casings from a revolver. Huh? And if that is not enough, we have the story of Oswald's wallet found by police near the Tippit's body. How convenient?

Captain W. R. Westbrook of the Dallas Police reportedly found a wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Inside were IDs for both “Lee Harvey Oswald”, and “Alek Hidell”—the alias Oswald used to purchase the rifle and, presumably, the revolver although which advert in the newspaper or magazine mentioned this revolver still remains a mystery. Yet the thorn in this story is when Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theater. He apparently had his wallet on him. That means there were two wallets—one at the Tippit scene and one on Oswald. Oswald never mentioned losing his wallet, nor did he report it stolen or missing. So why would Oswald drop a wallet of his at the scene of a murder he was trying to flee? It’s inconsistent with someone trying to avoid capture. Even the Warren Commission didn’t fully resolve this contradiction, and it remains a focal point for critics of the official story with some researchers prepared to argue the wallet was brought to the scene to establish Oswald’s identity before he was even arrested. But this would imply a frame-up, possibly premeditated.

Just to add to the strange situation, when Oswald was arrested with his wallet in his possession, police found some cash in it, though the exact amount is unclear. Whatever he had, it seems as though Oswald had the means to buy a ticket at the cinema even though two other witnesses (Brewer and Postal) claimed at the Warren Commission that they allegedly saw Oswald not purchase a ticket. Or are they saying Oswald did not have enough cash on him to buy a ticket? If that is true, Oswald somehow had plenty to buy popcorn, a cab fare, a bus trip, and pay the rent at his rooming house (his rent payments were up to date and he was not in any financial stress at the time), not to mention purchasing his nice looking light-coloured "Eisenhower-style" jacket. He does not sound like a person struggling for cash. How can that be? Does this mean that Dallas police is claiming Oswald has also been throwing away cash like it was shell casings when he was fleeing from the Tippit scene?

Seriously, why is Oswald being careless now (but not before this day of November 22, 1963) in his actions of throwing away evidence (and cash) left, right, and center? Why leave so much incriminating evidence strewn all over the place for police to find and witnesses to observe? Or should we assume Oswald was having a particularly bad day?

This does not make sense.

Not unless, of course, the Dallas police were under pressure from someone higher up the chain of command, quite possible another more powerful agency within the U.S. government, to get incriminating evidence prepared and placed at or near the murder scene to help get the expected conviction this agency was looking for with Oswald. Enough pressure for certain members of Dallas police to forget what real police work and impartial investigations are all about, and overcooked the effort to frame Oswald with a sloppy attempt to leave behind an extra wallet. Well, this may not be such a far-fetched idea when we consider the witnesses claims of having seen two men at the scene of the Tippit murder.

One such witness named Acquilla Clemons said she was sitting on her porch near the crime scene and claimed to have seen two men involved in the shooting. One was described as "short and kind of heavy" wearing khaki trousers and a white shirt—not matching Oswald’s build or clothing. The second man was "tall and thin," which could resemble Oswald. Clemons said the gunman fled in one direction while the second man walked off in another.

Although Helen Markham identified Oswald as the shooter, her testimony was inconsistent and confused. At one point, she described seeing two men at the scene, though she later retracted or altered that claim under pressure. Then she mentioned the physical description of the shooter, but ended up describing the other man. Eventually with the stress of the interrogation and how long the questioning went on, it is no surprise if Markham decided to cave in to the demands of Dallas police to identify Oswald as the shooter. Anything to help her get some rest.

Barbara and Virginia Davis, both sisters living together, and close enough to the murder scene claimed to have seen a man fleeing with a gun. Their description matched Oswald (or what they thought was Oswald), but they also mentioned seeing another man in the vicinity shortly before the shooting. Their accounts were not fully explored by the Warren Commission.

Ted Callaway, the used car salesman who heard the shots and saw a man with a gun running from the scene and later identified as Oswald even though his description was vague and could have applied to more than one person, claimed he saw another man walking away calmly, which some interpret as a possible accomplice.

What makes all this interesting is the pressure Dallas police tried to put not just on Markham to single out Oswald as the shooter, but also of Clemons. In this latter witness, we learn that she received a warning by Dallas police not to repeat her story or she "might get hurt." according to her words. Sounds more like a threat than a warning. It is almost like the police might actually know who the gunman was in the death of Domingo Benavides' brother at a Dallas pub? And maybe even the Oswald impersonator seen running from, the Tippit murder scene and eventually entering the theater. If this wasn't enough to discourage Clemons from speaking out, the FBI reportedly declined to take her statement due to her diabetes, which critics argue was an inadequate excuse for ignoring such a crucial eyewitness. Souns like the Dallas police are not the only ones to face pressure from some external source. We might as well include the FBI if it is willing to ignore her observations. Fortunately Clemons was willing to come forth and give her statement to other investigators who were willing to listen and record her statements.

Given the number of witnesses in the area and how many were willing to raise the possibility of a second man at the murder scene, another convenient moment came for Dallas police and others likely involved in the Tippit murder case to prevent any fresh investigation on the case by examining the scene when within 90 days of the shooting, Dallas attorney Dick Loomis—whose office was in the same building as oil magnate Lamar Hunt—bought five houses on the same side of the street where Tippit was shot. These homes were razed and replaced with an apartment complex, effectively erasing the original crime scene and removing potential witnesses. Essentially, case closed.

Whatever is going on at the time, the presence of a second man at the murder scene could be strong evidence of an intentional and well orchestrated murder of a police officer. Quite possibly the pressure on the Dallas police to get a preferred outcome designed to target Oswald was so intense, they were willing to sacrifice one of their own officer in order to strengthen the case against Oswald. If this is true, then this would imply a broader conspiracy involving multiple actors and a deliberate effort to suppress or manipulate witness testimony.

Today, the Tippit shooting is far from a closed case. The haircut discrepancy, lack of positive ID from the closest witness, and claims of two shooters all raise serious doubts. While forensic evidence links the shell casings to the revolver found on Oswald (or as planted on man to further implicate Oswald in the Tippit murder) by Dallas police, it doesn’t conclusively prove he fired them. Nor can we be absolutely sure Oswald did own a revolver. With no evidence of how Oswald purchased a revolver, the possibility of a frame-up or mistaken identity remains plausible—and troubling.

Now comes the forensic examination of the jacket and how this was interpreted as evidence of Oswald being the shooter in the Tippit murder case.

As forensic analysis have revealed, fibers on the inside of the jacket were consistent with a white T-shirt of the type Oswald wore to work, and at the time of his arrest at the Dallas Movie Theater. Of course, making a connection between white fibers and a white T-shirt is not in itself incriminating to the point of claiming Oswald was the shooter in the Tippit murder. This T-shirt is not one of a kind, specially designed piece of clothing. The white T-shirt worn by Oswald was a common, mass-produced item, widely available in department stores and worn by countless men in Dallas (and across the U.S.) in 1963. It was not distinctive, custom-made, or traceable to a specific individual. The only reason the Warren Commission and the Dallas police thought this was important evidence to use against Oswald is because he did own a light-colored jacket, and Ruth Paine (with whom Oswald’s wife was staying) confirmed that Oswald had left behind a gray or light-colored jacket at her home. Marina Oswald also testified that he owned such a garment. That combination of a light-colored jacket owned by Oswald and white fibres from a white T-shirt might be less common, but two witnesses having seen the jacket in Oswald's possession, is strong evidence that the jacket found at the Texaco service station by Dallas police was probably ownedx by Oswald. However, this is by no means proof of Oswald being the shooter. What the forensic evidence cannot show is whether the jacket could have been stolen by another man who entered Oswald's home as part of a bigger conspiracy to frame Oswald, with the jacket later dropped at the service station for police to find.

How do we differentiate in this circumstance? We can't. It still remains circumstantial evidence. It is certainly not proof of Oswald's wrong-doing.

For example, Oswald was asked what he wore when he left his rented home after changing his clothes. His response shows no evidence that Oswald wore a jacket. Captain Will Fritz’s handwritten notes from his interrogation of Oswald do contain a reference to Oswald changing clothes after leaving the Texas School Book Depository. While the notes are brief and not fully detailed, one key line reads:

"Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes – long sleeve red sh + gray tr."

The interpretation of this quote is that Oswald went home to change his shirts. Note the plural form of the form "shirts". This is more than one shirt. Unless Fritz has made a mistake by adding an "s" to the end of the word, it means that Oswald changed only two shirts he had on: the outermost shirt in which a taxi cab driver saw inside the car as looking more brown, but in the sunlight revealed some red according to Oswald, and the innermost white T-shirt with its V-shaped neckline design. He also changed his grey trousers. What is not clear are the clothes he changed into. All we know are the clothes Oswald was seen wearing when he was arrested at the Dallas Movie Theater. Here, we are told, and see in photographs when Osawald was handcuffed, as having a dark, virtually black trousers, a white T-shirt, and a brown shirt.

Before Oswald changed his clothes, we do have some insight into Oswald's work clothes. Frazier was certain in his earliest statements that he saw a grey wool-like shirt over a dark red to brown-like shirt (sometimes described as maroon color) followed by the white T-shirt. Though in later statements, he could only recall seeing the grey shirt and white T-shirt.

At lunchtime, Dallas police officer Marrion Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom without any shirts except the white T-shirt. When Oswald left the building, a cab driver saw what he thought looked like a brown shirt on top of Oswald's standard white T-shirt. This is quite possibly the same shirt seen by Frazier. The different colours suggest that the amount of light falling on the shirt can change the colour in subtle ways. In darkened interiors, the colour of the shirt may look more brown. Under bright sunlight, the colour may reveal more red tones.

This dark-coloured shirt looking like brown or red is different from the plaid shirt worn by Billy Nolan Lovelady. Here, the shirt was described as long-sleeved and crisscrossed into horizontal and vertical bands of red and white. As the taxi driver said nothing about the colour white in Oswald's shirt, what Oswald wore must be a more solid colour.

As for the grey shirt seen by Frazier, there are no indications Oswald took this home. As there are no lockers in the Depository for employees to use to place personal belongings, it would appear Oswald had left behind his grey jacket on the first floor when he was having lunch. To this day, the grey shirt has never been found, and is considered by researchers as crucial for identifying the mystery man in a photograph seen outside the Depository building as we shall discuss later.

As for the grey trousers, it was put in the clothing bin. Not mentioned in Fritz's notes is whether Oswald wore a dark, almost black, trousers before he left his home. Indeed, we don't even know whether he changed his white T-shirt. Well, if Oswald was going to change his shirt(s), it makes sense to change his white T-shirt. Unfortunately, no official list from the Dallas Police or FBI itemizes Oswald’s clothing down to individual T-shirts, or how many dark-coloured grey and black trousers he had. In fact, we are not even sure if Oswald owned separate brown and red shirts, or had two of a reddish-brown "rust-coloured" shirt, or exactly how many white T-shirts he had in his wardrobe. Such details were not considered relevant or important at the time. What we do know are the clothes Oswald was seen in at the time of his arrest.

Whatever Oswald changed into, he has not indicated he went out with a jacket. That should have been an eye opener for the Warren Commission, but it wasn't mainly because this detail was interpreted as Oswald trying to hide the jacket. Now really? Sounds meaningless considering the jacket has been found and forensics believe the white fibres on the inside of the jacket is from Oswald's own white T-shirt. Even if countless other men wear the same type of white T-shirt, the combination of a light-coloured jacket and white T-shirt is less common, and the fact that Oswald's wife does recall seeing such a jacket would strengthen the case that Oswald could be the shooter at the Tippit murder scene. But it does not prove Oswald was the shooter. If anyone else could grab Oswald's clothing from his home and wear it, it could exonerate Oswald so long as DNA evidence can find something to prove another man had worn the clothing. Remember, this man was seen running and would have left behind a certain amount of sweat and DNA evidence. Even a few hair fibers could be enough to determine how many men has worn these clothing items. Unfortunately DNA analysis was not available in 1963. Today, there is too much contamination of the jacket over decades from people touching this item, making DNA testing difficult or inconclusive at the present time.

As for the brown shirt, forensics never found evidence of brown fibers to match the brown shirt allegedly worn by Oswald according to the arresting officers from the Dallas police, and seen by Brewer and potentially Burroughs although he was not very clear about the color Oswald wore in his earliest statement to police and the Warren Commission. In 2007, Burroughs would mention a brown shirt, but not before.

Burroughs was interviewed on April 2, 1964, and his testimony appears in Volume VII of the Warren Commission Hearings. Here's what he said about the man he saw in the theater:

"He was wearing a sport shirt and dark trousers." (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 390.)

That’s it. No mention of color, no mention of layers. He described it only as a "sport shirt", which could refer to a casual button-up shirt of any color. In modern times, a sports shirt could extend to include a T-shirt. However, a "sports shirt" in 1963 is usually described as a casual button-up shirt, often with a collar, short or long sleeves, and often worn untucked for leisure or informal occasions. Thus the following photographs of a brown-red shirt worn by Oswald is usually seen as a sports shirt according to Burroughs and others living at the time:

If Burroughs had clearly seen Oswald in a brown "sports shirt" in 1963, it’s reasonable to expect he would have said so in 1964. But he didn't. Then, in an interview conducted decades later by author James Douglass (2007), Burroughs said:

"I sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m. He was wearing a brown shirt."

So why didn't he mention the colour before? Was this a case of not being asked the right questions by police and the Warren Commission? Or is it because Oswald initially walked into the theater with just a white T-shirt, but came out handcuffed by Dallas police with a brown shirt and this is what Burroughs decided to mention many decades later?

Other than that, no other witness can prove with absolute certainty that Oswald wore a brown shirt on leaving his home, or on arriving at the Tippit murder scene if it was him. Only when Oswald was alleged to have walked away from the Texaco service station do we see this brown shirt come into play. Or was it another man pretending to be Oswald who was walking with this brown shirt? But if this is true, where did this brown shirt come from? And how did this man know he should wear a brown shirt just like Oswald? Remember, we have a time discrepancy of when Oswald came into the theater of between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m. according to Burroughs, and when Brewer said he saw a man resembling Oswald enter the theatre at 1:35 p.m.

The only way we can reconcile this discrepancy in the times is to say we have two men. And the man from the Tippit murder scene somehow realised he had to wear a brown shirt, just like Oswald allegedly wore to the theater. It almost sounds like a set-up was in progress to have Oswald arrested and framed for all the murders on the day.

So, how did this second individual know he should wear this coloured shirt? Clearly he didn't wear it when he left Oswald's house as the fibers on the inside of the jacket is only white. It is almost as if this man at the Texaco service station had only just found out what the real Oswald was wearing because he was told, and someone supplied the shirt. Either the shirt is very common and was quickly purchased from a clothing department store, or someone just happened to have a spare he could give to this man, or someone else went back to Oswald's home to pick out the brown shirt from the clothing bin, or had found a clean brown shirt. Again this cannot be confirmed because of the sloppy work by Dallas police in not itemizing and counting all the clothing items in Oswald's possession, both at home and on the man himself. We simply do not know what he had. All we can say with certainty is that this man from the Texaco service station, when he began walking to the theater, knew he had to wear a very similar if not identical brown shirt, and where he had to head to. All this would strongly suggest this Oswald look-alike had help. Someone may have been waiting in the car parking lot to hand over a brown shirt to the Tippit gunman, and any other information the man needed to know regarding the whereabouts of Oswald. Or else the man called on a public telephone and received the information he needed, including the location of a brown shirt to wear. We can only speculate on this aspect.

This is the thing. No one actually saw the man (or Oswald) drop the jacket and show how he obtained the brown shirt. In fact, we cannot even be sure if the man in question had not met someone else in the parking lot and was given a brown shirt, told to drop the jacket on the ground as further incriminating evidence against Oswald, told him where to walk, and enter as suspiciously as he could into the theater.

If we were to say this man was Oswald, then either Oswald bought a new brown shirt at the service station, he had an accomplice to help him out and supply this shirt, or he simply was never there. From the way things are looking, there is no evidence Oswald had all this planned and co-ordinated (probably days in advance of the presidential shooting) given the fact that he couldn't even organise himself out of wet paper bag based on the condition of his rifle and not getting it accurate to do the job of killing the president. Then he leaves behind so much evidence on the ground and on the sixth floor of the Depository building to link back to him, including his wallet, shell casings, and a rifle. That is not well-planned. This is strongly looking like someone else was much better organised than Oswald, right down to conducting surveillance on Oswald from the moment he went to work, to the moment he went to the theater directly from his home. Somebody was watching Oswald and helping another man who, from a distance, could impersonate Oswald right down to the clothing he should wear at the service station and when entering the theater. The light-coloured jacket seen at the Tippit murder scene was a mistake. A kind of "Oops! We didn't know" moment when the man didn't have the right clothing item to match Oswald, as if the man entered Oswald house before Oswald got home.

And how likely could this brown shirt have been acquired from Oswald's house, assuming he had a second pair? As far as can be ascertained, there is no evidence Roberts, the landlady of Oswald's rooming house, was aware that another man may have quietly entered Oswald's home to grab a brown shirt. Then again, we cannot rule out the possibility that it may have occurred without Roberts awareness. One cannot always expect Roberts to hear and watch every person entering Oswald's house. If she didn't hear the real Oswald arrive and leave wearing the brown shirt, it is possible another person could have quietly entered the house and grabbed a second brown shirt from Oswald's wardrobe. The only time Roberts would look outside to see what she thought was Oswald was when she heard the noise and slamming shut of the front door as if the man was in a rush, quite possibly because Oswald was returning home and the man picked out a light-coloured jacket, not knowing that the real Oswald would choose a brown shirt. If Oswald was under surveillance, someone had to find another brown shirt very quickly, and not this other man about it. Does this mean that the mystery man who left Oswald house and sighted by Roberts came just before Oswald returned home? It would explain the two honks by a Dallas police vehicle outside the house. And perhaps the accomplice who was seen briefly speaking to this Oswald impersonator at the Tippit murder scene was passing on information about where to go after learning about the brown shirt and that someone else would be waiting in the car parking lot to supply another brown shirt.

Or was it a coincidence? Unlikely. The Texaco service station would not sell a shirt as it wasn't a notable location for a clothing department store. The most by way of a disguise you could buy from this place is a pair of sunglasses and a cap. Otherwise it will take too long to change body size by eating the food on offer. But a shirt? This item has to be prepared and ready prior to the Tippit shooter arriving at the service station, and handed over to this Oswald impersonator by another person in a vehicle parked behind the building. To avoid being seen by a member of the public, this impersonator probably got into the back seat of the car, took off his jacket, and put on the brown shirt. When he left the car, he simply dropped the jacket on the ground. No one would have suspected anything unusual, except for one witness who already saw him run to the service station and disappear behind the building briefly without realising what went on behind the scenes.

As for getting a pair of sunglasses and a cap, this would be too dangerous for the Oswald impersonator. The weakness he had was close range observation of his face by witnesses. If any witness inside the service station was to recall seeing a man resembling Oswald purchasing such items and can vouch it wasn't Oswald due to the close range nature of the observation, it could throw the whole plan to frame Oswald out-the-door. It would be better to go along with matching Oswald's clothes as closely as possible and keep the face at a safe distance from other witnesses. Fortunately, nearly everyone was at the presidential motorcade, except for a handful of shop owners and a few people who decided to visit the Dallas Movie Theatre, of which the real Oswald clearly choose to do when he was later arrested within this building.

Of course, we have been taking on the view that this man was not Oswald. What if the impersonator really was Oswald? In this situation, Oswald would already knew he was going to be targeted by Dallas police and probably arrested for the shooting of the president, and the shooting of Tippit. The fact that he was dropping evidence left, right, and centre in various places must be clear evidence of his decision to throw his life away and face the consequences of his actions. Then he decides to wear a brown shirt, wherever this shirt came from. Certainly from the photographs when he was arrested, the shirt looked clean and not damaged. It is highly unlikely he picked it out of a dumpster. He must have been given this item by someone else, or he had everything planned prior to this day. But this isn't like Oswald given how careful he can hide damaged curtain rods and hide his rifle after shooting at General Walker (assuming he was the shooter). Oswald would not be so careless as to leave behind so much evidence for the police to find. But if he was simply giving all this away because he resigned himself to the fact that he would be arrested or was simply having a particularly bad day and nothing went right for him, he wouldn't be proclaiming his innocence and requesting a lawyer to represent him in front of reporters after his arrest if he knew he was responsible.

Given the claim of the closest witness to the Tippit shooter had a hairline at the back of the head of this impersonator that was different from the real Oswald, we can only say we do have another person. The brown shirt must have been brought in from wherever by whoever and supplied to this man.

As the forensics have determined, the light-colored jacket (CE 162) found behind the Texaco service station contained only white cotton fibers. Unless Oswald picked up a brown shirt just lying around at the Texaco service station (or he had an accomplice to supply one) when he took off his jacket and decided to put on this shirt and throw away the jacket to incriminate himself (far better and the most logical solution would be to use the accomplice to take all the evidence away and have them buried outside Dallas as the obvious choice) it would appear that Oswald was not wearing a brown shirt when he left his home. He only wore a clean white T-shirt and a light-coloured (quite possibly grey or tan) jacket. And later he was given the brown shirt at another location. But knowing that the shooter in the Tippit murder case had a different hairline at the back of the head compared to the real Oswald, then this person who initially wore the jacket must be someone else.

In which case, the real Oswald wore a clean white T-shirt, and a brown shirt on top and went straight to the theater. There were no detours. And Roberts, the landlady, never actually heard Oswald return home and leave. Only another person wanted to give that impression by making enough noise to alert Roberts and made sure from a profile position or having his back to Roberts, he could make her believe he was Oswald.

Otherwise, the alternative scenario is that the real Oswald did not wear a jacket, or even a brown shirt, when he arrived at the theater. Rather, someone else wore the brown shirt and later police got Oswald to wear it to help increase the chances of a successful prosecution when witnesses saw Oswald arrested by police wearing this brown shirt? Since Oswald kind of looked like the man people saw acting suspiciously outside the theater and resembling closely the shooter at the Tippit murder scene, witnesses are more likely to point the finger at Oswald. The only thing that might support this scenario is the fact that Burroughs could not be clear in his initial statement about the colour of the "sports shirt" and what he meant by "sports" for a shirt. But if Burroughs was certain it was a shirt with bottons on it and looked something like the one seen in the photographs when Oswald was arrested, then Oswald already had a brown shirt from the moment he left his home.

Whether or not Oswald wore a brown shirt, the one thing the Warren Commission was prepared to entertain itself on was the idea of a jacket with its white fibres found on the inside of the jacket, and the reason it would focus on this jacket is because of one witness: Earlene Roberts.

Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper at Oswald’s rooming house, testified that she saw what she believed was Oswald return home to his rooming house on 1026 N. Beckley Avenue at "around 1 o’clock, or maybe a little after". To be more precise, she didn't actually see him walk in or arrive to the house. She only heard the noise of a person getting into the house, and walking noisily to a part of the house before it went quiet. When this man came out, announcing he has done so by slamming the door shut, it would appear that Oswald, or whoever this man was, may have changed his clothing, or at the very least gave that distinct impression from the way the man was zipping up his jacket.

So, for the 3 to 4 minutes this man spent to allegedly change his clothes. Roberts stated to the Warren Commission:

"A police car came by and stopped in front of the house. It just sat there and then honked twice." (Warren Commission testimony, Vol. VII, pp. 439–447).

Roberts could see it was a Dallas police vehicle. The driver could not be seen clearly enough. All this driver did was honk twice and drove off almost immediately. To this day, Dallas police has no knowledge of such an event, and the Warren Commission did not identify the police car or its driver. Within 10 seconds later, a man emerged from Oswald's house and slammed the door hard enough for Roberts to take notice and look outside once more. Roberts said this man, resembling Oswald in terms of his body type and height and brown hair. She assumed the man had to be Oswald based on these physical descriptions, but could not directly see his face. There was a moment when he stopped. As she said:

"He went out the door and stood there on the porch and zipped up his jacket."

Roberts did not recall seeing the color of his shirt or trousers. Her focus was on the jacket and the brief moment he stood outside. As she said:

"I didn’t pay much attention to what he had on underneath."

Then the man walked hurriedly in the direction of the bus stop, as if he was intending to catch a bus. No confirmation on whether he did. While Dallas police were certain and can prove Oswald took a bus after he left the Depository to go home, there is no record and certainly no witnesses to prove Oswald took another bus from his home to any location within Dallas. For all intent, Oswald, or whoever this man was, must have walked.

But where to?

Here is where things get a bit murky. And part of the problem is whether witnesses can reliably observe a man who they thought was Oswald. Now only that, but a look at the times needed to reach the Tippit scene, the Texaco service station, and the theater would reveal a major problem for the witnesses should they claim Oswald was at all these locations.

Let's look at this time factor.

It should be noted that the distance to the Movie Theater from Oswald's rooming house is approximately 0.9 miles. By bus, depending on the route and wait times, the trip could have taken anywhere between 10 and 20 minutes. However, there’s no confirmed record of him boarding a bus to the theater. Likewise, we don't have a record of Oswald taking a bus in the direction of the Tippit murder scene. If it was to the theater, a brisk walk of approximately 4 miles per hour, which is a purposeful and energetic pace for people to use when they're trying to get some exercise or make good time without breaking a sweat, would have seen Oswald spend about 13 to 15 minutes to make the journey. This route would have taken him south along Beckley Avenue, then east on Jefferson Boulevard, passing through the Oak Cliff neighborhood. The walk is relatively straightforward and urban, with sidewalks and intersections typical of mid-century Dallas.

However, Roberts was certain Oswald had a hurried walk, which is a notch faster than brisk walking. It is more urgent, like you're late for a meeting or to avoid being late to watch a movie starting at a certain time. It’s still walking, but you're pushing your stride to the edge of jogging. A typical hurried walk is approximately 5 miles per hour. At this pace, Oswald could have covered the 0.9-mile distance in about 10 to 11 minutes.

If Oswald did go straight to the theater from his home, the theater manager and ticket-taker Butch Burroughs said with certainty to investigators that Oswald came in between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m., and that he sold popcorn to Oswald (i.e., handed the food to him with a clear sight of Oswald's face of less than 2 metres, so there is no doubt he saw Oswald and not some other man) at nearly 1:15 p.m. (and certainly no later than 1:18 p.m.). Jack Davis, another patron, corroborated Burroughs’ timeline, saying he saw Oswald inside the theater with his popcorn before 1:20 p.m.

If this is true, Oswald must have left his home anywhere between 12.49 p.m. and 12:57 p.m. It means that Roberts account may not be entirely correct. Oswald must have arrived to the house earlier than 1:00 p.m. And if that is the case, did she really hear Oswald enter his home and leave?

Well, it turns out that Roberts account has evolved over time, and some inconsistencies emerged in her testimony, which complicates efforts by investigators to pin down exactly what she saw and when. For example, Roberts initially said the man she saw and thought was Oswald departed the rooming house “around 1:00 p.m.” or a little later, but later suggested it could have been earlier. How early? Five minutes, or perhaps 10 minutes? This could be crucial.

If Oswald did arrive and leave earlier than expected and was not heard by Roberts, it would not be the first time this would have happened. It should be worth noting that Roberts was engaged in her usual duties, which included watching television and managing household tasks. According to her testimony, she only noticed a man who she thought was Oswald because of the noise he made and how he generally looked in terms of body type, height and hair color. Her first clue came in an auditory sense, which wasn't the usual way Oswald would arrive and leave. This man entered quickly and went to a room in the house in a noisy manner. It was quiet for a moment, staying only a few minutes. The man came out, making it abundantly clear to anyone nearby that he was leaving the house and wanted witnesses, including Roberts, to see the jacket he had on. She mentioned hearing the door slam and hurried footsteps, which alerted her to this man's departure. When she looked at the man through the window, she did not clearly see Oswald’s face for confirmation. All she could see was a man who she thought was Oswald briefly standing as he zippered up his jacket, and then walked in a hurried manner towards the bus stop.

But what if this man was not Oswald?

Let's get back to the real Oswald for a moment and assume it was him and no one else. We have suggested the possibility that Oswald walked straight to the theater and nothing else. Well, how else could Burroughs have seen Oswald between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m.? The only problem with this story is that the Warren Commission and the Dallas police would like the public to think Oswald made a slight detour to another location. That location was meant to be closer to where police officer J. D. Tippit was shot dead. How likely could this story be true?

According to witness Helen Markham, she suggested a time of 1:06 p.m. for the shooting of Officer J. D. Tippit in her testimony to the Warren Commission. Other witnesses generally agree that the shooting occurred no later than 1:10 p.m., and potentially a little earlier than this.

If we assume Oswald did make a detour and end up killing Tippit, the walking distance from Oswald’s rented house at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue to the site of Officer J.D. Tippit’s murder at 404 E. 10th Street in Dallas is approximately 0.6 miles. On foot, this would typically take about 10 to 12 minutes (at approximately 3 to 3.5 miles per hour), depending on pace and conditions. A really leisurely walk (approximately 2 miles per hour) could be closer to 18 minutes. In the case of this man's hurried walking according to Roberts, the same distance could be covered in about 7 to 8 minutes. These times for covering the distance reflects the actual walking route using streets and sidewalks, not a straight-line ("as-the-crow-flies") measurement. However, to arrive by 1:06 p.m. for Tippit to be shot, Oswald must have left his rooming house at 12.59 p.m., possibly earlier if there were any delays stopping at intersections for cars to drive through or whatever.

Then Oswald had to get to the theater before 1:07 p.m. if Burroughs is correct in his assessment of his time of arrival (and more likely earlier than this).

Now, assuming Oswald shot the police officer, he had to run at a world-record breaking time from the scene in an attempt to avoid being seen by witnesses in the immediate area (but failed). If Oswald is responsible, he did not go directly to the Texas Movie Theatre. He approached the Texaco service station, which is along the route to the theater. He stops running to avoid alerting other people. He disappears briefly and gets to the parking lot at the back of the service station. This is a distance of 0.4 miles from the murder scene, which should take him about 3 to 4 minutes to get there if running, or less if he was an Olympic athlete. Once he gets there, he has to give himself a minute or so to catch his breathe and relax enough, then walk around to the back of the service station to something. It would be a while before this man emerges again, but when he does, he leaves his jacket in the parking lot, and went straight to the theater.

According Johnny Brewer, who worked at the nearby Hardy's Shoe Store, he saw what he thought was Oswald acting suspiciously near the Texaco service station. When this man headed off to the theater, he was not running. The man wasn't exactly running (or dancing or whatever), not even at Olympic speeds as far as one can ascertain from his testimony. It was closer to a walk. The man didn't quickly arrive and leave the Texaco service station. He was doing something behind the scenes. Brewer later told investigators that the man ducked into the alcove of the service station and into the car parking lot, This is the moment where Oswald took eoff his jacket and tosses it away. on the ground He doesn't try to hide the evidence by placing it in a bin or dumpster. He just leaves it on the ground for anyone to come along and find. When Oswald reappeared, it is likely the manb wore a brown shirt.

Thinking no one would recognise him with this brown shirt, Oswald allegedly walked the rest of the way to the theater, but on high alert for possible police sirens. He covers a further 0.2 miles (or roughly 320 metres) in roughly 6 minutes. He was followed by Brewer (which is why he was able to keep up with this suspicious man). When Oswald nearly reaches the theater, he seems more agitated and looking around after hearing the sounds of more sirens in the distance. Oswald decides he would hide in the theater. It is at this point that Brewer notices the man had not purchased a ticket before entering the theatre. The time Brewer claims the man entered the theatre is 1:35 p.m.

Brewer enters the building and sees the man avoid showing evidence of a ticket to Julia Postal, the employee at the theater who job was to check the tickets from customers. But she was distracted long enough for the man to run toward the theater room. If we add all the times to get from the Tippit murder scene to the theater, Oswald should have arrived no later than 1:24 p.m. So either Brewer’s estimate of 1:35 p.m. may not be exact, or his memory of the time might be a little hazy. Otherwise, Oswald must have been loitering, hiding, or simply waiting for the right moment to leave the Texaco service station unnoticed. Or the possibility exists that he needed to make a phone call to someone, and to pick up a brown shirt to wear. Or more likely someone else was waiting in the car parking lo assista the man to some capacity. And there is always the chance Oswald needed to have a leak, comb his hair, or whatever, which would require another 2 to 3 minutes.

But how can this be? If we assume Brewer was right in the time estimate of 1:35 p.m. in entering the theater, then in the misquoted words of Jack Swigert in the Apollo 13 mission, "Houston, we have a problem." The question critics have is, How could Oswald have murdered the police officer if he was already seen in the theatre by no later than 1:07 p.m. according to Burroughs, the manager of the theatre?

Burroughs was always been consistent on this time frame. In fact the words he used was:

Oswald entered the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m."

Whether he actually saw with his own eyes Oswald entering the building, or his employee, Julia Postal, mentioned this to him after the fact before anyone else could get to her and make her change her story, but we see later that Burroughs told researcher Jim Marrs and others:

"I know when I sold the popcorn. It was not long after 1:00." (Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy)

If the only man who entered the house and departed was Oswald and went to a location to kill Tippit and eventually enters the theatre, he could not have been in the theatre before 1:07 p.m. Neither could Oswald have purchased popcorn between 1:15 p.m. and 1:18 p.m. Here lies a big problem for the authorities.

The only way to get around this time discrepancy problem and for all witnesses to be right in their times of what they saw is if there was another man involved on the day. And not just any man, but someone who had to look a little like Oswald to help confuse the matter for plenty of witnesses, especially from a distance. It would be the ideal situation for someone whow anted this day to go as planned in order to get Oswald into trouble if witnesses could point the finger of blame at this unfortunate soul simply because he looks similar to the man who actually did the shooting.

We need to remember that if only one man was involved and we assume it was Oswald, it would require the man to run vigorously and continuously from the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley Ave, to the Tippet murder scene at 404 E. 10th St, and to the Texas Movie Theatre at 231 W. Jefferson Blvd. And by vigorously, we mean world record running times to cover the distances and be able to achieve the shooting of Tippit in that heavily shortened timeframe. Total distance to cover while taking into account the logical places to run along side walks and across people's front yards and across the streets (but not precisely a straight line) is about 1 mile (or 1.6 kilometres). A reasonably fit man running at a moderate pace (not sprinting, but purposeful) would average about 6 to 8 miles per hour, which translates to about 7 to 10 minutes to cover this distance. If we assume urgency and adrenaline—say, running closer to 8 mph—the man could cover the full distance in about 7 to 8 minutes. If this man left the rooming house a little bit earlier than 1:00 p.m. (say, 12:57 p.m.), he could theoretically arrive at the theatre by 1:07 p.m. But by then, he would be sweating profusely and breathing heavily. The only problem with this theory is that there is no evidence Oswald was seen in the theatre in this state of physical exertion. Again no sweat beading down his forehead to alert employees in the building.

Of course, this estimate on the time of 7 to 8 minutes is highly optimistic. We should remember that this man was seen walking hurriedly (i.e., not running) to the bus stop from Oswald's house, was standing around at the bus time deciding on which way to go or whether a bus would arrive, was seen walking along a street before he was stopped by Tippit, was talking to a second man about something, dealt with Tippit as required, and needed extra time to walk around the police car to finish the job off, and he needed to change the pace of his running to a walk from the Texaco service station to the Texas Movie Theatre while controlling his heavy breathing to avoid raising suspicion among members of the public, and especially the employees at the Dallas Movie Theatre. All this would add considerable time.

When we factor in the actual behavior observed in a man arriving at the theater, the sequence of events, and the pace changes required to avoid suspicion from the public and how witnesses observed the man at various stages of the journey (sometimes walking and other times running), the more realistic total time for someone leaving Oswald’s rooming house to the Texas Theatre — via the Tippit murder scene and Texaco station — would be closer to 15 to 18 minutes. By that is too much time. The real Oswald was already buying his popcorn when he was seen coming out of the theater/cinema room, not going into the theater building from outside. Nor can we say Oswald temporarily walked outside the building and acted suspiciously and then walked back in. Burroughs disagrees with this claim. He was already inside the building by this time. Yet Brewer is very clear about what time Oswald was seen going into the theater. He said it was 1:35 p.m.

Clearly this cannot be right.

All this is leading us to think there has to be another person involved, and this person is not Oswald. Someone was there to try to frame two murders on one man, and that man is Oswald. Furthermore, the delay to get to the theater for Brewer to estimate a time of 1:35 p.m. is suggesting that this other man was doing something else. Perhaps he was calling someone on a public phone booth at the Texaco service station, gathering more information that would allow this man to end up at the theater, and receive advice on what to do next when he arrives there.

Having two men involved is the only way for all witnesses to be correct in their estimate of the times. If you claim only one man is responsible, and that's Oswald, then the times do not match for those working in the theater and for those outside watching what they thought was Oswald.

If all this is true, then what probably happened was that Oswald left work at the Depository no later than 12:35 p.m. (probably a little earlier). He makes this decision based on hearsay of some of his co-workers close by that employees were allowed to go home after learning of what happened to the president. He puts on his brown-reddish shirt, and walks outside to talk to a coloured man to confirm the shooting claim. He decides to leave, walks to a bus stop, and catches a bus. Several minutes into the trip he sees extra traffic slowing the bus down (as one would expect with the extra crowds in Dealey Plaza and intense media presence together with a growing number of police cars heading to Dealey Plaza).

Oswald gets off the bus. Not familiar with taking a cab to and from work, but knowing the cab would be more direct in its route and save him a bit of time, he hailed a cab coming along the road near the Greyhound Bus Terminal in downtown Dallas around 12:48 p.m. He enters the vehicle driven by William Whaley and asks to be taken to 1026 North Beckley Avenue in the Oak Cliff neighborhood, which is where his rooming house is located. Under normal traffic conditions, this would take about 5 to 7 minutes. But Oswald looks at the cab fare and decides he would save some money. At any rate, he thought he had time to get home to change his clothes. He asked the cab driver to be let out at the intersection of Neely Street and 500 North Beckley Avenue, which is about two blocks south of his rooming house. He gets out of the cab around 12:53 p.m.

Unbeknowst to Oswald, another man, having physical features resembling that of Oswald was in the rooming house looking for an item of Oswald's clothing that he could use to incriminate Oswald in a further crime. The first was the shooting of the president, but a plan was hatched for a police officer to be shot and killed and to leave this item of clothing near the scene for police to find. As he looks around to decide what he should grab, he hears two honks from a vehicle outside. It turns out this is a Dallas police vehicle as seen by Oswald's housekeeper, Earlene Roberts. Roberts at this stage had already heard someone noisily enter the house and walking around, but wasn't sure who it was. Probably Oswald as she rented the property to him.

The man quickly chooses to grab a grey or tan light-coloured "Eisenhower-type" of jacket, and runs out the door, and slams it shut to make enough noise, and down the steps. He stops momentarily, aware of the possibility that Roberts might be watching him from the commotion he just made. He keeps his face looking away. Roberts assumes from his man's body type, height, hair colour, and the fact that this man had been inside Oswald's home that it was Oswald. There were no distinguishing features about this man to make her think twice on that assumption. She watches as the man zips up the jacket. Then she sees the man is walking hurriedly in the direction of the bus stop. Roberts is convinced Oswald has departed, and she gets back to watching TV where she learns of the developments at Dealey Plaza and what had happened to the president. She raises the volume to listen to the developing news with great interest.

The man reaches the bus stop and looks around, perhaps checking to see if he can observe Oswald. Then he heads to rendezvous with someone to discuss the next stage of the plan. About a minute later, Oswald arrives home and enters quietly.

Oswald enters his rented property at about 12:55 p.m.. He spends about 2 or 3 minutes quickly changing to a dark "black-like" pants, a fresh white T-shirt, and a brown shirt. He does not chooses to wear a jacket on this warm and sunny afternoon, and so was unaware of a missing jacket. He assumes no one had been in his home. He leaves his home no later than, say, 12:58 p.m. Roberts was unaware that the real Oswald had arrived and departed.

Oswald proceeds to walk quickly to avoid any possibility of missing the time to watch a movie he wanted to see.

Oswald is seen arriving at the theatre by no later than 1:07 p.m. according to Burroughs, the manager of the theatre. More than enough time before the movie would start at 1:20 p.m. Already with a ticket at hand to watch War is Hell and seen by Julia Postal and confirmed by Burroughs, Oswald emerges from the theatre to buy some popcorn and returns just in time for the start of the movie credits to appear on the big screen.

The man arrives at East Tenth Street. There he meets another man. A discussion ensues. The Oswald impersonator learns that he will kill a police officer and one will arrive any moment. He will be watched by this other man to confirm the killing has taken place. As this was happening, someone at the police department received news of a suspect that the Dallas police is looking for and meeting the description of Oswald. The suspect is seen walking on East Tenth Street heading in the direction of Patton Avenue in the Oak Cliff neighborhood.

A police officer named J. D. Tippit, who just happens to be in the area, is called on the radio. He learns that the police were on the lookout for a suspect named Lee Harvey Oswald who left the Depository building earlier than expected and is a person of interest in the shooting of the president. He was last seen walking along East Tenth Street. Tippit asks what to do when he meets him. He is told to take the suspect in for questioning. He drives quickly to East Tenth Street. Both men noticed the police vehicle in the distance heading their way. The Oswald impersonator begins to enact the plan. He gets onto the footpath and begins walking, as he waits for the vehicle to reach his position.

Tippit drives along the road and slows down when he discovers a man walking along a footpath fitting the description mentioned on his car radio. He stops the man and asks questions. The man refuses to answer his questions, so the police officer gets out of the car with the intention of taking him into custody for questioning at the Dallas police station. An opportunity presented itself to the man. He took out his revolver and shoots the police officer three times. The police officer staggers around and tries to hide behind his vehicle, but falls to the ground. Still alive and bleeding profusely, the officer sees the man walk around to the back of the police vehicle and stands over him. He points and shoots straight into the head of the officer. Tippit dies instantly. The man runs, taking shortcuts across the yards of people's homes, and as he does so, he unloads shell casings and throws them willy-nilly in various places, and in plain sight of various witnesses in the area.

In the meantime, witnesses observe a second man walking away from the murder scene. He would also quietly place a wallet nearby purporting to be owned by Oswald.

The Oswald impersonator reaches the Texaco service station and stops running. He is near the entranceway to the building and finding a moment to catch his breath, but then decides to go around to the back of the building.

Already seen by a shop owner named Johnny Brewer after noticing the man's suspicious behaviour of running to the service station following news on the radio of the shooting of a police officer just a few blocks away. Brewer thought this man could be somehow connected to this, and may even be the shooter. He watches intently. A few minutes passed before this man reappeared. Brewer notices what appears to be the man's jacket missing. Brewer eventually tells police later about this and the police would find a light-coloured jacket in the parking lot at the back of the building. It would appear that this man had decided to drop the jacket on the ground. No effort to hide it in a bin or dumpster.

This was also the time when the Oswald impersonator learns from someone else in the car parking area about where Oswald went. He was told to drop the jacket in the car park and head off to the theater. He also receives instructions on where to drop off the revolver inside the theater.

Thinking no one would recognise him without the jacket, he chooses to walk at a more slower pace to avoid raising suspicion, but still on high alert in case someone recognises him and a police car might be heading in his direction. He walks along W. Jefferson Boulevard. Unbeknownst to the man, a shop keeper follows him. A police siren is heard. The man looks around frantically to see where the siren is coming from. He decides to enter the theatre at 1:35 p.m., which just so happens to be where Oswald was watching a movie. Or did he know he would be there?

Brewer notices the man had not purchased a ticket, so he follows the man into the building to see what he does next.

While inside, this Oswald impersonator goes to the bathroom for a leak, and leaves the revolver is a designated place. He comes out and pretends to be looking at the adverts for movies showing. Brewer, the shop owner of a shoe store, arrives in the building and sees the man inside. A woman named Julie Postal was distracted by something. Brewer sees the man taking the opportunity to avoid showing a ticket and heads further into the building. Brewer notifies the woman and recommends she calls the police, especially in light of news of a shooting.

By 1:45 p.m., the police arrived through the front door of the theater building. Julia points in the direction of where the man went. The police go to the main theater room, searching and quickly finding Oswald. Police grab him, an officer punches him, and Oswald is put to the ground by the officers. In the balcony, the Oswald impersonator watches on and sees what is happening. Oswald is taken out of the theater and out the front door to a waiting police vehicle.

Other Dallas police officers arrived at the back entrance to the building and went up to the balcony to arrest the Oswald impersonator. The Oswald impersonator, thinking this is part of the plan to take him out of the building, does not resist arrest. He allows himself to be handcuffed and led out the back door, but not without Burroughs and another shop owner noticing this man being taken out the back door.

At some point, this Oswald impersonator was probably eliminated to tie off any loose ends in the plan. Letting this man enter society with a look that would get enough people asking whether he is connected to the real Oswald would only increase the number of witnesses. If he gets asked and he accidentally reveals too much information, it would be a disaster for all concerned in this matter. It would not be surprising if he was driven to a remote country location, shot at the back of the head (seems to be a favourite for whoever is shooting those witnesses needing to be silenced), and his body disposed of or buried. Another problem solved.

With the real Oswald now in custody at the Dallas Police Department, the rest is history.

As for the claim that Oswald did not buy a ticket to watch the movie, Julie Postal, an employee at the Movie Theatre whose job was to watch people pay for a ticket, responded in an intriguing way. In 1963, researcher Jones Harris asked Julia Postal, the box office clerk at the Texas Theater, if she had sold a theater ticket to Oswald. Harris claims that she burst into tears and went out of the room twice without answering. Harris interpreted her emotional reaction as confirmation that she had but was afraid to tell to the truth as if she was under pressure not to be honest. So the real Oswald did get a ticket. However, in a February 1964 interview with FBI Agent Arthur Carter, Postal claimed she couldn’t recall whether Oswald bought a ticket. Later, in the Warren Report, she stated with certainty that he had not purchased one.

Not purchased a ticket? Is this because she is referring to another man she didn't see and relying on Brewer's claim that this man had not purchased the ticket? Or was she told to say that Oswald didn't buy a ticket? If so, who is pressuring Postal to come up with a different story so late in the game?

Okay. That is enough of this Tippit murder case. All this seems highly unlikely Oswald was responsible for shooting a police officer, so what about the president?

Let's go back to the moment when the president was being fired upon by at least one gunman. Where exactly was Oswald when the first shots were being fired at the president and before he had, or continued to have, his lunch? Is there any evidence to support his whereabouts?

It turns out that there is an intriguing photograph taken of the front of the Texas School Depository building showing various employees, including a mysterious man wearing what would have to be described as remarkably similar, if not the same, grey shirt attire (the photograph proves it cannot be a brown shirt, and it is definitely not the plaid "crisscrossed" red and white shirt worn by Billy Nolan Lovelady) worn by Oswald when he went to work. The photograph also shows in the foreground the president already injured and leaning to his left side with his wife, Jackie, facing him and coming to his aid. This is before the third bullet was fired on the president.

We will have more to say about Oswald's whereabouts later, and reveal yet another oddity found in this photographic evidence that could be crucial in supporting Oswald's claim of not being the shooter or anywhere near the sixth floor when the bullets began firing on the president.

Let us look at some more anomalies (and there are heaps of those in this case). This time the rifle Oswald owned and used to shoot the president.

We know Oswald was trained to a level of marksmanship following his time in the U.S. marines (but not a good one if the Russian intelligence's view of Oswald is anything to go by). But as we have mentioned earlier, all his knowledge of weapons and the importance of accuracy when shooting at someone went out the window when he chose a remarkably poor quality rifle. It was the kind of rifle that would lose accuracy with each shot taken with it, unless Oswald was given a proper military rifle and bullets. At the time of the shooting on November 22, 1963, there was no such better quality rifle found in the Texas Library, and yet the advertisement for other guns showed he could have chosen far better options, especially if his sole aim was to shoot a person at a distance with the intention to kill. In addition, a check of his home showed Oswald had no other weapon to use to do the job properly if this was his intention. Not even a revolver, which would not help in any long-range shooting. This is confirmed by his wife, Marina Oswald, when she said to an FBI investigator on November 24, 1963, just two days after Oswald’s arrest and death of not seeing another weapon. As the FBI investigator wrote in his notes:

"She had never seen a pistol in Oswald’s possession and did not know he had one."

This quote is well-documented in FBI reports and was part of the early investigation. Yet it is remarkable that Dallas police somehow managed to find a revolver on Oswald when he was arrested at the Dallas Movie Theater. We will have more to say about this later.

However, as we shall see, and under pressure to conform to the expected view of other FBI agents, the Secret Service and the CIA that Oswald was the lone and crazy gunman responsible for not just the killing of the president, but also the shooting death of a police officer, in order to avoid deportation to Russia, another weapon—this time a revolver—would get mentioned. As her testimony to the Warren Commission is suddenly unreliable, we shall ignore her later statements. Actually, in interviews decades later, Marina expressed serious doubts about Oswald’s guilt. She stated that she believed her husband was framed, and that she had been pressured to say things she didn’t truly believe. She also acknowledged that her early statements within two days of the shootings were her most honest, before the full weight of government pressure set in.

So if Marina was truthful in her earliest statements, all we have is this Italian rifle to work with. With no other rifle available in Oswald's possession, it seems, therefore, that to get around this inaccuracy and poor quality nature of Oswald's rifle, it was necessary to get a true sniper and expert marksman into the library and use his experience to adjust to the inadequacies of the Italian Carcano rifle design. Why? Simply because Oswald was a mediocre gunman. He was not a true expert sniper despite being trained to become a marksman. He was never a standout marksman during his time in the marines. If, for any reason, he could have been exceptional, he would not be unemployed. The US government would have snapped him up in a jiffy and hired him for special assignments. The fact to the matter is, he wasn't. And his choice of a weapon to have in his possession—it was an absolute shocker—revealed just how ordinary he was as a gunman. No serious sniper would be seen dead carrying around that kind of rifle, and especially an inaccurate one. He only chose this poor quality gun to protect himself. Although it is capable of killing a person, it was never meant to be for killing anyone. He wanted to have the rifle to feel safer and use it as a deterrent. Never to kill anyone. Even if this could be disputed, the problem experts have is how could Oswald have not planned for this event and prepared his gun to a level of quality to achieve the required accuracy for long range shooting? As we can determine from one witness in the presidential car, the first shot had missed the car and whoever the intended target in the car was (which we must assume was the president). How can this be possible? Surely, a true expert sniper would have ensured the rifle was in tip-top condition and having the required accuracy. As extraordinary as this may sound, Oswald did absolutely nothing to prepare for this event. Not even to get his rifle to a minimum standard of quality. Furthermore, just to add to the strange nature of what we are told Oswald had done to the president, Oswald did not even practice with the rifle in whatever condition it was in prior to the president's arrival at Dallas. In fact, there is no evidence from his wife Marina that he was doing this just days before the president would arrive. Absolutely nothing was done. Because if he did, he would have known how to aim the rifle more accurately on the first go despite the increasing damage to the rifling chamber with each shot. Yet incredibly, when it came to the time for Oswald to shoot at the president, or so we are led to believe, he misses the presidential car with the very first shot by a significant margin. That is quite amazing. And what a lousy sniper Oswald was if he had, in any way, been there on the sixth floor.

This is the thing. If the intention was to kill the president, whoever fired from the sixth floor should have been aware of the inaccurate nature of this aging rifle Oswald owned. He should have spent time to practice with it, or else spend money to have the rifling chamber fixed in order to get the accuracy required. Or, at the very least, adjust the telescopic sights to show where to point. And while Oswald was at it, if he was the shooter, why not put some oil on the bolt action piece designed to remove the spent shell casing and load in a new bullet. Apparently examination by investigators of Oswald's weapon showed it was stiff and cumbersome and lacked any form of lubrication. In fact, an analysis of the rifle showed nothing was done to improve the condition of the rifle. Either that kind of expertise was not available to Oswald (unlikely given his training in the marines), or he chose not to because the rifle had another purpose, and it wasn't to kill anyone. In other words, the weapon was meant to be a deterrent. It was never intended to be a weapon of offence on another person.

However, whoever did the shooting using Oswald's rifle had no expertise in the rifle in question, even right down to the fact that he had completely forgotten about how bad the rifle was and hadn't compensated for this lack of knowledge by practising beforehand to know how to adjust or fix the problems. As a result, the first shot completely missed the target.

How strange?

Even if we could entertain ourselves on the possibility that Oswald was present to provide, say, advice to a real expert sniper and marksman to do the dirty job, it is astonishing that he said nothing about the inaccuracy problem of his rifle. Whoever was on the sixth floor had no idea how bad the rifle really was. Remember, as we are told by the experts, the first bullet had allegedly hit the road and ricochet in a certain direction. To this day, experts have never been able to find the remnants of this bullet, so the assumption by experts is that this first bullet must have missed the president and was nowhere near the presidential vehicle. If Oswald had every intention to kill the president, his training would have told him to select a better rifle, or test the rifle he was going to use and make the necessary adjustments to either make it accurate, or replace the rifling chamber. Otherwise, he can tell someone else how to shoot with it and let that person use his experience in shooting ay the target. Preparation, as they say, is the key to these assassinations. You don't leave things to chance. You prepare before the day comes. Apparently this was never done. Either Oswald is totally incompetent in killing someone or providing advice to someone who could do the job, which goes against his training, or he really did not fire the weapon on the president because he wasn't there on the sixth floor.

Lets face it. Someone did try to fire on the president. The question is, who is this mystery person?

There is an interesting individual who was present in the library and seen by several witnesses who did have considerably more experience in sniper and markmanship skills with a rifle, as we shall learn later. And interestingly, no one at the time could figure out why this man had to be present in the library (i.e., he wasn't looking for a librarian to ask a question, and there was no interest by him to borrow a book).

Before we discuss further about this person of interest, there is further evidence to question "the lone gunman" theory with Oswald being that gunman. Subsequent testing by the best Italian marksmen to re-enact the scene and using the same type of rifle revealed another major problem. No expert marksman had the time to fire three shots with any reasonable accuracy using this type of rifle owned by Oswald.

Yet the Warren Commission was eager to convince the public all three bullets had to have been fired from this rifle. With considerable practice and having a perfectly well-maintained rifle in near perfect condition, the Warren Commission claimed an expert marksman could potentially fire a second bullet and the third in about 2.6 seconds. But this assumes there isn't much effort or time to aim the rifle properly. And it ignores the traffic sign and oak tree that hindered the line-of-sight of the presidential car. By the time the car could be seen again, the distance would be large and accuracy of the shot would diminish markedly. If the marksmen could have had the time to vaguely aim with reasonable accuracy using a rifle in top condition, expert marksmen struggled to fire three accurate shots in under 19 seconds, especially when factoring in:

1. Aiming through the scope
2. Recoil recovery
3. Bolt manipulation

Unfortunately for the Warren Commission, Oswald's gun was not in good condition. Not even the telescopic sight was adjusted to be accurate. That was something the Warren Commission had not considered, or chose not to consider for whatever reason. Much like the focus of Truly and Baker to get to the top floor without look carefully on each floor, the Warren Commission had their sights solely focused on Oswald and no one else. Just because the rifle found was probably owned by Oswald, they could not fathom the possibility that it was planted there by someone else, and that this other person could well have done the shooting and not Oswald. This is the problem of the Warren Commission.

As the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) noted, the Italian Carcano M91/38 rifle Oswald allegedly used to kill the president was found to have a stiff bolt action; the scope was poorly mounted, making rapid aiming difficult; the rifle was not properly cleaned or lubricated, and had pitting and rust; and worse of all, its well-used rifling chamber was in need of replacement for greater accuracy. If Oswald wanted to assassinate the President, he did absolutely nothing to prepare his rifle. This makes it one of the most astonishing discoveries to this case.

More importantly, the person who used the rifle thinking he could do the dirty deed on the president with it had no idea how bad the rifle was until the time came to fire the first bullet. Sounds like whoever used the rifle was totally unprepared for this situation. Highly unlikely if Oswald had planned for this moment with the intention to cause harm.

Sounds more like someone else was there on the sixth floor and totally unaware of the inaccuracy situation with Oswald's rifle.

So how could an expert gunman fire 3 bullets in less than 19 seconds at the President from a rifle of the same condition as Oswald's and expect to have any reasonable accuracy from the sixth floor location as an Italian investigation using professional marksmen has discovered?

Well, there was a reason why the Italians put this weapon out-of-commission, and very quickly too. It was a hopeless weapon to be using after a few dozen shots. It seems to be designed more to shoot a couple of rounds at the enemy with no expectation the Italian soldier will survive the encounter. And if he could run back as quickly as possible to get a new rifle, it was more likely he would be killed by the enemy. The manufacturer of the rifle was not expecting Italian soldiers to survive and return home alive. So you might as well give the soldiers a crappy rifle and the manufacturer can make its quick profit. Not only that, but there seems to be a strong possibility that Oswald was not alone in the room (assuming Oswald was there on the sixth floor) considering it would require more of an expert marksman to fire with that type of rifle. And even then, the first shot was wasted, like Oswald didn't tell the real marksman what was wrong with the rifle.

Might as well not have Oswald there on the sixth floor anyway!

Or, as the evidence is slowly emerging and falling into place today, it would appear that Oswald was not on the sixth floor, but someone else. Whoever the mystery shooter was and had access to Oswald's gun, he was unaware of the poor quality nature of the rifle. Yet he was more of a marksman to attempt this dreadful act on the president by adjusting to the inaccuracy of the weapon when firing the second bullet (and that hit the target, even if it did not fatally wound the president) and then left Oswald's gun (and a brown paper bag) in that room for Dallas police to find in an attempt to frame Oswald for the crime. Otherwise, the alternative theory is that the rifle found in the library was not Oswald's, but another of the same make and model. Pictures of the rifle found in the library is different in the way the carrying strap is attached compared to the same make and model of rifle carried by Oswald in three personal photographs. In which case, whoever fired from the sixth floor had to be another similar rifle, was better prepared for the event, and could have achieved a more accurate hit of the president. The only tricky bit in all of this is how to get Oswald to touch the rifle as required to leave behind the crucial evidence to implicate Oswald in the crime.

Unfortunately this theory is unlikely as the presence of another rifle would mean the person doing the killing must have had plenty of time to prepare for this event. And that would include spending time making sure the rifle was in very good condition, and efforts made to improve its accuracy before using it on the day of the shooting. Clearly no one did this work given the fact that the first bullet had missed its mark. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the rifle used to fire the bullets on the president was none other than Oswald's own weapon.

It is the only way to explain why the first shot had missed the target so badly. It is either that, or experts have to change the narrative of this story by claiming the first bullet hit the president, and the second bullet missed because the target was simply too far. Interestingly, in the premiere release of JFK Assassination: A New Perspective in August 2025, it suggested that the first bullet had hit the target. However, the current forensic consensus, ballistic evidence and expert re-enactments. as well as an analysis of the Zapruder film on a frame-by-frame basis, has convinced experts that it was the first bullet that missed the target, not the second one. The documentary itself may claim that the second shot missed as part of a revised shot sequence theory, but no major forensic authority or government investigation—including the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)—has endorsed this claim.

The correct sequence of shots is suppose to be as follows:

1. The first bullet fired from the sixth floor had missed the president and the presidential vehicle by a significant margin.
2. The second bullet fired from the sixth floor hit the president, with the bullet coming to rest inside Connally's thigh.
3. The third bullet fired hit the president, causing fatal head injuries.

About the only witness who would support the first bullet hitting the president is Texas Governor John B. Connally. He was in the seat directly in front of the president. But could he be mistaken?

An analysis of the Zapruder film and how the two men appear to have reacted to the arrival of the bullets reveals the following:

1. Connally definitely heard the first shot. According to the Zapruder film, visible start of what could be Connally's "something is wrong" reaction begins with a turn of his head to the right at frame numbers 161 to 162. The head turning is not significant, but the rate of turning appears rapid. According to blur analysis and motion studies, Connally’s head has a rapid turn from mid-left to far right around frame 162, but this movement is not maintained indefinitely, and is not clearly directed toward Kennedy. It’s more of a reflexive motion than a deliberate look. If this is true, then this is believed to be when the first bullet was fired but missed the president and the car itself. Noise like that of a firecracker representing a possible gunshot in the distance followed by the sound of the stray bullet hitting the road may have alerted Connally. There is also the argument from some critics that the first bullet may have arrived later, possibly at around frame number 190 where we definitely see Connally's head turned to the right. Whether this is true or not, he quickly returned his head to look in front by frame 200. During frames 160 to 200, the president said nothing. From all indications, he seemed blissfully unaware of the first bullet having been fired in his direction. We can see the president raises one hand to acknowledge the crowd as he looks casually to his left and to his right side.
2. Connally heard a second gun shot. This one did manage to hit him, but he assumed he was the only person to be injured by this bullet mainly because the president remained quiet, and also because he does not believe in the "magic bullet" theory of hitting two people with a single shot. There is a common saying, "Hitting two birds with a single stone". To Connally, a bullet "hitting two humans in a single shot" is seen as too unbelievable. Therefore, Connally assumes the first shot hit the president and the second shot hit him. But this is not what happened. Unbeknownst to Connally, the president had also been hit by the second bullet. By frame number 221, the president's wife, Jackie was looking in the direction of her husband as if alerted to some issue her husband was having. Maybe she heard her husband say something quietly about being shot. Or perhaps she saw something red in her husband's neck region and wondered what it was. However, by frame number 225, the president can be seen moving his arms rapidly in the direction of his neck. At this moment, Jackie would have been aware of what was happening to her husband. At the same time, there seems to be a delay in Connally's reaction to the pain he received from the second bullet. When Connally eventually realised he was hit and grimacing his face, he turned himself to the right sufficiently to get a good look at the president. On seeing the president was already clutching at his neck, this may have convinced Connally that the president had been hit from the first bullet. There is also debate as to whether the president said anything to Connally. Some documentaries claimed that the president said, "I'm hit!" or "My God, I'm hit!", or "My God, they are going to kill us all!". There is no evidence as far as we can tell that the president said anything. Not even in Jackie Kennedy's testimony to the Warren Commission. The only thing she heard was sounds that could be interpreted as potentially some form of motorised backfire, or someone setting off firecrackers. It turns out these sounds were the gunshots. Apart from that, the only thing her husband said after Nellie Connally’s comment about Dallas giving the Kennedy's a warm welcome was Kennedy's reply, "No, you certainly can’t.". After that, Jackie described seeing him clutch his throat and then slump toward her. As for the other men in the presidential vehicle, Roy Kellerman, the senior Secret Service agent in the front seat, said he heard what he believed were two shots (the second and third bullets), then turned to see Kennedy slumped. William Greer, the driver, also heard the shots but was slow to react, which has been a point of criticism. As for John Connally, he did not witness Kennedy being struck before he himself was hit or received any word from the president that he was hit. His belief that Kennedy was hit by the first bullet was likely based on the lack of verbal communication from the president that he was injured, and on seeing Kennedy already wounded with his arms and hands raised to stop the bleeding from his neck, and the biological delay in his neurological response from the injury he received from the second bullet, not on the actual shot sequence.
3. Connally was able to turn his head almost completely to the front (now fully aware that the president and himself had been hit by bullets). The president began to move further to his left side towards his wife, with Jackie moving closer to her husband to assist him in his moment of need.
4. Then Connally heard the third and final shot. The effect of this bullet on the president's head in the Zapruder film is seen in frame number 313.

Considering the Zapruder film had a fixed frame rate of 18.3 frames per second, we can get a good calculation of the time between these human reactions and the effect of the third bullet on the president's head. Even when taking into account the typically 0.2–0.5 seconds for auditory stimuli to be noticed by the human brain and react accordingly and the neurological delays in responding to acute pain, one can show the time span between the first (at frame number 161) and second bullet covers 63 to 65 frames, was roughly 3.33 to 3.44 seconds. Or if the first bullet arrived at frame number 190, the time between first and second bullets could be as little as 1.1 seconds, or maybe a little more.

Then came the third bullet. It would take a while to arrive, but eventually after a further 4.75 to 4.92 seconds, the third bullet struck the president's head. In less than 0.054 seconds (Frame 313), we see the devastating result of the exploding bullet on the head.

We will go with the accepted view of what transpired in the Zapruder film based on the reactions shown by Connally and the president, as well as expert forensic advice and other evidence. That means the first bullet must have missed the target.

With the first bullet having completely missed its target, investigators believe the bullet had hit the road beside the president's car and ricochet to hit the left side of the road kerb and after that no one knows where the bullet went. The evidence supporting a stray bullet having missed the president and the vehicle altogether comes from a witness named James Tague, a Dallas car salesman. He was the only bystander injured during the shooting. He wasn’t hit directly by a bullet, but by concrete debris that flew up when a bullet struck the curb near where he was standing. This incident is widely accepted as evidence that one of the shots missed the presidential motorcade entirely.

But exactly how many bullets were fired on that fateful day? And how quickly were they fired?

There is a contentious claim that up to five bullets may have been fired. Furthermore, the time between the first and second bullets may have arrived very quickly—too fast for Oswald to be the lone gunman responsible. This seems to differ on the view of Billy Nolan Lovelady. He testified that he thought the second and third shots were fired very closely together.

In the case of more than 3 shots being fired at Dealey Plaza, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) used another form of evidence, which is potentially less reliable and requires one to make interpretations of certain impulse sounds as coming from gunshots. According to the HSCA analysis, a police motorcycle radio recording located close to the grassy knoll region picked up around five impulse sounds they believed were gunshots.

Of course, the direction of the sounds cannot be determined with absolute precision. The microphone used for recording the sounds by the police officer was mono, not stereo. To get an idea of the direction of the impulse sounds, experts had to produce similar gunshot sounds in the grassy knoll region and on the sixth floor of the building and have the acoustic sounds matched to what was recorded by the police officer to get a rough idea of where the shots may have come from.

With this in mind, the time between the first two impulse sounds (likely to be gunshots) was calculated to be 1.66 seconds. One of these shots is the one that missed the presidential car, and rebounds off the road to hit a curb, and ricochet once more into an unknown direction, while a piece of the concrete from the curb is sent flying into an innocent bystander. If these two impulses were meant to be the first and second shots from a single gunman stationed on the sixth floor with the second one hitting the president, then it would be impossible for any expert marksman with a perfect or brand new Italian rifle of the type owned by Oswald to fire the first two bullets from the sixth floor of the Depository building in that incredibly shortened timeframe (and that is without trying to aim the rifle at the target). There had to be another gunman. And because of this, it has led some researchers to consider a second gunman.

If we do have a second gunman, these two impulse sounds could be part of what is official described as the first shot.

Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital, stated after his analysis of the neck wound that it looked like an entrance wound. If this is true, then this suggests a shot came from the front. In that case, what happened is that the first shot from the sixth floor of the Depository building was fired, but missed the president and his vehicle. However, another person (possibly located in the grassy knoll region) fired a shot and this one hit the president through the neck. This might explain why Connally thought the president had been hit by the first bullet. The two impulse sounds are fairly close together to make it seem like one shot followed quickly by what could have been interpreted as an echo from this initial gunshot reflecting off the surface of the buildings, but they may be two separate shots from two different gunmen.

However, if Connally's rapid and temporary head turn to the right at frame number 162 in the Zapruder film before looking to the front again is part of the main first sequence shots followed by the president still remaining oblivious to what was happening, then this cannot be the moment the official first shot (or first sequence of two shots) was fired. It came later. Connally makes two distinct head turns to the right in the Zapruder film: the first around frame 162, and the second, more pronounced turn where he clearly looks back toward President Kennedy occurs at frame 223. The rapid sequence of firing for impulses 1 and 2 followed by a lengthy delay of 4.88 seconds as the president clutches at his neck and Connally reacting to his injury and looking around to see the president suggests impulse sounds 1 and 2 arrived at around frame number 200.

1. Frame ~Z200–Z202: JFK begins to show signs of distress. His facial expression changes, and his posture stiffens.
2. Frame ~Z204–Z208: His right hand starts to rise toward his throat.
3. Frame ~Z213–Z215: Both arms are visibly moving upward.
4. Frame ~Z223: Connally turns sharply to his right and sees JFK with arms already raised.
5. Frame ~Z225: JFK’s elbows are fully elevated, hands near his throat—this is the most iconic posture.

So, the moment when Connally is definitely seen to turn his head to the right again to look at the president is the likely moment the first official shot is made, or the first set of two impulse sounds representing the first sequence of shots. In which case, what happened was that the first official shot from the sixth floor (or first impulse sound) did not actually miss the presidential vehicle. It actually hit one of the men. But since the neck injury was described as an entrance wound, then one of the impulse sounds (or first shot from the sixth floor) missed the president, but hit Connally. The other impulse sound is a second shot from a different gunman located in the grassy knoll region that hit the president in the neck.

There is a slight neurological delay in responding to the injury by the president as he disappears behind the road sign in the Zapruder film. As he begins to emerge from behind the sign, we already see the president rapid raising his hands and arms to cover the neck wound by frame 208. A longer neurological delay appears for Connally until finally he moves slightly and notices acute pain in at least two parts of his body.

Connally turns right around to see the president already holding his hands over his neck wound. Connally looks to the front again.

A long period of time passes representing about 4.8 seconds in the Zapruder film, or 4.88 seconds between impulse sounds 2 and 3. We see the president still clutching at his neck wound and slowly leaning towards his wife Jackie, who in turn does the same for the president. Then the official third bullet is fired. In other words, one of the last remaining sequence of three impulse sounds (numbers 3, 4 and 5), must be the fatal shot. It could be the fifth impulse sound, but it could be possible for the third impulse sound to be the fatal shot according to HSCA. This means there was a delay from two other gunman in realising the president had been killed. So two more shots were fired in quick succession.

This would imply that one of the impulses sounds (either 4 or 5) is the second official shot from the sixth floor and this one complete misses the target, hitting the road and causing injury to an innocent bystander. The other sound impulse was deliberately missed. Perhaps a reflexive response after seeing what had happened to the president.

Otherwise, if we accept only three shots were fired on this day by two gunmen located behind the president and the "magic bullet" theory is feasible for the second shot to hit the president and Connally (while assuming the additional impulse sounds are echoes off the buildings), then any additional gunman on the grassy knoll might be there to act as a decoy to direct people's attention away from the real gunman (the third one) who would do the killing.

Either way, about the only supporting testimony we have at the moment to suggest one extra gunman could have been present on the grassy knoll was Ed Hoffman. He claimed to have seen a man toss a rifle to another man behind the picket fence. He tried to report it to authorities but was ignored, and later was warned not to speak publicly and felt threatened if he did.

Apart from that, several police officers and civilians did rush toward the grassy knoll, believing shots may have come from that direction. This included Dallas patrolman Joe Marshall Smith, who ran behind the picket fence after hearing a woman yell that shots came from the bushes. Smith reported smelling gunpowder and encountering a man in plain clothes who flashed Secret Service credentials and told him to stay away. Smith later said the man did not match the typical appearance of a Secret Service agent and lacked standard equipment like a radio or camera.

Another witness, this time a civilian named Gordon Arnold claimed he was on the knoll filming the motorcade when he was confronted by a man who identified himself as a CIA agent in one account and a Secret Service agent in another. Arnold said the man was armed and ordered him to leave the area.

Officially, the CIA and the Secret Service denied being on the grassy knoll, and said this to the HSCA. Unofficially, it is possible plain-clothed CIA agents and or Secret Service agents were present behind the picket fence, but it remains to be seen who the men were when they flashed their credentials at people, and why they had to be there.

The Warren Commission did not fully investigate these claims of a possible gunman on the grassy knoll, and many witnesses near the knoll were never officially interviewed. This is mainly because the Commission felt all bullets were fired from the sixth floor of the Depository building, and Oswald was likely the lone and crazy gunman responsible for those shots.

Apart from that interesting aspect on the grassy knoll region, critics have argued, one or more impulse sounds might be static, backfires, or unrelated noise.

But the question remains: Could Oswald have fired all three shots?

The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald fired three shots in approximately 8.3 seconds using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle. This was based on tests carried out by FBI and Marine marksmen in the 1960s in which it was found that it was possible to fire three shots in under 8 seconds, with at least two hitting a moving target with considerable practice. Of course, this test assumed the rifle used by Oswald was in ideal condition and accurate in making the shot.

Again, the same perfect conditions of the rifle of the same type as the one used by Oswald were replicated in another test conducted in 1979. Here, Washington police marksmen could fire two shots in less than 1.7 seconds and three shots within 8.31 seconds after just a few minutes of practice, supporting the lone gunman theory.

However, the reality was, Oswald's gun was not in good condition, and the accuracy was atrocious without some form of practice and/or maintenance work done to restore the rifle to a reasonable state of accuracy. This factor alone was taken into account by the Italian test carried out in 2007.

It is here that Italian marksmen found it impossible to fire two aimed shots in less than 2.3 seconds using the rifle’s telescopic sight. Even with open iron sights, the fastest they could manage was between 1.65 and 1.75 seconds, and that was under controlled conditions, without the pressure or awkward shooting angle Oswald would have faced. Furthermore, it assumes one could aim accurately if the rifling chamber of Oswald's rifle was in good condition, or at least the person with the finger on the trigger had knowledge of how to adjust the aim to increase the accuracy. But as we have discussed earlier, this would require a highly experienced marksman to be at the helm of holding this kind of rifle and to be fully aware of the shortcomings in its accuracy, which apparently he wasn't if the first shot was anything to go by. As Oswald was a mediocre gunman, it seems unlikely he would have achieved this level of skill. So what the marksmen discovered is that following the first shot and adjusting for the inaccurate nature of Oswald's rifle by using the iron sights and waiting for the president to come out from behind a tree and street signage pole, they realised it took at least 19 seconds to fire three accurate shots with the same model rifle and condition, suggesting Oswald couldn’t have acted alone. Someone else had to fire the third bullet. Indeed, if the impulse sounds are gunshots as the HSCA would like to believe, then we don't have 19 seconds to play with. We only have 8.3 seconds.

Beyond that, all we have is the visual clue and the testimony from Connally based on what he saw in the Zapruder film to get a good idea of what happened. In which case, the time frame of 3.44 seconds between the official first and second shots (or between the third and fourth impulse sounds representing about 4.88 seconds) reveals that it is possible for an expert marksman to fire from the sixth floor with speed (assuming the rifle was working flawlessly or the person used the iron sights) and make the aim reasonably accurate once the gunman knew how inaccurate Oswald's rifle was from the first shot. Instead of spending 1.65 to 1.75 seconds, the gunman took extra time to properly aim the rifle while adjusting to the inaccuracy of Oswald's rifle (hence the 4.88 seconds). But afterwards, there was too much of a risk. With the president's wife, Jackie, leaning towards her husband, and the husband leaning towards her, the gunman on the sixth floor must have made the decision not to fire the third bullet. It was too risky with potentially fatal collateral damage concerns if he tried. Any indications in the radio recording by the Dallas police officer on his motorcycle of another gunshot arriving 1.66 seconds has to be from another gunman, or is an echo off the buildings or something else.

However, when it came to the third bullet, this is different. If we assume this arrived 1.05 seconds after the second sequence of two shots representing the official second shot (or impulse sounds 3 and 4 of duration 0.71 seconds), the total time between the official second shot and third shot is 1.75. But whoever was on the sixth floor had decided against firing this final bullet, as we shall see. This kind of rapid reload and virtually no careful aiming would have been avoided. It meant that another gunman had to finish the job off. This is further reinforced by the fact that the nature of the third bullet and the way it exploded has helped experts to rule out the possibility that it came from the sixth floor.

As can be gathered so far from Connally's statement, the first official shot (or the two-shot sequence representing impulse sounds 1 and 2) completely missed the president. The fact that the president was not indicating he was hurt would lend support to this claim.

The second official bullet (or one of the impulse sounds of 3 or 4) was definitely more accurate, but could not achieve the objective of killing the president if this had been the aim. This second bullet entered the shoulder, deflected, hit a vertebra, and deflected again, and exited from the president's neck. Where the bullet went after that is a matter of contention among experts and those who were present on the day of the shooting, but the generally accepted view is that the bullet came to a stop inside Governor Connally's body, more specifically his thigh. Connally disagrees in what he called the "magic bullet" theory. However, gun experts do know that this type of bullet fired from the Italian rifle can deflect its path on hitting a hard material such as bone if it is not a direct perpendicular impact. It is all a question of whether a bullet can travel in different directions and somehow able to hit two people. Seems unusual, but stranger things have happened before. Otherwise, we have to say that the third and fourth impulse sounds represent the official second shot, with each impulse sound coming from two gunmen resulting in two men in the presidential car being hit.

It took a while, but eventually the third bullet was fired. It came out-of-the-blue when people least expected it, and this one caused the most damage to the president. More importantly, the nature of this final bullet is inconsistent with the type of bullets fired from Oswald's gun. Just to add to the unusual nature of this third bullet, the angle for this bullet seems to arrive to hit the president from a different direction. At first, the way the president's front and right side of his skull was shattered and threw out bone and brain matter at the front end causing his head to be pushed backwards would suggest that the bullet may have came from the front of the president and to his right. Possibly a slightly slower bullet (but still from a fire-powered rifle) where the force of the impact from this bullet had begun the process of pushing the president's head back, and then the devastating explosion and fragmentation of the bullet just inside the skull at the front was almost immediate, causing bone and brain tissue to be pushed out of the front and right sides and possibly helping to further push the head backwards. But if this is true, the explosion must have reached the back of the head to somehow leave a large gaping hole. According to doctors at Parkland Hospital, the hole was about the size of a man's fist. Yet incredibly, the Zapruder film does not show any obvious signs of bone and brain tissue getting pushed out of the back of the president's head in a similar dramatic fashion as it did at the front end. The lack of such material getting sprayed out the back end makes the bullet arriving from the front seem the least likely scenario. The better argument, and one that fits the observations far better, is to say that the bullet arrived at the back of the head at high speed to penetrate the skull in order to create the gaping hole mentioned by doctors at Parkland Hospital, and too fast to explode at this impact point. Instead, it exploded a fraction of a second later after travelling some distance through the brain, nearly reaching the inside of the front end of the skull. It is at this precise moment do we see the explosion causing bone and brain matter to be ejected out the front and to the right side of the president's head at high speeds, causing his head to recoil backwards like a rocket ejecting matter with considerable force. Just as Newton's law states:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

It is this recoiling effect of the matter ejecting from the front and right side of the head which is the reason why the president's head is seen in the film as being pushed backwards.

The film is arguably the most objective piece of evidence we have. It shows:

1. A violent forward ejection of material.
2. A backward recoil of the head.
3. No visible explosion from the rear of the skull.

The fatal shot came from behind. Medical testimony from Parkland Hospital doctors might state that the hole at the back of the hole was probably an exit wound. However, the physics of the explosion revealed by the Zapruder film, and especially the frame that shows the explosive effect on the skull, makes it clear nothing is ejected out the back of the skull. The doctors have made an assumption which does not support what is seen in the film.

We will have more to say about this third bullet in a moment, in particular how this bullet can cause so much damage.

With regards to the first two bullets, who else could have been in the library with the skills to achieve this shooting from the sixth floor of the Library Depository building?

According to the investigators, an additional fingerprint was found on a cardboard box in the room in a position next to the window where the rifle was fired out of it. At first the fingerprint seemed to match a man named Malcolm "Mac" Wallace (he had killed a man some years earlier for having an affair with his wife and his fingerprints were recorded and kept by the police). An experienced ex-Marines sniper and marksman, if anyone could have fired at the president at that distance from the sixth floor room, Mr Wallace would have had a much better chance than Oswald. Yet investigators could find no good reason why Mr Wallace needed to be in the room despite some witnesses placing him in the building at the right time. However, through the passage of time and how evidence can go muddy and not the same as before for some reason, according to Joan Mellens, a closer examination of the fingerprint on the box has now suggested that it may not match Mr Wallace's police record. How interesting. Either it has been damaged or modified by the time a second round of examination was made. Now we cannot be sure. At any rate, an alibi was allegedly found claiming Mr Wallace had been at his home sitting in his living room, except no one can be sure because he wasn't facing out the window. Or did someone else look like him and had stayed at his home (possibly watching TV) to cover for Mr Wallace while he did the shooting? Again, we cannot be absolutely sure about this either. No one has actually gone to the home at the right time to find out who was sitting in the living room with the back of his head facing out the window.

The Warren Commission has not pursued this angle further. The presence of an alibi was considered sufficient to see Mr Wallace as not a suspect.

Now comes the question of how the third bullet managed to get fired from the library and kill the President, assuming this is where it came from.

One thing is certain, it would have required incredible luck for Oswald (or any expert marksman) to fire and hit the president at the distance required using the Italian Carcano rifle. Even more luck to fire three bullets should we trust the conclusion from Warren Commission that all three bullets was fired from Oswald's poorly-maintained and rusty rifle. Not so, according to Italian experts testing Oswald’s rifle. They have independently concluded that the rifle was inaccurate, slow to reload, and unable to replicate the explosive head wound.

And if the third bullet did arrive to hit the president's head from the front end, this would be impossible to achieve from the position of the shooter on the sixth floor. So the Warren Commission clearly had to accept that the bullet came from behind the president's head to be vaguely achievable from the sixth floor of the building. However, even if we assume the entry point was from the rear, careful analysis of the Dealy Plaza scene and what little information we have from the available autopsy report, and the testimony of doctors who examined the head wound at Parkland Hospital, are all indicating that the direction and angle of entry is way too difficult to achieve from the sixth floor position.

Whether the direction and angle of entry is different or we have a different type of bullet, either way, we definitely have another gunman.

Unfortunately, with Oswald taken out by presumably another lone and crazy gunman with Mafia connections, it makes it incredibly hard to find out what really happened. Even more convenient, the loss of much of the autopsy report (especially the photographs of the original damaged areas on the president's body) is just too crucial and convenient. It would have confirmed what type of bullet had hit the president's head and gave more exact details of the angle this third bullet had entered and exited. Yet someone did not want this evidence to be made available to anyone. It is hard to see it any other way. Otherwise, the president's body would have been exhumed from his grave at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, and his skull properly examined again. So far there is no evidence that JFK was cremated or that his remains were destroyed. The body was embalmed and placed in a sealed casket. Interestingly, no one has gone that far to resolve this mystery once and for all. Instead, his death and subsequent blaming by the authorities on one man named Oswald seems too convenient. It is certainly not helped by the fact that Oswald had an association with Russia (i.e., a Russian citizen for two years with an interest in a particular social brand of communism in Cuba and not the hardline version used in Russia), and he wasn't exactly fitting into American life given his diverse views and recent arrival into the country, especially among the more ring-wing patriotic democracy-loving hardliners living in Dallas, Texas. Yet his background and beliefs should not be held against him. In fact, he had strong support for Marxism views but denounced later after leaving Russia the type of communist regime it represented. He simply did not support it. Yet at the same time, he did not agree with all aspects of the American way of life and how democracy worked either, mainly because of his concerns of how the rich were using the poor in a manner that wasn't to his liking. If there was any support for the American views, it was the fact that he preferred Kennedy's left-wing views.

George de Mohrenschildt, who befriended the Oswalds, claimed that Oswald:

"...was an admirer of President Kennedy.…I mentioned to him that…I thought that Kennedy was doing a very good job. … And he also agreed with me: ‘Yes, yes, yes; I think [he] is an excellent President, young, full of energy, full of good ideas."

Very interesting. Must make a reasonable person wonder what possible motive could there be for Oswald to kill the President? His views were too closely aligned to the President to warrant an assassination by this man. This is looking more like someone else had wanted this event to happen, and Oswald just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was used as the scapegoat to cover for the actions and motives of other people. Or, it could be closer to the truth to say that certain American patriots already knew about Oswald and his support for Cuba and the Cuban leader Fidel Castro's socialist aims, not to mention the Marxist views he held (but interpreted by some Americans as a communist of the hardest form as seen in Russia), and so have chosen to have him in the right place and time for others to achieve the dirty deed and later blame the man for the whole episode. Certainly Oswald was known to the CIA for quite some time and kept on file prior to the assassination taking place, even thought the agency was quick to deny any interest in the man prior to November 22, 1963.

Support for this CIA connection can be seen in a "201 file" on Oswald—a type of personality file used to track individuals of interest—and released under Freedom of Information. According to the Assassination Archives and Research Center, this file was opened before the assassination, and expanded afterwards and contained documents dating back to before November 21, 1963, indicating Oswald was already being monitored. These newly released documents reveal that CIA officer George Joannides oversaw a covert operation involving the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE), an anti-Castro group.

In August 1963, Oswald had a public confrontation with DRE members in New Orleans while distributing pro-Castro leaflets. A CIA memo from January 1963 instructed Joannides to operate under the alias "Howard Mark Gebler", and DRE members used "Howard" to refer to their CIA contact.

Given what we know today, it is interesting to see how strongly the CIA would refute its involvement and interest in Oswald for decades until these documents were released. Why the denial? What is the agency afraid of should the public find out if the CIA was involved?

Still, all of this does not explain why Oswald would want to kill the Kennedy if he was the shooter.

We know, for instance, that Oswald had pro-Castro and Marxist sympathies. At one moment in his life, he defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 and later returned to the U.S. because he expressed a great distaste of the hard-line socialism approach of Russia. Then he saw something that was more appealing to him. He looked at Cuba and became more supportive of this softer form of socialism. When Oswald learned about the Bay of Pigs fiascoe in which the CIA was tasked with training Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro, Oswald may have viewed Kennedy as a betrayer of leftist ideals, especially given the aggressive stance toward Cuba. The failed invasion could have also symbolized U.S. imperialism to Oswald, reinforcing his ideological opposition. But was this enough for him to kill the president?

At the time of the failed operation and despite reservations, Kennedy approved the ill-conceived plan to invade Cuba and overthrow the Cuban leader inherited from Eisenhower in April 1961, just three months into his presidency. He tried to maintain plausible deniability by limiting overt U.S. involvement, such as reducing air support, which ultimately contributed to the mission’s failure. After the invasion failed spectacularly, Kennedy took full public responsibility, even though many of the strategic missteps were inherited. He was deeply shaken by the experience and became more skeptical of military and intelligence advice.

As a result of this situation, Oswald may have been unhappy with Kennedy, but this would not be enough to cause Oswald to go out and kill the president. Fidel Castro was very much alive, and Kennedy had already apologised on television. For what purpose would it serve for Oswald to kill the president at this stage? Absolutely none.

Another reason suggested is that Oswald's marriage to her wife, Marina, was on the rocks. By April 1963, Marina moved in with Ruth Paine, a friend in Irving, Texas, while Oswald lived separately in Dallas and later New Orleans. This arrangement reflected a semi-permanent separation, though they still saw each other on weekends. Part of the problem for Oswald was his difficulty finding employment. Another problem he had was the verbal abuse he got from some of the American public because of his different political views, and this may have rubbed off on Marina in a similar way due to the stresses Oswald experienced. Though Oswald and Marina lived apart during the week, it wasn't a full divorce. Oswald continued visiting Marina on weekends, and she was happy to see him. He was still emotionally attached, as shown by his reaction to a birthday party Marina and Ruth Paine threw for him in October 1963—he cried and apologized for his behavior.

In terms of his employment situatin, or lack thereof, Marina and Ruth did help out to find him paid employment. Ruth was particularly instrumental in influencing one employer, which is how Oswald eventually got a job working at the Depository since October 15, 1963. With extra income coming in for Oswald and his decision to send some money to his wife, things may have improved for Oswald's marriage.

However, after Oswald was accused of killing the president with seemingly irrefutable evidence from a single fingerprint on the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Marina decided not to have anything more to do with Oswald. Since then, Marina tried to distance herself from her husband when she reportedly mocked Oswald’s political ambitions and criticized him as sexually inadequate. And on the day of the assassination, Marina claimed Oswald asked for a kiss before leaving Ruth Paine’s home. She refused. He then quietly placed his wedding ring and a small stack of cash on the nightstand—a symbolic act of finality. And since then, it was been interpreted by psychologists and Marina herself as a "last resort" behavior, signaling detachment and resignation to a violent plan. There was no direct witness to Marina’s claim about her husband leaving his wedding ring and cash on the morning of the assassination. Ruth Paine was not there to see this for confirmation. This was her own point-of-view shared during her testimony to the Warren Commission and in later interviews, quite likely because she was under pressure from the FBI and CIA to make these statements to avoid deportation back to Russia.

If Marina was under pressure, and considering many decades later Marina said in an interview that she reversed her opinion on Oswald and thought he was framed for the murder of the president, it is highly unlikely Oswald would have killed because of his situation with Marina.

The last remaining reason why Oswald may have killed the president was simply the possibility that Oswald was a naturally violent man. The evidence cited for this is the attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker, a retired U.S. Army officer. Walker was known for his ultra-conservative views. He opposed civil rights, desegregation, and Kennedy’s foreign policy, and was seen as a symbol of far-right extremism.

On April 10, 1963—seven months before JFK’s assassination—Oswald allegedly used the same Mannlicher-Carcano rifle later linked to JFK’s assassination to fire a shot through Walker’s window while Walker was sitting at his desk. The bullet missed his head by mere inches, deflected by a window frame. But was it Oswald who fired the shot? The Warren Commission would like to think so after Marina testified to having found a written note from Oswald between the pages of a book claiming he was responsible for the attempted killing of Walker.

But the problem experts have in determining who was responsible is that a witness reportedly saw two men running from the scene and driving off in a car. Oswald did not own a car, and there’s no evidence he had an accomplice. So how could he have been at the scene? Furthermore, no one saw Oswald at the scene. Not even General Walker could confirm who was responsible for the shooting. He only heard the shot.

As for the bullet fragment, it was too mangled to help forensic experts to determine whether it came from Oswald's rifle. About the only thing to suggest the possibility that Oswald could have been present at the shooting is the fact that the bullet did come from the same model and type of Italian rifle as Oswald owned. This, by no means, prove the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. Far from it. Other people in the community could own the same type of rifle. It is just that no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle.

Finally, the biggest problem in all of this is the sudden unreliability of Marina's statements following Oswald's death. Commission attorney Norman Redlich noted that Marina had "repeatedly lied" to investigators on key matters, and her statements were inconsistent and contradictory at various times when questioned. There could be various reasons for this. One such reason is that Marina was under intense pressure from the FBI and Secret Service with threats of deportation back to Russia if she did not support the view that Oswald was the man who killed the president, and to paint him in the worse possible way. So Marina had to see her husband as a violent man wanting to kill General Walker and the president.

To aid in her testimony to see her husband in this way, a note presumably written by Oswald (in the Russian language) was found in the pages between a book. It wasn't found during a police search of Oswald's belongings and other items at his home. It just appeared afterwards. In it, the note states as follows:

1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited, is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.
2. Send the information as to what happened to me to the [Russian] Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything.
3. I paid the house rent on the 2nd so don't worry about it.
4. Recently I also paid for water and gas.
5. The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check.
6. You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc., away. Do not keep these. However, I prefer that you hold onto my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).
7. Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise.
8. The address book can be found on my table in the study should you need same.
9. We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you.
10. I left you as much money as I could, $50…You and [June] can live for another 2 months using $10 per week.
11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city…

Because of the last sentence and the date for this note of April 10, 1963, the Warren Commission saw this as strong evidence of Oswald's admission in the attempted killing of General Walker.

Or perhaps not? Oswald was certainly a complex character with a history of provocative political behaviour, including defecting to the Soviet Union and distributing pro-Castro literature. Even though there is such a thing as free speech in the United States for him to express his personal views, such literature could still elicit violence among the more R-wing Americans, and any altercations involving Oswald may see him end up in jail. Otherwise, his views could create problems with the American authorities with the potential to have him deported back to Russia. And if that happens, he would certainly be sent to prison before the deportation occurs. Hence a reasonable explanation for the last sentence in the note. However, once again the sudden discovery of this note by Marina is too convenient. There is every possibility that the note could be a complete forgery to help paint an unfavourable picture of Oswald's alleged violent streak to the Warren Commission. Come to think of it, the likelihood that the note was a forgery is high because even if we could assume Oswald did attempt to assassinate General Walker, Oswald had more than 7 months to decide whether to destroy the note, since it seems Marina had not seen it until after Oswald's death. Why would Oswald have forgotten the note when he returned home after realising no one could identify who was responsible for the shooting?

Yet, here we have a situation where somehow the note exists for Marina to find at a very late stage. How convenient? It is the same with the rifle and bullet casings left on the sixth floor of the Depository rather so conveniently. It is just not the sort of thing Oswald would do. Oswald was smart enough to take the weapon with him after taking a shot at General Walker (assuming he was responsible for this), but forgotten entirely or clumsily leaves it behind in the Depository for Dallas police to find, together with a 7-month old note for Marina to read just to further implicate himself in the shootings. It isn't as if he couldn't have taken away and destroyed this evidence. The fact that nobody saw him carry the rifle into the building and was able to get upstairs to the top floor to do the shooting and return to the second floor without anyone noticing, he might as well continue trying his luck at carrying the weapon and sneak out of the building while he had the chance. If he gets caught, it doesn't matter. He was going to get caught anyway by leaving the rifle upstairs. Might as well try and see what happens by taking it with him.

It is out-of-character for Oswald to be so careless in leaving behind all this evidence to incriminate himself. It just seems to convenient, considering all this would help the CIA and FBI point the finger of blame on Oswald for just about every single wrong-doing he has been claimed to have done.

In the case of the broken curtain rods, he was smart enough to hide the damage by temporarily replacing them with spare rods from Ruth Paine's garage, goes out quietly to buy new ones at Irvings, comes home to fix the curtain rods, puts the spare ones back into the garage, and hides the damaged rods in a brown paper bag. It didn't bother him that two people saw him carry the brown paper bag and tell them what was inside of it. And he did such a good job at hiding what he did by throwing the damaged rods in a bin or dumpster where he worked. Not even Marina and Ruth Paine was aware of what happened. That is how good he was at hiding his mistake at the time. He clearly is not the sort to forget to hide his wrong doings. And certainly the last thing he wants to do is get into trouble with his wife and landlady.

So why would he allow himself to get into trouble with the American authorities by leaving behind the rifle for people to find? It is just not his approach to things.

Or is this because Oswald was having a depressive episode in the Depository room while having his last meal on the first floor and deliberately chose to leave the rifle upstairs for all to see? Looking at his responses to reporters at the Dallas Police Department, they definitely do not sound like a man with suicidal tendencies or a willingness to accept full responsibility for his actions. Yet here we have evidence conveniently laid out for people to find just to help paint the picture of a violent man capable of committing such acts on other people.

But the worse part is how many people were prepared to see Oswald in the worse light possible after his death. And that includes Marina, which previously she was happy to celebrate Oswald's birthday and allow him to see her on the weekends. Strange if Oswald was meant to be such a violent man.

If this is true, Marina may not be the only person to view Oswald in the worst light all because of this seemingly insurmountable evidence of his fingerprint on the rifle found on the sixth floor, and now the note allegedly written by Oswald. We can also see a similar attitude taken by employees at the Depository building once the evidence became known, as we shall see later.

What this tells us is that the reason for Oswald to kill the president is not as clear-cut as the Warren Commission, the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service agents, would have us believe. Oswald may be a complex character, but nothing is suggesting that he was as bad as some people would make him out to be. A quiet individual as one would expect after living in Russia, not to mention facing difficulties fitting into American society because not everyone supported his political views. If he had also received verbal and potential physical abuse (a push here or there, or something thrown at him), as well as threatening actions from some of the more R-wing extremists (which wouldn't be totally unheard of even in modern times), while distributing pamphlets expressing his support for Cuba and its socialist way of life, he may well clamour up more in life and keep to himself. Maybe another good reason why he chose to purchase a rifle to make himself feel safer.

Yet Oswald's aim was never to use the rifle to kill anyone. The constitutional right to bear arms to make people feel safer encouraged him to do what many other Americans were permitted in the United States, which was purchase a gun for one's own safety. And hopefully any photographs taken of him holding the rifle he had purchased was meant to be a display of his toughness and hoping people would give him more respect.

What do we expect from Oswald? Maybe there was a reason he defected to Russia initially in October 1959. Lack of employment, or difficulty keeping a job for any length of time. Unhappy about how some other Americans were treating him for a variety of reasons. We can also add to this the instability Oswald had at home as a young boy. This would have played a significant part in his upbringing. Not being able to form long-term relationships with anyone because of regular uprooting of his life from one place to another as his mother sought a stable job, which wasn't forthcoming, must have been difficult for a young boy like Oswald. To add to his woes, his father already died, so he knew nothing about his father. Nothing to give him stability in his life and learn useful and marketable skills he could apply in certain jobs. Understandably he must have sought for a way out of his difficult predicament. Something that would make sense in his life. This was the time when Oswald was allured by Marxism and the promise of a society that opposed the capitalist system and treatment of the poor by rich people he felt had failed him in the United States. But once he arrived to Russia, the reality of Soviet life quickly disillusioned him. Upon arriving in the Russian city of Minsk, Oswald was struck by the poverty and decay he witnessed. He described the countryside as filled with rusted fences, collapsing homes, and sagging power lines—a stark contrast to his expectations. Before he left Russia, he married a Russian woman named Marina and had a daughter before deciding to come back to the United States in June 1952.

On his return to the United States, he joined the Marines. He proved to be highly intelligent and able to learn new skills, albeit what was needed to survive on the battlefield rather than what was needed to survive socially in the civilian population of the United States. Unfortunately, Oswald's relationship with others was strained to say the least. Perhaps his Russian background and socialist views were causing problems for other cadets who were willing to make fun of him or possibly make him feel unsafe. He was getting increasingly dissatisfied with his time in the Marines. He eventually left after being court-martialed twice—once for possessing an unauthorized firearm (possibly as a means of feeling safer among those who were not treating him as well as they should), and once for assaulting a superior officer (he may have been pushed too far with verbal abuse).

Being in the Marines was obviously a bad choice for Oswald which, if he had his time again, he would have sought an apprenticeship role to learn new skills. In that way, he could maintain employment, reduce the chances of making mistakes at work, and would have felt more comfortable in a job he could enjoy.

What few temporary jobs Oswald was offered, he found them generally uninspiring. He was easily distracted by other things he wanted to pursue in life, mainly because he did not enjoy the nature of the work. Whether this was the way other people he worked with treated him, or he didn't have enough skills to do the jobs properly, or something else, Oswald was longing for something else to make him happier.

About the only thing Oswald did initially enjoy was being a Photographic Technician at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas, Texas. His enthusiasm for developing and printing photographs was self-evident, but his lack of skills and not receiving a formal apprenticeship to learn everything he needed to do the job properly made it difficult for him to maintain the job. Despite his enthusiasm, he made frequent mistakes and to compensate for his skills shortage and social awkwardness, he occasionally lashed out at his coworkers. This was interpreted by his employer as being rude to other staff members. Finally, he also brought Soviet publications to work to read quietly to himself, which made others uncomfortable, especially at the height of the Cold War with Russia. Duration of his employment here was short-lived between late 1962 to early 1963.

It is clear Oswald sought stability in his life, and a reasonable income. Not many people in America were open to helping Oswald and his family gain a stable job, and one that he could enjoy, let alone something that paid reasonably well (for him and his family to go on holidays or whatever). Obviously not helped by the fact that he had limited education. Add to this his shifting ideological focus away from his initial romanticized view of Marxism to a more dynamic and revolutionary model of socialism he saw in Cuba kind of made him look like an outsider still clinging to socialism rather than embracing democracy (warts and all) and the American way of life. Perhaps if he went out on social events among Americans who were more encouraging and supportive of Oswald and his family, he may well have changed his views yet again.

In the meantime, insufficient income and the pressures Oswald faced among some people in American society eventually rubbed off the wrong way for his wife, Marina. She made the decision to have a partial separation from Oswald until he could sort out his employment situation. And to some extent, he was well on his way to achieving this when he was offered a job at the Texas School Depository, even if the work was still temporary. For the five weeks he was there, and perhaps driven for a need to settle down and focus on the job in order to save his marriage, Oswald performed his duties surprisingly well. Unlike his previous jobs, Oswald did not exhibit the same pattern of mistakes, absenteeism, or confrontational behavior. He was quiet, kept to himself, and didn’t cause trouble. Oswald was hired as an order filler, responsible for retrieving and packaging textbooks for shipment to schools across Texas. While he was there, he worked under William Shelley, a supervisor who later testified that Oswald was punctual and did his job adequately.

Finally, a job Oswald could do. Mind you, there was no one to push his buttons on his ideological views or where he came from to make him feel uncomfortable, or unsafe. This employer was probably more intolerant of anyone who wasn't treating employees in the right way. Should any employee be found to not do their work and instead spend time causing problems for others would likely be out of a job in a jiffy.

Oswald, feeling happier, sent some money to his wife. He was even able to repair curtain rods he accidentally damaged, as it would appear. He seem to have everything going for him at this stage of his life. Nothing to suggest he was going to do anything bad or end hs life.

Then suddenly, on November 22, 1963, he decided to throw all this away. His job, his wife, and anything else he may have looked forward to in the United States. Why? No one knows for sure. The possible reasons are not as clear cut as some people would like to think, as we have seen earlier. Any sudden change in behaviour simply makes no sense. Even the fact that if he had any suicidal tendencies or any grudges against anyone and wanted to deal with it in a violent way, he did nothing to prepare and plan for this last stage of his life by getting his rifle to a state of good condition to achieve his dreadful act on the president.

Or why not just kill himself?

However, upon his arrest by Dallas police, he wasn't showing himself to reporters as a man who had resigned to the fact that he wanted to end his life and/or face the consequences of his actions. He was looking like he had nothing to hide, could not see what he did wrong, and seem completely unaware of his involvement in the killing of the president.

Something is clearly not right in this whole situation. Indeed , this "not right" aspect is surprisingly common throughout this JFK and Oswald case. Nothing is what we expect. To see another example of the oddities that keep emerging, we only have to look at the type of bullet that killed the president.

Okay. Let us look at this aspect in greater detail by asking ourselves, "Did the bullet that killed the president come from Oswald's rife?"

This has to be the greatest question on everyone's mind: the mystery third bullet. The nature of this bullet is most intriguing. Even if one could accept the third bullet was fired from Oswald's gun (assuming, of course, that Oswald had decided to end it all and throw away his life so suddenly on that fateful day), it is certainly not of the type used in Oswald's rifle. We can say this with reasonable confidence because there is no known way of getting the bullets of Oswald's gun to fragment in multiple pieces and fly away in an explosive manner. It just never happens. Given that the core of the bullet is made of lead (a relatively soft, but heavy metal), it might split on a direct hit (i.e., perpendicularly) against a hard surface, such as solid bone. But at any other angle, the bullet would get deflected. As for getting the bullet to explode, the Italian experts who tested Oswald's rifle have made it very clear that the third bullet could not have originated from Oswald's gun, or any gun of the same brand and make. The way the third bullet behaved on impact with the President's skull is not consistent with the bullets used in Oswald's gun. If we try to claim that it did, then the bullet would not cause such extensive damage to the head as seen in the Zaprader video. In fact, the bullets from Oswald's rifle were copper-jacketed, lead-core rifle rounds fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle. These bullets from Oswald's rifle stay intact and just crumple on impact and would only show small entry and exit holes. These were standard military rounds, designed for penetration rather than fragmentation. That is the simple fact to the matter and there is no disputing this fact.

Where things get interesting is the nature of this third bullet. More specifically, why did it cause so much damage to the president's head?

The third bullet is clearly a different type. And without evidence of Dallas Police finding another weapon on the sixth floor of the library building means this third bullet could not have come from the sixth floor or from Oswald's rifle. It means we do have another gunman in our midst.

As we have mentioned, whoever was on the sixth floor had made the conscientious decision not to fire a third bullet using Oswald's gun. The reason is simple: professional Italian marksmen could not achieve the accuracy at the distance the president was killed and within the required window of opportunity of 19 seconds or less. The gunman on the sixth floor (whoever he was) must have thought the same thing. He had no further opportunity to prepare, aim, and fire the third bullet. The target was too far away and any expert marksman had a high chance of missing the target with the potential to harm either the president's wife, Jackie, (who we learn was already moving over to her husband when she realised he was injured), the two men in the front seat of the presidential vehicle. or a member of the public. It was far too risky. Somehow the gunman developed a conscious at this point. Even if we could entertain ourselves on the possibility that Oswald had been the shooter on the sixth floor, we know from his time in the marines that he was a mediocre gunman (22), not the expert marksman variety. If Oswald was there to shoot at the president, he would definitely have avoided trying for a third shot. He didn't have the skills. It was too dangerous.

Here is a video to show from the vantage point of the first gunman on the sixth floor what he saw and where the president's car was when the bullets were fired.

Therefore, if the Italians are right about the target being too far away and given the nature of the third bullet fragmenting and exploding as it did, there has to be another shooter. There is no choice in the matter.

Now we learn from investigations by an experienced and retired Australian homicide detective, Colin McLaren, examining the case from a fresh new perspective that there has to be another gunman involved. And after identifying who this other gunman was, the nature of the weapon and type of bullets carried by this second gunman does fit the observations of the amount of damage the third bullet had left behind on the president.

Does this mean we finally do have the answer? Do we now know who fatally killed the president (after all this time)?

This view from McLaren is supported by tests carried out by Stuart Wexler and Clifford Spiegelman. The method these scientists employed involved analyzing the chemical composition of bullet fragments using Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). This is a technique not available in 1963. The findings were quite clear:

1. The claim by Dr. Vincent Guinn that each bullet was chemically unique is not supported by Wexler and Spiegelman. The bullet fragments that killed the president were from the same batch and thus chemically indistinguishable, undermining the FBI’s original bullet-matching technique.
2. One fragment from JFK’s head matched a bullet from a different batch, suggesting more than one shooter may have been involved.

Since the fragments found (mainly at the front of the presidential vehicle) were from the head region, this is raising the prospect of not just another shooter, but potentially two more gunman. These two other gunman had different high-powered fragmenting bullets of different batches and it seems they were fired virtually simultaneously.

Whether this is true or not, considerable discussions have been made about whether the exploding bullet came from the front or behind the president's head. For McLaren, he thinks the bullet arrived from the rear. From the perspective of the Warren Commission, the bullet had to come from the rear because this is where they believed Oswald was located on the sixth floor.

Well, could there be someone behind the president who could have fired this type of fragmenting and exploding bullet?

The most recent analysis conducted by a retired Australian police detective with experience in homicides, McLaren builds on the earlier ballistic forensic work of Howard Donahue where he showed quite convincingly that Oswald could not have been the guy who achieved the ultimate destructive outcome with the president. This is further reinforced by the latest ballistic information, from accurate 3D re-creation of the Dallas street and motorcade, and the scanty information from poor quality x-ray images of the president's skull. Further details can be watched in NOVA's documentary Cold Case: JFK. Oswald, or whoever was shooting in the position on the sixth floor of the library building, was not at the correct angle to kill the president based on the type of damage caused to the skull and how the bullet likely entered the skull. Just to make it harder, the person who started the shooting had already struggled to get the precision and accuracy needed with the Italian rifle to aim for Kennedy's head in such a short window of opportunity and distance away from the moving target. Even with a top notch expert marksmen at the helm, the inaccurate nature of the weapon and distance involved made it clear any attempt to fire a third bullet from the library was a no goer and too risky. But if we accept the Warren Commision's conclusion, then somehow Oswald fired the fatal "magic bullet" shot. Magiuc in the sense that the bullet had to turn in mid-air just behind the skull, get up to speed to penetrate very quickly, enter the skull, and then, by some inexplicable reason, the bullet had to explode sending large quantities of fragments leading to the level of damage done to the president as seen in the official Zapruda video. This is highly unlikely given the nature of the bullets used in Oswald's rifle.

Indeed, there was talk by the doctors at the Parkland hospital who saw the wounds firsthand of a gaping hole at the back of the president's head. The size of the hole is not consistent with the way the bullets from Oswald's rifle would behave. The hole would have to be a lot smaller, designed to penetrate and leave a cleaner and more compact entry point. Not so according to the doctors. The hole created was bigger than a man's fist by a significant margin.

With everything that has been said, the bullet that ultimately killed Kennedy came from someone else. This person was located in a different place, and the bullet was of a special type designed to explode on impact with the skull or penetrate at high speed and explode further inside the skull.

What's the purpose of this exploding bullet? The main purpose is to destroy whole organs in the body as a means of ensuring almost instant death. In the case of Kennedy, much of his brain on his right side had been totally destroyed (it would have been a close to, if not, instant death other than the primitive brain stem still ticking away and trying to maintain a heart beat), and the explosion caused a significant amount of the skull over one side (that is, to his right and front side) to be blown out.

All this is indicating a bullet had arrived from the rear of the president's head (not the front as some people might want to think was the case).

Fortunately, the retired Australian ex-police detective was more rational about it, and looked for a sensible and reasonable solution. The work he did of carefully analysing the scene and available evidence is now pointing quite clearly to one of the bodyguards in the vehicle behind Kennedy's car. Furthermore, whether by sheer coincidence or not, it has been revealed that only one bodyguard had the high-powered weapon with the right bullets to do it, and was in the right direction as well. What a coincidence? Does this mean we have finally got the answer?

After identifying the bodyguard, the producer's of the documentary suddenly realised how quickly the man (who was still alive) was ready to sue anyone for claiming he had fired the fatal shot, and to keep his side of the story quiet. That is a good sign that we are getting very close to the truth.

Let's assume it was this bodyguard.

If it is true, why was it necessary for this bodyguard to carry this type of weapon? Everyone else in the secret service who were there and meant to protect Kennedy were issued with standard weapons with bullets that would not cause the level of damage seen of the president (more designed to wound or create a clean kill and hence simpler entry and exit wounds). Perhaps it was for long-distance shooting that an ordinary hand pistol can't achieve?

Nevertheless, is there direct evidence that the bodyguard did fire on the president, accidentally or otherwise?

Unfortunately, without video evidence to show the bodyguard actually firing on the president (apart from the smell of gunpowder noted by some witnesses in the crowd nearest the vehicle where the bodyguard had been riding in) and with no one actually being able to see exactly who it was in the vehicle (as the other two bodyguards in the car on either side of the gunman carrying the high-powered rifle and deadly exploding bullets had stood up at the right time and covered for the guy, the bullet was fired, and he sat down, only to be further covered from behind by two more bodyguards in the second back seat), the confusion among the public of what happened and being more concerned about the president's well-being had effectively avoided the bodyguard who shot the president from ever being singled out by anyone in the public. And to make sure of it, one bodyguard in the car behind Kennedy's vehicle ran forward to assist the president and so ensured anyone who remained standing was watching this unfold. This effectively directed the gaze of the public elsewhere (if they had not hit the ground, ran from the scene, or looked away in fear).

We see all the secret agents in the car behind the president in this photo, with the actual person who fired the fatal shot, being flanked on all sides by agents, now seated in the middle position:

As the retired secret service agent Clint Hill said to NOVA:

"I was on the left running board of the follow up car immediately behind the presidential vehicle. All of a sudden I heard an explosive noise over my right shoulder, and I saw the president grab at his throat and I knew something was wrong. I jumped off the running board of the follow up car and ran towards the presidential vehicle. As I was running, they tell me there was another shot — I didn't hear it. Just as I was approaching the president's car, there was a third shot. It hit the president in the head, and then it exploded out to the right side of his head. Blood and brain matter and bone fragments sprayed out across the people in the car, across the trunk and myself, and Mrs Kennedy. Pulled myself up to the rear of the car and Mrs Kennedy came out on the trunk. She didn't even know I was there. She wasn't reaching for me. She was reaching for something that came off the president's head I grabbed her and put her in the back seat and I screamed to the driver to get us to the hospital."

And all the while, the secret service agents kept quiet about the shooting. No other agent has given their side of the story. Even after realising what had happened and would have been aware of the gun shot (well if the public can smell the gunpowder, the secret service agents must have been reeked in the smell), no one wanted to say a thing. Clearly they all must have heard the gunshot go off at close range. Governor Connally heard it. The secret service agents, therefore, must have been alerted in an instant and looked at each other. They must surely be able to smell the gunpowder. The two men on either side of the shooter must have heard the rifle going off and saw the aftermath. If this was an accident, they would have looked at the guy and said, "WTF!" or "What did you do?". But they didn't. They kept looking in front and elsewhere, pretending nothing had happened, other than trying to find someone else who was the shooter. And even after it all happened, the the secret service agent who shot the president was still carrying out his duties as usual, this time to protect the new president who would take over the leadership role of the nation. Amazingly, he was allowed to continue carrying the same high-powered rifle with exploding bullets despite the likelihood that he was responsible for killing President Kennedy. Huh? It was almost like a job well done given the way all the secret service agents were behaving subsequently. Not even a sign from the shooter that he had remorse or guilt for "accidentally" firing and hitting the president. Surely he must have known he had pulled the trigger, accidentally we must presume. Yet there is no testimony from the secret service agents to claim that the shooter was prepared to step down from his position and hand over the gun to someone else, let alone whether any one of them had accidentally fired their weapon on the president (assuming it was accidental).

It made for a remarkably well-conceived and planned effort by someone or a group of individuals to kill President Kennedy.

Suffice to say, all this is leading us to suspect that a second weapon was definitely used in the shooting, and thus a second shooter.

Yet the American authorities remained unconvinced. Still, to this day, the authorities prefer to see Oswald as the sole shooter and person who killed the President.

Now really? Something is not right here.

Moving on from this third bullet situation, we see other oddities emerge yet again.

Just to add to the strange nature of this event, not even the couple of witnesses who allegedly saw two men come up to policemen Tippet and shot him dead could confirm that it was definitely Oswald. Yet a person of similar body build was linked to Oswald and the authorities have took this to mean that it must have been Oswald. Who else could it be? Father Christmas? Not likely, as he is too fat. The Easter Bunny? The ears are too big. Nah, it must be Oswald, because of the body type. Not fat, but not too thin. Well, if this view from the police is meant to be true and represents top notch investigative abilities of the police, heaven help us. It would have to be one of the most amazing deductive skills ever applied to a murder case by the American police based entirely on body type. Unfortunately, today, the law courts wouldn't allow for such a conclusion to be made based on this kind of testimony from the witnesses unless other evidence existed.

At the time this second shooting took place, Oswald claimed he had heard about the Tippet shooting on the radio. Prior to this, his boss at the library told staff to leave early because of the shooting incident with the president. To keep away from the commotion on the streets, Oswald went downtown to watch a movie at the Dallas Movie Theater. It was here where Oswald was picked up by police after a tip-off from what we presume was a member of the public. Since then, every attempt by the authorities was made to pin all the shootings on this one man.

Even the Warren Commission went to extraordinary lengths to establish that all the bullets came from this one rifle, and Oswald had to be the man responsible for the policeman's death given how similar he looked to witnesses testimony (but no one could confirm it was definitely him). Noting Oswald's fingerprint was on the gun used to fire on the president, for some reason, this made the case rather damning against Oswald unless he could find an alibi to support where he was when the policeman was shot, and a very good explanation of how his fingerprint got onto the rifle and whether he had brought the gun into the library. Not unless we believe in the supernatural and he could speak from the grave in his own words, it would appear that this is one aspect we will never quite know the truth. Yet it is amazing that the Commission went to considerable efforts to avoid implicating anyone else. It had to be this one man and no one else. Together with knowledge that Oswald did own a similar (if not the same) rifle, and may have been used in the past in a failed attempt to kill Major-General Walker, a man with strong right-wing views, at close range outside his home (but missed, and that was for a non-moving target since Walker was sitting in his chair at his desk at the time when he heard the shot and saw the bullet get lodged in a wall as if Oswald or someone else using his rifle had wanted to frighten Walker but not kill him), the simplest solution was to point the finger at Oswald as the only person capable of this crime. End of story.

Again it just seems too convenient.

Or would it be closer to the truth to say that President Kennedy was killed by someone else and everything was made to look like it was Oswald as the sole shooter (even right down to taking the rifle from the shed in Oswald's home and somehow being able to sneak it in without anyone noticing and placing it in the library, unless it was another rifle of the same make and model, but this is unlikely), only to be later taken out by the CIA rather conveniently with the help of Jack Ruby with Mafia connections to avoid something sensitive from getting out to the public?

Or should we accept the view that it was the crazy antics of a lone gunman and considered a Cuban/socialist sympathesizer as the CIA and FBI-backed Warren Commission on the assassination in September 1964 wanted to conclude?

For more than 70 years, serious questions remained unanswered while the majority of the American people expressed considerable skepticism of the "one gunman" theory. For example, witnesses reported seeing an unidentified man in the crowd opening up the only black umbrella on a sunny, hot day and holding it high above his head as the president was going past him. He then decided to move the umbrella in a clockwise motion (even though the president would not have seen it) and immediately the bullets started firing. Once it stopped and the president was slumped in his car, the man closed the umbrella, sat done on the kerb for a few minutes, got up and walked to the library. A strange act to be seeing of anyone. Furthermore, how the bullets hitting the president seem to come from two different directions. Indeed, there was even talk of a third gunman on the grassy knoll, with a couple of witnesses claiming they could observe someone holding what they thought was a rifle. Or was this more a misidentification of something else, and anyone else who saw smoke on the grassy knoll was nothing more than someone smoking a cigarette? Or was there a third-gunman on standby in case the two other gunmen failed in their quest to end the president's life? But luckily for this gunman, his services were not needed and he hid his rifle, sat down and had a cigarette before walking off into obscurity? No one knows for sure. But if this is true, having backups is not an absurd idea for the U.S. government, especially the CIA and the military if a certain outcome could be achieved. Indeed, as many as three backups is common in the US military (we see this in the three US Army-owned Chinooks 47 black helicopters following the testing of an electromagnetic vehicle in Texas as developed by the USAF to ensure multiple backups are ready at hand should the vehicle have a mishap during its maiden flight across the countryside on 29 December 1980 and need to be transported back to its military base, as can be seen in the Cash-Landrum UFO case) and something the CIA would fully endorse if it had the plans to carry out this violent act on the president and ensure it was done without any chance of the president surviving. The only difficulty in having so many gunman on the scene is how to co-ordinate them all and let them know when their services were needed. Back then, no one had mobile phones and earpieces to communicate the key information. So the best thing was for someone to have a good vantage point. Then he can, say, carry a black umbrella, open it up to tell all the gunmen the president has just arrived, and then watch the events unfold. Each gunman observes the umbrella, and when it is clear the president is still alive at a certain point along the route, the next gunman within range takes the opportunity to aim a gun at the president and shoot. The only time the umbrella gets closed and the man eventually disappears is when he can see the president slumped at the back of the seat looking fatally wounded. Any other gunman next in line can quickly hide and disappear and no one is wiser about who was present at the time of the shooting.

Well, that is how it would work. But leaving this aspect aside, how can we forget the incomplete and second-rate "non-forensic" autopsy report, not to mention what happened to the photographs and actual original brain samples from the president's head where a number of metal fragments were embedded? There are also serious questions about why a forensic examination was not permitted at the Parkland Hospital by an expert forensic pathologist. And why were the authorities so quick to blame the whole event on one ordinary man working in the Texas library on his first day without establishing the facts in a court of law just in case they have got it wrong? Whatever is going on and how the events unfolded on that fateful day, all these interesting and somewhat confusing observations helped to add fuel to the fire of a grand conspiracy and based on a bigger and more sinister reason. Whether or not Oswald was the gunman, or one of the gunman, there was definitely someone else involved in the killing of the president, and potentially as many as three more gunman other than Oswald himself could have been present on the day. Even if just one other gunman had killed the president, we can see this individual is not willing to come forth to claim responsibility even if in the slightest possibility it could have been an accident. The hush hush nature of this event, even despite most of the American public being convinced it had to be someone else, is extraordinary. It is looking like the president really did have to be taken out by someone with a grudge against the leader given how many people involved want to stay silent on the matter. (23)

But if we are to continue with this charade of Oswald being the sole gunman, there is something else that could seriously question this view.

There is a photograph showing what appears to be Oswald standing outside the library watching the president go by in his car (with a couple of secret service agents looking back as if noticing him or someone else in his general direction).

The Altgens photo as it is known was taken by Associated Press photographer James Altgens. The film he used at the time was a Kodak Tri-X Pan film. It shows in the seconds after the second shot was fired on president Kennedy.

In this photograph, we see Kennedy holding his throat as his wife Jackie turns to him and reaches around with her left arm to support Kennedy's left arm, as can be seen in these two close-up pictures:

We also see a mystery man standing next to a wall in front of the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository.

Here are the best close up picture in raw and original form of the people congregating around the library entrance, including the mystery man:

To get a better sense of the people's positions and stance they took when the above photograph was taken, volunteers have helped to re-create this photograph outside the library:

Looking at the original photograph (23), we see the clothing worn of the mystery man is wearing a jacket and a very light-coloured (most likely white) shirt with a distinctive V-front neck design. Nolan Billy Lovelady was outside the library at the time the picture was taken. He claimed Lovelady had a shirt unbuttoned in a manner that looks somewhat V-shaped on the front. When asked in 1971 to wear the clothes he wore on the day, this is what LoveLady claimed he looked like:

There are some notable differences in his shirt, especially in the design of the neck collar region when compared to the mystery man's jacket/shirt and the actual clothing worn by Oswald when he was arrested.

Here is the best comparison images of the mystery man's clothing for comparison with Oswald's official clothing with jacket on when he was arrested:

Here we see the collar design is wide around much of the back and side of neck, but suddenly comes in deeply, then V-shapes out slightly and slowly merges in line with the jacket across the chest. You do not see this in Lovelady's shirt. There is a noticeable difference even despite the pictures not being perfectly sharp. Another thing odd is how some witnesses claimed Lovelady's shirt was done up differently while working in the library, whereas in the photo in 1971, Lovelady was happy to give the impression of how he believed he looked with the buttons on the shirt undone towards the top to create the V-shaped appearance. Clearly trying to match Oswald's look on the day of the shooting, but clearly not the same. But even if we entertain ourselves on the possibility that he had undone the buttons at the top of his shirt, it is clear Lovelady was not exactly dressed to look immaculate for his job. While Oswald and many others took pride in their appearance, Lovelady is somewhat different. Oswald was well-dressed for his day at work. Lovelady, on the other hand, was looking rather scruffy for the V-shaped look. Perhaps his work entailed more labour-intensive activities requiring the use of casual clothing and a more laid back look?

Another thing to create confusion is the colour of the jacket-like long-sleeve shit. Some claim it was red. The Warren Commission showed Buell Wesley Frazier a dark blue and a grey light-coloured "Einsenhower-style' jacket. Frazier could not see either of these clothing items. Only a grey woll-like jacket when Oswald went to work. But the surprising thing is, this grey jacket has never been found. And probably for good reasons, at least for the CIA and others who may have something to hide and ensure Oswald takes the full blame for the shootings.

We shall take on the view that we do have a medium to dark grey jacket and Oswald wore it to work (on top of his white V-shaped neckline T-shirt).

Also notice how the white T-shirt underneath for each of the men shows a slightly more prominent V-shaped neck design for Oswald compared to Lovelady's white T-shirt. We see this more clearly with these photographs of Oswald and the mystery man. Compare these pictures with Lovelady's T-shirt design:

Now we come to the crux of this mystery: the face of the mystery man. There is also something else a bit odd about the mystery man. His face looks not quite like Oswald. It appears to be in the hair region and eyes when seen close up. To see this more clearly, here is the best digitally-enhanced image of the mystery man:

Notice the way the hairline is shaped and combed. It looks way too similar given a difference of 6 years for a man that was known to be balding quickly as was the case for Lovelady. It is unlikely Lovelady had his hair looking the same after 6 years.

As a result of this, this mystery man has been the subject of intense scrutiny because his facial features resemble both Oswald (from the bottom of the eyes down) and Billy Lovelady (from the eyes up) as if there may have been some manipulation of the photo. In addition, the clothing on this mystery man appears to be a grey jacket over a white T-shirt with a notable V-shaped neckline, a detail some claim matches Oswald’s work clothes as well as a habit Oswald showed at times of tugging at his T-shirt.

Some researchers, notably Ralph Cinque and James Fetzer, argue that the face of Lovelady was "touched up" or even transposed onto the body of Oswald in the Altgens photo in an attempt to confuse reseachers and the public on the true identity of the man that could prove Oswald was not a shooter on the day of the president's assassination. Their reasoning hinges on:

1. The clothing in the photo matching Oswald’s known outfit more than Lovelady’s. In fact, FBI investigators were told by Lovelady that he wore a red and white vertically striped shirt on the day of the assassination, not the open jacket-like garment seen in the photo.
2. The face in the photo appearing younger and with more hair than Lovelady actually had on the day of the assassination. Indeed a photograph of Lovelady taken years earlier has been found and shows a virtually identical rounded hairline with a slight forward dip toward the center of his forehead—what some might call a widow’s peak or a soft “M” shape. It strongly suggests that part of this earlier photo, namely the hair and eyes, were probably copied over and blurred slightly in an attempt to make the face look more like Lovelady.
3. The gray wool-looking zipper jacket Oswald allegedly wore to work was never clearly recovered, which means there is a high probability that someone does not want investigators and the public to determine the identity of this mystery man through a comparison of the clothing shown in the Altgens photo, especially the jacket, with this grey wool-looking zipper jacket.

Here we see signs of what appears to be a conscientious effort by some unnamed person(s) to modify the picture in a professional manner to make the mystery man look more like Lovelady (at a younger age) rather than Oswald, and had it re-photographed to create a new negative. In that way, Oswald cannot be seen as being among the people watching on as Kennedy was being shot by a second bullet. There is even a possibility that the whole face of the mystery man could have been modified to look like Lovelady as this example shows:

Makes one wonder just how much tampering has occurred to the photograph to ensure Oswald would be blamed for the whole mess.

But could there have been an opportunity for manipulation of the photograph and negative to be carried out?

It may come as a surprise but the original negative of the Altgens6 photograph was long thought to be lost or inaccessible until in 2023 Gary Fannin reportedly recovered and authenticated what appears to be the original negative. Using overlays and contact sheet comparisons with known published versions of the photograph to help verify its integrity, researchers have identified at least four to six distinct published versions of Altgens6, including:

• Original uncropped version: Shows the full frame, including the doorway and surrounding crowd.
• Cropped press versions: Focus on JFK in the limousine, often excluding the Depository doorway.
• High-contrast versions: Used in newspapers and magazines, sometimes obscuring background details.
• Enhanced or retouched versions: Allegedly altered to soften or obscure the face of the “doorman” figure.
• Digital scans and overlays: Created by researchers for analysis, sometimes with annotations or contrast adjustments.

Although all these known different versions originate from a single negative, the passage of more than 60 years would provide ample time for someone to create a very sophisticated retouch up of the positive photograph and re-photographed to create a new negative. It is a well-known technique in analog photography available certainly during the time John Kennedy was president. The problem is, researchers are not sure if this negative found in 2023 is truly the original negative, or a retouched up version.

Then again we should not be surprised by this revelation. We have seen other examples of evidence having been changed, go missing, or destroyed or lost to make the task of an investigator much harder to get to the truth of this matter. The Altgens photograph may well be another example.

In conclusion regarding the photographic evidence available at hand in its current form, Professor James Fetzer's stated in his book titled Murder in Dealey Plaza:

"A man many people think strongly resembles Lee Harvey Oswald is pictured standing in the front entrance of the Book Depository Building. If it is, in fact, Oswald, he could not have been on the sixth floor of the building when the shots were fired. The Warren Commission will discount any possibility that the figure is Oswald, and instead identifies the man as Billy Nolan Lovelady, another building employee. The man in the photo is wearing a dark, heavy-textured shirt open halfway to the waist over a white undershirt. Lovelady later tells reporters that he was wearing a red-and-white-striped sport shirt that day. The identity of the man in the photo has never been clearly established." (pp. 34-35)

So what is left for Oswald to support his case? Not much at this stage. Now we have the eyewitness accounts of those who were outside the library, right? In which case, could anyone vouch for Oswald being outside the library? And exactly how reliable are these statements?

There was a witness, an employee of the library, who did report to the authorities that he had encouraged Oswald to come outside to watch, which it seems he did based on Oswald's testimony. Oswald remembered the name of the person who asked him thereby corroborating on the witness seeing Oswald.

As Mr Oswald stated to police, he saw, and allegedly was with, Bill (William H.) Shelley outside the door. Shelley was observed outside by another man named Billy Nolan Lovelady according to Lovelady's testimony. Strangely, neither Mr Oswald nor Mr Lovelady could confirm whether either of them were present outside the library. Either Oswald was outside for a very brief moment or something was obstructing Lovelady's view of Oswald. Or could there have been some animosity between the two men because of their different political views? Then again, we cannot discount the possibility that Lovelady wanted to take revenge on Oswald for what he thought had happened to the president and did not want to confirm Oswald was outside? Or there is the possibility that someone asked Lovelady after the fact to overlook any memory he had of having seen Oswald. Certainly plenty of time to think things through and have his recollection somewhat changed by the time he was ready to give his testimony to the Warren Commission. Why not even pay him enough money on the side for Lovelady to support a particular outcome as they say? One of the reasons why investigators needed to gather the evidence as quickly as possibly.

One thing is certain. There was plenty of time for the witnesses to think about what they wanted to say in their testimony to the Warren Commission. A pity considering it should have been the job of the Texas police to gather the testimony immediately after the shooting from all the witnesses, despite how many there were. A big job, but it had to be done. Or given the fact that everyone wants to blame Oswald, why not focus the investigation on the witnesses who worked in the library. Start there at the very least and work outwards. A much easier task surely.

In the case of Oswald who was interviewed very early in the piece (a rarity it seems for the Texas police), he noted Shelley was outside the entrance of the Library Depository building, but did not mention any other employee. Maybe it took a while for Oswald to become familiar and recognise the faces of all his co-workers. Or he was introduced to a couple of employees and that's it. Only Bill Shelley, who was happy to speak to him and encouraged Oswald to come out to have a look, was the one that had the strongest imprint on Oswald's mind.

Mr Will Fritz of the Dallas Police Department wrote in his notes during his interview with Mr Oswald that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" (see this link). In other words, Oswald was either "in front" of the library building, "in front" of Shelly himself watching the president going by, or Bill Shelley was in front of Oswald. The Fritz notes does exist (and incredibly has not disappeared or been modified over time). Yet remarkably, the notes were not mentioned by the Warren Commission. In fact, the notes were hidden from the public until 1997 without explanation of why the Commission deemed this evidence was not relevant to Oswald's defence.

Yet again another crucial piece of evidence gets conveniently overlooked. It seems no one wanted to hear what Oswald had to say about his whereabouts outside the library, even in death. Useless investigations from the Warren Commission and hopeless police work to gather more complete information while ensuring the protection of Oswald until the trial could commence where the full story could have been revealed.

Surely this has to be an important piece of evidence. Oswald obviously knew the name of one man who was outside. This must surely support his claim of being outside, no matter how brief it was. Enough time as we see in the photograph for Oswald not to be anywhere near the sixth floor when the first two shots were being fired on the president. How else could he possibly have known that? No indications anyone had told him about this guy Shelley. The fact that Oswald kept to himself most of the time has meant that no one else was there to give him that information. Only Shelley made the effort to identify himself to Oswald and invite him outside. As for why Oswald and Lovelady had not seen each other when they were outside, it is quite possible Oswald was not familiar with Lovelady as an employee of the library because he had not been working in the building for very long to be introduced to him. Likewise Lovelady could have been completely unaware of Oswald and who he was (being a newer employee that worked in a different section of the Depository), never mind if he was an employee in the library. Yet somehow Oswald knew Shelley was present outside because he spoke to him and claims to have been "in front". So where is Oswald in the photograph? Must be the mystery man looking around the wall, even if his face looks a bit odd.

Most intriguing.

This is looking like crucial evidence.

On closer examination of the photograph, we see four people near the entrance to the library. Apart from the mystery man looking around the edge of the wall with his interesting clothing and body build highly reminiscent of Oswald (well, if the Warren Commission could accept body type of the shooter who killed Tippet as probably Oswald, surely it could accept the mystery man's body as being Oswald, and with more evidence to support this claim thanks to the clothing looking remarkably similar, if not the same, as the one Oswald wore when he went to work. Forget the face for a moment because there is clearly something strange going on there), we see another person to the left of the mystery man and somewhat behind with two arms held up to cover the person's face from the sun in an attempt to get a better look. He was Buell Lesley Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to work that very morning. Then there is a third man just in front of this person, lower down. Part of his head starts to show, but is covered (and without a clear picture showing the details of an arm covering part of the head, it might be interpreted as his face had been cut out), He appears to be standing a couple of rungs down the stairs. It has been determined that this was Lovelady. According to his testimony, he intended to sit down and have lunch with Sarah Stanton until the word came through that the president had been shot and then the lunch part was cancelled. Immediately after, Lovelady and Shelley were busy trying to get a vantage point across the road to see what had happened to the president.

There is another man behind the mystery man. This has been determined to be Shelley. In which case, he should have been able to identify Oswald without any trouble if he was outside. Interestingly, Shelley's testimony provided to the Office of the U.S. Attorney at 4:10 p.m., on April 7, 1964 (which gave a lot of time for Shelley to think about things, talk with others, possibly receive a bribe from a person or persons unknown working for the U.S. government, and decide how he would respond) indicates that he found Oswald was not very talkative, but had spoken to him on various work-related matters (mainly to direct Oswald on what to do). Other than that, there is no obvious indications he was aware Oswald was outside.

How astonishing? Not aware? Oswald should be standing literally in front of him outside the front door. And if Oswald was correct, Shelley had asked him to come outside. How can he not be sure? Was this a case of selective forgetfulness and the eyes looking a bit unsharp on the day for Shelley? Or has he made up his mind that Oswald is guilty of the president's killing and doesn't deserve an alibi to support his whereabouts?

As for the testimony of the others who were outside, here is a summary of what was said:

• William Shelley, Oswald’s manager: "as the Presidential Motorcade passed I was standing just outside the glass doors of the entrance … Billy N. Lovelady … was seated on the entrance steps just in front of me" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.673 [Commission Exhibit 1381, p.84]); "several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went to join them … Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards … just outside the glass doors there" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.328).
• Sarah Stanton: "I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository with Mr. William Shelley … and Billy Lovelady" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.675 [Commission Exhibit 1381, p.89]).
• Billy Lovelady himself: "I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, ‘Well, I’ll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps,’ so I went out there" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.338).
• Buell Wesley Frazier: "I was standing on the steps there … I stayed around there pretty close to Mr. Shelley and this boy Billy Lovelady" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.233).
• Harold Norman: "Billy Lovelady … was sitting on the steps there" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.189).
• James Jarman: Lovelady was "standing on the stairway as you go out the front door" (ibid., p.202).
• Danny Garcia Arce stated that he went outside with Lovelady and Shelley: "I was standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. I was on that grassy area part in front. … The other guys … were all in front of the building" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.365f). He identified Lovelady as the man in the photograph (ibid., p.367).
• Virginia Rackley, who had become Mrs Donald Baker by the time of her Warren Commission deposition, pointed out Billy Lovelady on Commission Exhibit 203, a copy of Altgens’s photograph (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.515).

With things looking a bit shaky to support Oswald's claim of being outside (unless a number of the witnesses were choosing to be forgetful and blame Mr Oswald for everything), we can only go by what Oswald did next. Hopefully there would be another witness to support his claims of not being the shooter.

Not being of the talkative type as Shelley has testified, and Oswald had only been at work for a short while, Oswald made the decision to walk back inside to have his lunch. He didn't notify anyone that we would do this. With the president already moving off into the distance, he didn't think there was more to see. He was oblivious to the fact that the president had been injured by the second bullet. He may have heard extra commotion outside when he arrived on the first floor, but was hard to tell. Perhaps nothing more than some extra excitement from the crowd. If so, that could have been the moment when the third bullet was fired on the president and people realised the president had been shot.

Oswald arrived at the second floor to grab a bottle of Coca-Cola before walking down to the first floor to finish off his lunch break.

The only people to see Oswald was while he was on the second floor. A police officer named Marrion L. Baker, and building superintendent Roy S. Truly, both went upstairs with Baker deciding to look inside the lunchroom to find Oswald apparently walking away from him until he asked Oswald to come back to answer his question of who he was. Truly, on the other hand, on looking around into the lunchroom said:

"He was just standing there with a Coke. I said, 'He works here.'"

Irrespective of what was seen, there was nothing in Oswald's actions or behaviour to suggest he was the prime suspect in the president's shooting.

If all this is true, a number of people have gone to a remarkable effort to blame Oswald for the president's death all because of a fingerprint found on a rifle (and on a brown paper bag) resembling very much like the one Oswald owned (and probably was his rifle). Yet no one ever considered the possibility that Oswald could have been innocent and another person was likely involved, had stolen the rifle from Oswald's garage, picked up the brown paper bag from the dumpster outside the library building, and concealed the weapon on arriving to the sixth floor, where the weapon was later found by Dallas police, as if trying to frame the poor young man for the murder. It is a plausible scenario.

To make it doubly worse for Oswald, there was no one on the first or second floor to support his claim to the police that he was heading up the stairs to finish off his lunch.

Yet the question still remains: Did Oswald actually stand outside the front door of the library looking at the motorcade for a brief moment? The proverbial 64 million dollar question on everyone's lips. Only he can say with any reasonable certainty. He believes he was outside based on his testimony and acknowledged seeing Mr Shelley. Unfortunately Oswald is dead. How convenient the man was taken out so early in the piece.

With no other evidence available to help Oswald in his case, we can see the difficulty Oswald would have faced with the authorities. How could he prove he was not the shooter on the day?

If the photograph does show Oswald looking on at the presidential motorcade, then as he was about to reach the first floor, we can be fairly sure the third and fatal shot was made.

But here lies a big problem for the American authorities in framing Oswald. How could Oswald be the shooter for the first and second bullets fired on the president? As for the third bullet, there would be no time to climb up an additional five floors to get to the sixth floor and get prepared to fire the third bullet. As Oswald claimed, he began to walk up to the first floor. Not run as we are told. Looking at how far the President was going down the road (and the photograph shows quite clearly that he was already hit by the second bullet when his wife came over to assist him), the third bullet was about to be fired. For this to be true and for Oswald to be responsible for the third bullet according to the Warren Commission, he had to run extraordinarily hard to get to the sixth floor. Kind of like superhuman strength. By the time he got there, he would have been puffing and breathing very hard. Not an ideal situation to be in if the aim is to fire on a president at some distance with great accuracy. He somehow had to calm his breathing (more time wasted here), took another deep breath and hold it as he aimed the rifle at the president, and cross his finger that he can hit the President. Once the shot was made, and an amazing shot at that and with more of a magic bullet to explode the way it did, he had to wipe down the rifle of his fingerprints (but somehow left behind just one fingerprint), decide where to hide the rifle knowing it will be found by police, had to run down the stairs faster than a fart in the wind, without raising awareness from at least three women on the fourth floor, and managed to evade two other men who were seen going up the stairs.

And by the time Oswald reached the second floor to get his bottle of Coca Cola, he must have calmed his breathing dramatically for the two men not to notice anything unusual in the man. In fact, Oswald didn't raise a sweat from all this alleged exertion to reach the top floor and back down again.

There is something about all of this to suggest that this is highly improbable for Oswald.

What seems more plausible is to say that Osward was not a shooter on the day. Somebody else was, and this person had to have been on the sixth floor as the first two bullet rang out from the library window.

In the end, we still have to ask, who really killed the president? And could the gunman who delivered the fatal blow be linked back to the CIA?

All we know is that the CIA has used the Mafia in the past to do its dirty work. For example, the CIA has hired the Mafia (two men) and several Cuban exiles in America in a failed attempt on 17 April 1961 to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro during the "Bay of Pigs" fiascoe. So any involvement by the Mafia in stopping Oswald from revealing evidence of his whereabouts and so potentially jeopardize the "lone gunman" theory and his prime suspect status in the murder to the media or the independent commission if paid enough money or other rewards could be eventually linked back to the CIA.

And certainly the CIA would have the motive to take out Kennedy after his revealing memo on UFOs, not to mention the ambitions of the president to dismantle the CIA and reduce its powers.

Perhaps we may never know.

Whatever really happened, we do know there is still a considerable effort to this day by the top echelons of the U.S. spy agencies and the military community (in particular the U.S. Air Force) to maintain UFO secrecy at all costs. Initially the excuse was to avoid public panic as has been seen in the radio broadcast of H. G. Wells, War of the Worlds, and how a number of people reacted to hearing this story. Today, it is more to do with maintaining power and staying rich under the current economic system so long as other people are made to believe all UFOs are IFOs or to at least get people to be preoccupied in areas that would force them to maintain the current economic system and not be aware of the true UFO situation. As for American Christians wondering about all of this, the CIA is willing to paint a demonic picture on the UFO phenomenon to help convince these simple-minded religious folks to believe UFOs are not worthy of discussion.

For example, Charles Upton, a retired high ranking military attaché with CIA connections, wrote an article in the New York Times in April 2011 talking about the similarities of UFOs and the demons described in religious folklore. As Upton said:

"The UFO phenomenon has three separate yet related aspects:

1. ) It produces real material-world events, detectable by radar and sometimes leaving behind physical traces;
2. ) It is a psychic phenomenon that profoundly alters the consciousness of those exposed to it;
3. ) It is apparently surrounded by deception activities which mimic it, produced by human groups. We tend to consider these elements as mutually exclusive, but they’re not; all three are explainable by demonic activity and invocation.

Demons are subtle beings who can temporarily materialize themselves and various objects in this world, but who cannot remain on our material plane for very long.

And the deception activities of human groups, besides being attempts to piggyback on a phenomenon that the deceivers didn’t originate and can’t control, may be designed not simply to imitate the "aliens" to influence mass belief, but to actually invoke them.

This suggests the possibility that elements of the intelligence community and various arcane technologists are involved in Satanism." (Upton, Charles. "The UFO Phenomenon and Demonic Activity": New York Times. April 2011, p.1. What is shown here is an abridgement of this article that Upton published on 29 December 2011 titled "UFOs, Mass Mind-Control, and the Awliya al-Shaytan". Full details of his "UFO-Satanic connection" theory can be found in his book Cracks in the Great Wall: UFOs and Traditional Metaphysics published in 2005.)

To give further support to his theory, Upton obtains support from Father Seraphim Rose. As he wrote:

"Father Seraphim Rose, in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, citing many of the Eastern Orthodox saints and the Greek Fathers, draws many exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the experiences of the early Christian saints with the demonic powers.

I believe that the powers that be are playing a game of both debunking the reality of UFOs and covertly planting evidence of their reality as a method of mass mind-control, using a technique I call "subliminal contradiction."

Yet little do ordinary religious folks know, the CIA are experts in psychological warfare techniques if it means getting people to support a preferred position in order to maintain the status quo of continued UFO secrecy. Furthermore, the common observation that UFOs can appear and disappear (often in a cyclic manner) can be explained scientifically as the result of an intense oscillating electromagnetic field, which under Einstein's Unified Field Theory, generates a strong gravitational field of its own. This in turn is what helps light to bend in the gravitational field, thereby allowing an observer to see what is behind the object, and so rendering the object invisible. The fading out of view and re-appearing would simply be the result of the way that the field oscillates. As soon as the field drops to zero, the gravitational field must drop to zero, so the object appears to the naked eye. Increase the field to its maximum amplitude and the gravitational field will also be at its maximum, and that is when the object can be rendered invisible. Definitely no need to link the invisibility observation to demonic creatures from another dimension. Basic scientific principles can easily explain the same observation with no trouble at all.

Still, the CIA is willing to take the chance to see the public as stupid and can never know the truth.

Combine this with the Condon UFO Report of 1969, done in a manner that was not properly balanced and certainly not aimed at focusing on the electromagnetic side-effects displayed by genuine symmetrical-shaped UFOs (the person who headed the study, Dr Edward Condon, was a nuclear physicist and not an electromagnetic expert with knowledge of advanced electromagnetic concepts, such as the Abraham-Lorentz formula for describing the radiation reaction force, and Einstein's Unified Field Theory linking the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field), and the CIA must feel overly confident it has the scientific community all stitched up "in the bag" so to speak. The scientists cannot see any advancement to science from the study of UFOs, and this is reinforced by the Condon Report. UFOs must be hogwash, so let's keep it that way. While many scientists remain ignorant of the reality and not willing to challenge the status quo on this matter, it seems like just about everyone is in the palm of the CIA's hands, completely ignorant of the true situation regarding UFOs.

Yet despite the tough exterior and efforts to hide the UFO evidence by the CIA, as well as methods of deceiving the public on the UFO phenomenon through carefully crafted newspaper articles, false UFO documents released by individuals currently still working for, or have retired from, the government and military, or individuals who claimed to have been contracted to work in Area 51 and allegedly seen UFOs being reversed engineered, there are enough cracks in the U.S. policy of extreme UFO secrecy to get people asking some serious questions. We have seen it with nitinol and its association with the Roswell UFO crash of July 1947 and how the military did not have the technology in 1947 to make sufficiently pure titanium to reveal the shape-memory effect of the Roswell metal foil, or the necessary quantities to build the mysterious high-speed flying object that required such tough, high-temperature-resistant and expensive materials. We have seen how keen the U.S. government, including the CIA, is in hiding copious amounts of documents discussing UFOs and are willing to deny their existence until a US FoI request is made in 1975 and thousands of documents (considered a drop in the ocean) was released. And if that is not enough, in 2017 the CIA has gone one step further by claiming that some UFOs are probably top-secret military IFOs in an attempt to convince people why UFOs have to be kept secret to this day. The same excuse the USAF uses to convince the public of why the Roswell incident still remains a secret to this day (i.e., secret weather balloons). Yet the claims are not being supported by the emerging evidence.

Well, all this will certainly have to change later in the 21st century. It is not a question of if, but when the evidence is going to reach a level where the truth is finally told.

Update
25 October 2017

During a time when the U.S. President Donald Trump was under investigations for alleged contacts with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and links to Russian interference in the U.S. elections, the president decided in the interest of openness and presumably showing he had nothing to hide to order the CIA to release files it has kept in relation to the assassination of former president John F. Kennedy. Either that or whatever the CIA already has on Trump would be kept secret if Trump does the right thing of "not rocking the boat". Initially Trump wanted to release all the files. A very interesting decision. However, someone with close connections to the CIA has convinced Trump to be somewhat circumspect about what can be released. It looks like certain CIA files on the event remain too sensitive for the public to know.

So, On Friday, 27 October 2017, nearly 3,100 classified documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy were scheduled for release. However, only 2,800 files were made public by the National Archives, following a directive from President Donald Trump. The remaining 300+ documents were withheld temporarily at the request of the CIA and FBI, citing concerns over national security and the protection of intelligence sources.

Despite the passage of more than six decades since Kennedy's death, many of the released documents contained heavy redactions, which critics argue only deepen public suspicion and fuel ongoing conspiracy theories. President Trump stated that the withheld files would undergo further review and be released “only in the rarest cases” after a 180-day evaluation period.

Examination of the files for those that remain readable generally try to paint Lee-Harvey Oswald as the prime suspect, together with various reasons why it may have happened. Among the main theories the CIA was willing to release to keep the public wondering which is closest to the truth are as follows:

1. JFK was killed by Mafia hitmen.
2. JFK was killed by Soviet Union/KGB hitmen hired by French and Vietnamese agents.
3. JFK was killed by Cuban exiles following the failed Bay of Pigs assassination attempt on Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

In more recent times, a new theory has emerged to show the CIA was facing a tough time under John Kennedy. Kennedy was seeking to dismantle the CIA and reduce its power due to attempts by the CIA to assassinate certain heads of states in selected nations, some of which have not been successful. As a result, the CIA may have hired either Mafia hitmen or Cuban exiles in an attempt to assassinate the president.

However, the main focus was on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the concerns Russia had about Oswald as a "KGB defector" and whether the US would suddenly engage in a war against Russia given Oswald's links to Russia and the killing of the US president.

For example, we see in some documents a link between the Soviets and Oswald. In one CIA memo, we learn a KGB defector was aware of this link. It was clear Oswald had lived in Russia a decade earlier, and just 6 days before Kennedy's assassination he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City (mainly to live in Cuba as he preferred that softer style of socialism). The KGB defector further added that the Soviet spies were unaware of Oswald and what he was up to. Yet Oswald's association with Russia at one time was enough to make the defector think he may have been "an agent of the KGB" or at the very least cause significant problems for the Kremlin if the U.S. decided the assassination came from Russia and retaliated by hitting targets in Russia (and potentially start a new world war).

In another document we learn that the Russians thought Oswald was a "neurotic maniac" to the point where they did not want to get involved with him.

However, following the event that took place with the death of John F. Kennedy, the Russians learned about Oswald and became more concerned about the U.S. starting a third world war against the communist country should the link between Oswald and Russia be made. Just like the Cuban missile crisis where the Russians stepped back from the brink of nuclear war, Russian officials were afraid of the likely repercussions should this information get out into the open. Interestingly, certain information did come out and was kept by the CIA but never released even when the Warren Commission into Kennedy's death was taking place. Apparently the documents were being gathered secretly and stored for a long time to probably help protect the CIA at some point in the future should enough evidence be found to implicate the agency in the assassination. Better for the CIA to keep people preoccupied with a host of other explanations and conspiracy theories that doesn't link back to the CIA in any way, but never the one that could be closest to the truth and could implicate the CIA.

At any rate, thanks to this Russian connection, a whole new conspiracy theory has emerged to implicate Russia and so keep the American public busy for many more years as they continue to wonder who really killed Kennedy, and the motive behind it. Was it really the Russians who were responsible?

As far as the reasons for the assassination are concerned, the documents indicate that there are many and varied. Strangely not one document ever tries to question the CIA in the matter, let alone anything to do with UFOs. Perhaps not surprising, Seriously, why would any document be kept by the CIA that could implicate itself in Kennedy's death? It would not be in the interest of the CIA to do so. It is far better to give the perception that the CIA is the good guy trying to protect American citizens and presumably has no idea about what happened on that fateful summer day in Dallas, Texas.

Interesting to see how UFOs are not recorded in the CIA files (well, certainly not in the documents currently released to the public). Quite a remarkable discovery in itself. Clearly UFOs would have to form part of the range of conspiracy theories and possible explanations for the killing if the CIA was doing its job properly. One would think that such a possibility would have been kept in the agency's files at the very least in relation to the event of 1963 given its efforts to retain every conceivable conspiracy theory out there of what might have happened and why. The Kennedy memo on UFOs would have to be a classic in this regard. One would think so assuming, of course, the CIA is in the business of being balanced in gathering all the conspiracy theories and explanations it has uncovered in relation to this extraordinary event.

So why isn't UFOs among the files?

Perhaps there is a reason. It may well be the fact that any talk of UFOs could be considered too close to the truth, especially if one is working for the CIA.

So, even without the remaining 300 files not yet released by President Trump (and perhaps never will), at least we have one alternative explanation to consider, and might be the best one yet. The only question remaining is how true UFOs really are? Is there something significant to learn from this controversial subject? Would this secret about UFOs explain the long running secrecy the USAF, and CIA have about this subject despite the constant denial?

One thing is certain. Any attempts by future American presidents to ask about the UFO situation will probably not quite face the same fate as President Kennedy. It would be too obvious. Instead, the aim would be to deny the existence of UFOs and any possible links to alien life at all costs, even if scientific observations of the universe are telling us life can and should exist on other planets beyond our solar system.

As an example of the latest preferred approach by the CIA to stop the inquisitive minds of an American president asking about the UFO question, Mr Gerald Ford expressed an interest in UFOs while he was the Republican House Minority Leader of Congress. He said in 1966:

"I strongly recommend that there be a committee investigation of the UFO phenomena. I think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding UFOs and to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this subject."

His statement fell on deaf ears. When he did get into the White House and asked again, it suddenly became necessary for someone behind the scenes and working in the US government to show a flat out denial on any UFOs as possibly having any opportunity to advance science, let alone one that could represent something alien. Luckily for President Ford, he did not pursue it further. This preferred approach to denying UFOs at every step by those in the know is supported by UFO director of MUFON in New Jersey, Major George A. Filer III, when he wrote to Ford asking about his interest. Ford wrote back saying:

"During my public career while in Congress, as Vice President and as President he made various requests about UFOs. The official authorities always denied the UFO allegations. As a result I have no information that may be helpful to you."

It just goes to show how sensitive the whole UFO situation really has got in the United States, far more than any other country in the world. Something has clearly got up the proverbial nose of certain people in the know in that country and in a bad way too to the point where they are not willing to divulge their knowledge even to this day, and anyone who gets close to the truth could find themselves in dangerous territory.

This is the thing. President Ford, may have chosen wisely not to pursue the matter. Nor did he attempt any plans to force the CIA and the U.S. military to reveal UFO information and the Roswell case to the public in the way that President Kennedy was willing to do in his day, and so put his own life in danger. Kennedy was special in his own right. Too special, in fact. It turned out those in the know could not handle someone so curious and driven to get to the truth like Kennedy, while seeking permanent peace in the world by revealing certain secrets that he was privileged to learn. Someone who was willing to rock the boat and shake up the military and government establishment for the sake of ending the Cold War with Russia and get to the bottom of the UFO mystery once and for all (or perhaps he already knew and felt the public deserved to know the truth), especially if the military and the CIA knew something. For example, just ten days before Kennedy was assassinated and soon after he wrote his UFO memo, he spoke to an eager audience at Columbia University about his concerns of secrecy and the need for people to be more open-minded, free and independent to get to the truth. As Kennedy said (full speech available from here):

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control.

And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary.

I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it.

This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: 'An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it'. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive.

That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...

And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

Talk about adding more fuel to the fire when he wrote the secret UFO memo. He was prepared to rock the boat and speak the truth. Now, at last, we can see how his revealing memo on UFOs was just one part of the big picture that Kennedy had planned for the public. It was his personal crusade — a kind of realisation that he could end the the Cold War with Russia if he wanted to, and how important it was to share knowledge of even the most controversial areas with fellow human beings. He felt certain secrecy in the U.S. government was stifling openness in the world. All it did was make the situation with Russia worse than it needed to be. Kennedy realised how it was looking and how quickly the world could change for the better. He was looking to change this perception Russia had of America by showing to the world that his Administration and those who were suppose to support him and his aims were not hiding anything important from Russia and the rest of the world. Being open was key in Kennedy's mind to establishing permanent world peace. Maybe even to help start a new world order, and a better society for all? It was looking like Kennedy was on the cusp of greatness by hopefully revealing explosive insights into the UFO phenomenon. Only one teething problem with this noble aim. It seems that certain people in the know were afraid of what Kennedy was about to do. If that memo had been acted upon in any shape or form and achieved as Kennedy had wanted it done, all hell would have broken lose for the USAF and CIA. The sh*t would really have hit the fan in those places, but at the same time it could have meant a new world order was on the cards for everyone, and genuine peace for all nations. However, in the end, the desperation of these people to stop a powerful man like Kennedy from forcibly revealing the deepest secrets and using his presidential powers to request this was laid evident for the world to see.

Also, there could be another reason why Kennedy was keen to release UFO information to Russia, NASA, and eventually the rest of the world. He must have surely heard how his former lover and mistress Marilyn Monroe was "taken out" permanently. He may have been told later what was in her diary to warrant such action and why his private viewing of the Roswell materials and bodies had to be kept secret. Yet deep down, being somewhat partly responsible for Monroe's death, he couldn't quite see the benefit of maintaining such secrecy to the point of seeing American citizens getting killed by his government.

What is the point of all this? What are we trying to hide from the American public? And, why continue the Cold War with Russia?

One can imagine that during his moment of viewing the materials and bodies that he must have asked whether these visitors carried any weapons. The answer would have been an emphatic "No." Just individuals exploring like our scientists would, but nothing to suggest that they are here to take over the Earth. It was probably the same answer former president Harry S. Truman received when he asked about these visitors recovered in New Mexico. But as the former president Harry S. Truman recommended, keeping the evidence under wraps until enough information is gathered from UFO reports was the best way to determine the reason for the visitors arrival. By the time Kennedy had written his UFO memo, the U.S. government would have had 15 years to figure this one out. And now it is 2025 and the CIA and USAF have had decades to work it all out. Still nothing. Either the people in those organisation who do know the true situation regarding UFOs are not the brightest crayon in the pack, or they are a hopeless bunch of buffoons to humanity in not helping people to progress and learn from the situation. Fear not. Citizens are still observing UFOs, especially at close range. No matter how hard people in the U.S. government try to keep the subject under wraps, someone flying these UFOs are doing an amazing job of counteracting all the secrecy.

This is the thing. Kennedy can see the public is refusing to quieten down on what they see. All he wanted to do was to release just the UFO reports from witnesses gathered by the CIA in the United States and show to the Russians there was nothing to worry about. The CIA had nothing to indicate the UFOs are a threat to any nation. Plenty of time to work this out after 15 years since the first evidence arrived. Just hand these reports over to NASA as well and the scientists can confirm whether there is anything to worry about, and quite likely they will say no. It would be certain there is no evidence of an invasion or anything like that if they are real. And with the way things are going at the moment, it is starting to look like we do have something we can learn from the reports. Should the public handle this information well, why not release the core evidence recovered by the USAF? He must have felt this secrecy was going on for too long even by his standards and times and was starting to get out of hand from the way ordinary civilians in his country were getting killed over what is presumably natural or man-made explanations for UFOs. It does not make sense. For Kennedy, he must have known the real answer, but he couldn't see why the public could not know the truth. He felt the best way to create a safer world was to be more transparent and end the secrecy.

Unfortunately for those in the know and who are fully aware of the true situation regarding UFOs, they would not have a bar of it from this president. There was too much at stake, and more benefits to be had in maintaining the secrecy at all costs.

Sounds too incredible to be true? There is a solution. How about, as a final legacy for the former president who died trying to do the right thing (because he felt it was in the interest of the world to know the truth and bring peace with Russia), to carry out his last request of revealing everything the CIA and the military knows about UFOs and what was found in New Mexico in early July 1947 (the one we know that contained a significant amount of a highly pure shape-memory titanium-based alloy, together with the unnamed pilots and crew members that were found onboard the unusually smooth and rounded symmetrically charged metal object that was hit by lightning) as a matter of expediency? As the official authorities keep saying to the public, UFOs are nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Okay, prove it! If there is no evidence of any alien UFOs, then all UFO documents and the original materials of the Roswell object and bodies should be released to the public and let the scientific community conduct its own study of the evidence. No holding back or hesitation. Just release all UFO information and whatever was found near Roswell.

And no attempt should be made to apply heavy redaction to documents. There should be an independent body to oversee the process of redaction. If the redaction refers to names of existing agents in the field, fair enough. Have them blacked out. But everything else should be left intact and readable by the public. That's the reality one should expect to see. Surely this final effort is the least we could give the former president for all he tried to do for the world.

Finally, we should expect no complaints to come from the CIA or the USAF through this release of information. Or else the public will have good reason to believe that UFOs do represent something of significance to humankind. And that must surely be in the interest of the world to know the truth.

Since the assassination, future presidents would not be so lucky to have a private viewing of the Roswell debris and bodies for fear of becoming a security risk. Instead, some presidents might be advised that the evidence exists, but it is their duty to the American people to stay quiet. Perhaps this may explain why Barrrack Obama stated on James Corden’s Late Late Show:

"When it comes to aliens, there are some things I just can’t tell you on air."

YEARS AGO

The earliest times when civilian scientists started talking about recycling energy and all of our waste products in the industrial age and avoid climate change had its origins around the mid-1950s. Of all places, incredibly enough, it happened in the U.S.. Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, the government and business professionals have pooh-poohed the idea in the face of profits.

This is a particularly important decision to make. The U.S. military and intelligence communities may have become aware of the importance of recycling energy following their analysis of a recovered flying disc but were afraid to allow the idea to come out and affect the economy. Any emphasis on recycling concepts could reveal the secret to recycling electromagnetic energy via Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory and the potential for a new electromagnetic technology (i.e. the UFO). It is better to emphasise jobs, the current economy and profits, fossil fuels and traditional technologies, and just consume to our hearts contents and don't worry about recycling. Just throw the waste in the ground and in the oceans in the old proverbial "sweeping under the environmental carpet" so to speak and hope no one would see the problems, or the big secret, and things will return to normal. In the meantime, use up as much oil as possible while maintaining the status quo seems to be the order of the day. And to pay for all of it, everyone must get a paying job, any job that pays something, in the economic system and everything should be fine. An easy solution for those in the know.

But there are consequences for humankind in not taking this recycling approach seriously and early enough, only to be exacerbated by an expanding human population. We are living on this planet quite literally in the billions. Give it enough time and the lack or limited recycling will affect the planet. More and more people will have to look for new recycling ideas to solve world problems.

This means that at point the big secret will come out.

7 JUNE 1967

Project Blue Book’s first director Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (1923-1960) could not help notice the electromagnetic effects that were showing up in a growing number of genuine UFO reports. He said:

"During my tenure with Project Blue Book we had reports of radiation and induction fields in connection with UFOs. However, the information was sketchy and we were never able to pin it down. [The reports] of electromagnetic disturbances characterised a whole new dimension to the UFO investigation."

On discovering this fact, the U.S. government quickly changed the aim of Project Blue Book following the Robertson Panel report's recommendations (overseen by the CIA) in an attempt to convince the public that UFOs were merely misidentifications of man-made and natural objects. Under no circumstances would the government concede the possibility of something "alien" in the UFO reports. It was enough to force Ruppelt to retire from the Air Force under protest in 1954.

7 JUNE 1967

The existence of electromagnetic effects in UFO reports were affecting a small but growing contingent of scientists. Professor James McDonald, an atmospheric physicist, was well aware of the electromagnetic nature of UFOs. He said in a speech on June 7th, 1967:

"A wide range of electromagnetic disturbances accompanying close passage or hovering of the UFOs is now on record throughout the world…

…Disturbance of internal-combustion engines coincident with close passage of disk-like or cylindrical unconventional objects is on record in at least several hundred instances. Often the disturbances are accompanied by broad-spectrum electromagnetic noise picked up on radio devices…

…In many instances, compasses, both on ships and in aircraft, have been disturbed…Magnetometers and even wrist watches have been affected. All these reports, far too numerous to cite in detail, point to some kind of electromagnetic noise or electromagnetic side-effects.

However, with too many so-called rational and close-minded scientific colleagues willing to ridicule these more open-minded scientists, and compounded by the fact that the U.S. government still wants to keep the UFO secret going for longer, and a U.S. military willing to put the more curious scientists into more pragmatic jobs, a proper study of UFO reports would remain elusive for quite some time yet.

Perhaps young student(s) in university will make the breakthrough?

YEARS AGO

There is good evidence to suggest that the USAF have already understood the technology behind the UFO by the late 1970s. We can say this because by late December 1980, the USAF had tested a prototype for a new electromagnetic flying machine designed to mimic the common observations of UFOs. Testing was performed in the state of Texas, and observed by three unsuspecting civilian witnesses.

On the late evening of 29 December 1980, fifty-one-year-old business woman, Betty Cash, was driving home in her car with two other occupants: fifty-seven-year-old Vickie Landrum, an employee of a restaurant owned by Betty Cash, and her seven-year-old grandson, Colby Landrum. They drove along Highway FM1485 — only used by people who live in this sparsely-populated area because of its isolation — to get to their home in Dayton, Texas, U.S.A.

At around 9.00 p.m., Colby Landrum was the first to notice a brightly-lit UFO moving over treetops that bounded the highway on both sides. Betty and Vickie, who could not ignore Colby's state of jubilation and excitement, looked in the direction Colby's finger was pointing. The distance between them and the UFO at that time was about five kilometres. Then the object approached the witnesses, until it straddled the road ahead of them, forcing Betty to slam on the brakes.

The object was described as diamond-shaped with blue lights centered around its outermost rim, and it glowed intensely. A large, intermittent flame could also be seen underneath the object, keeping it aloft. Despite the bright glow, it looked as if it were made of dull aluminium; and the object itself seemed to be devoid of sharp points and edges.

All three witnesses got out of the car in full view of the object hovering only fifty metres away: Vickie standing just behind the open door on the right-hand side with her left hand resting on the car roof; Colby next to Vickie for protection; and Betty walking around to the front of the car. For the next three minutes or so, Vickie and Betty stared intently at the brightly-lit object ahead of them while Colby pleaded with Vickie to get back inside the car. Unaware that the car body was now acting as a giant ionizing x-ray machine from the streaming electrons coming off the surface of the UFO and hitting the stainless steel car body, the witnesses remained still as they watched what the object would do next. Then the object began to rise slowly in the air. On seeing this, Vickie called out to Betty. She responded, but noticed when she got back to the door of her car just how painfully hot the handle was. Betty successfully opened the door with her leather jacket. As they entered the car, all three witnesses felt the intense heat of the interior; they were forced to turn on the air conditioner (likely to be caused by the intense oscillating magnetic field of the object inducing electrical currents in the car's stainless steel body, thereby heating up the metal).

As they watched the UFO depart, a group of black helicopters suddenly arrived on the scene. 'They seemed to rush in from all directions,' Betty recalls, '...it seemed like they were trying to encircle the thing.'

The last they saw of the UFO was when they drove off and joined a larger highway, where they could just make out what looked like a small cylindrical object lighting up the surrounding area and the helicopters following it closely. From this new vantage point, they counted 23 helicopters — some of the double-rotor (CH-47 Chinooks) and others of the single-rotor types.

By the time the witnesses arrived home, they all noticed their skin turning red as if badly sunburnt (especially Vickie's left hand), and a collection of blisters had appeared (especially on Betty's face). Other medical symptoms included headaches, diarrhoea, swellings on the neck and eyes, feelings of tiredness, and all had experienced hair loss of varying degrees of severity, with Colby being the least affected. After examination by doctors, it was concluded that the witnesses had probably been exposed to radiation of some type.

"This is a very important case providing physical evidence of the existence of UFOs," said John Schussler, a NASA aerospace engineer who investigated the case. "A radiologist who examined the women's records said they were apparently suffering from the symptoms of radiation poisoning."

As for proving whether or not the United States government was directly involved in the incident is extremely difficult, if not impossible. For as the New York Times reported on 20 January 1981: "Finding out what goes on in the CIA [and other clandestine organisations] is like performing acupuncture on a rock."

On top of that, it would be difficult to prove the USAF had owned the UFO unless the object landed in a public place or a document could be found to show the USAF was testing an electromagnetic flying vehicle. But it doesn't take a genius to realise it would have to be owned by the USAF. Anything that flies must be in the jurisdiction of the USAF, unless the military's left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing. There is a renegade and supersecret military group doing this work and the US Department of Defence is unaware of this.

Of course, one could try the traditional blow torch of scientific knowledge about how UFOs work right up the proverbial backsides of those in the know at the CIA and the USAF. Then the scientific wedge will only widen the cracks in the secrecy and eventually force the truth out once civilians build a prototype.

Until then, which isn't too far away, it would appear that a small band of isolated American scientists forced under oath to maintain complete secrecy have quietly reverse-engineered the crashed disk and the concept gathered behind it and this has resulted in the manufacture of what appears to be a crude and dirty electromagnetic man-made example of a UFO as described above. The use of a chemical propulsion directly below the glowing diamond-shaped object suggests a backup system was necessary should the primary electromagnetic propulsion concept using the oscillating electrical glow fail in any way.

After the close call the incident in Texas created with the public, a secret contingent of the USAF decided to move over to a more secret and isolated location known as Area 51 to test more prototypes that employ this type of electromagnetic technology. Unfortunately for the military, some American citizens have been able to come close enough and used binoculars to observe what is going on. And here we learn of glowing objects performing some remarkable feats in the air near the USAF base.

Or maybe it is time for the rest of the world to try this technology out for ourselves. Then we will know exactly what the USAF is hiding.

YEARS AGO

While UFOs might be considered too controversial for some people — mainly those who prefer to see things with their own eyes, or maintain a secret from the public — until evidence of a more direct nature is found (either to build the electromagnetic technology to take us to the stars, or to have just one alien civilisation make the decision to present the evidence to the scientific community), there is one area no one can ignore mainly because of the mounting direct scientific evidence to support the observations. It is the evidence supporting the view that humans are affecting the planet in ways that are not entirely helpful to the long-term survival and future of all living things. Of great concern is the greenhouse effect (the trapping of heat from the Sun) caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other similar warming pollutants from the burning of natural forests from land clearing and coal-fired power stations, the sudden release of stored methane under the oceans and in permafrosts to further raise world temperatures, greater levels of pollution in fresh water supplies and in the air from chemical factories, natural fish in the oceans becoming increasingly decimated from overfishing and being slowly poisoned by chemicals, massive glaciers melting and the beginning of what will almost certainly become massive sea level rises beyond the current predictions made by computer modelling, and so on.

Among the scientific evidence in support of the "greenhouse gas" problem (or global warming, researchers at the University of Alaska have discovered an alarming increase in the rate of melting of ice after surveying 67 major glaciers. Although it has been known since the mid-1950s that glaciers were melting, this study has found in the five years to 2002, the rate of melting has almost doubled to nearly 52 cubic kilometres a year compared to the rate of melting from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s (26), and the process is accelerating. The consequences are clear: pure ice from the glaciers are turning into water and flowing to the sea and this in turn raises the world's sea levels, putting coastal cities at higher risk of being flooded and for more extreme weather as the climate warms up and the natural ocean currents get out-of-kilter. The process is now looking unbalanced. The researchers came to this conclusion after measuring on an annual basis the changes occurring to the surface of glaciers using a laser system transported in an aircraft.

Already scientists are claiming the greenhouse gases in the air is in greater concentrations than for the last 400,000 years and increasing at a rapid rate. The warning bells are ringing.

Even the economic costs to deal with this problem are escalating. Cost to house environmental refugees from the coastal regions and low-lying islands, the cost of damage from more intense cyclones and hurricanes, and soon the cost to protect economic assets along the coast where many cities exist. Eventually even the richest nations on Earth will struggle to raise enough taxes to cover the costs. At some point the economic system will collapse under the weight of the environmental problems and costs to fix them, and there will not be enough resources to manage the problem. A major and new social world order could be on the cards if we are going to solve this important problem.

Are the brains of humans big enough to solve this environmental problem of our times, and do it quick enough? Or has greed and power taken over the most powerful leaders of the world and their supporters (i.e., the people who support the system), Or are there too many Christians in the world who believe the Bible story in Genesis still applies in the 21st century and we can continue to multiply and use up the resources without recycling? As we find in the Old Testament:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

Continue with this kind of "continuous growth" thinking and soon the environment will have dominion over humans in a negative way once the resources are depleted and we have thrown our waste into the atmosphere. It sounds like certain people in the world will be reliving the Aztec experience very soon. And there will definitely be no religion (or economics) for people to practice too with this kind of bizarre unsustainable thinking.