Corbett is a plant and always has been. I think he may actually be too low- consciousness to realize it himself.
For many years, I was as unquestioning as any other fan of his. Then I started getting the idea that his operation had been penetrated and was being steered in certain ways. Almost all "alternative researchers" are compromised in such a way and, after all, why wouldn't they be?
Then I happened to catch him calling in to Alan Watt on the radio very deep in Watt's back catalog, maybe 2007 or 2008. If anyone has ever heard a phony prescripted question asked at a press conference, this was worse.
Not that it was arranged with Watt, but more along the lines of, "I want everyone to hear that I'm a legitimate researcher by establishing in the record that I'm asking an organic question from my deep knowledge as a legitimate researcher, as previously stated." It's as easy as distinguishing movie dialog from overheard conversation at the next table in a restaurant.
His whole shtick is to establish himself as the cutting edge of careful research. The trick is that he is simply a stenographer and compiler. He doesn't reveal anything that has not already been revealed elsewhere.
A handful of times he has, however, revealed some important information I found to be key, but it was inadvertent. I could see where he failed to carry it forward into its logical implications or to resolve the issues it raised. Other stories for other days.
Well, let me give you a subtle example of something like "the best you can do":...
I'll start with this question: Why does Donald Trump still talk to the mainstream press? None of them are friendly and almost all are openly hostile. Why doesn't he kick them all out and fill the press briefing room with, say, Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and the like? Even if they don't agree, at least he'll get a fair hearing, right?
Now, don't ask me if Trump knows this next part as clearly and precisely as this, but he senses it on some level.
The vast majority of the public will never accept those "alternative" people as "authorities". They have none of the hallmarks that most people use to tell who they should get their truth from: fancy clothes, talk like lecturing schoolteachers, slick production, big organizations with long histories, impressive titles, and so forth. None of those things has the slightest direct bearing on the truth of what they say, but that is exactly what people really think.
So Trump keeps talking to these people because he knows that if he is ever going to be "heard" by the masses, it will have to come through those channels. There is no alternative. He takes all the abuse and just keeps plugging away.
As proof of this technique, check out this interview with Mike Lindell on Jimmy Kimmel from 5 years ago. Mike just stayed cool, acted normal, and stated his case. The key is in the YouTube comments: Jimmy's normie liberal audience torches Jimmy.
So in the end, I think the best play is to stay cool, keep studying, tell the truth as best you know it to anyone who wants to hear, and anyone who might ever stand any chance of actually listening to you will ask for more.
Frankly, the alternative is to try to think, "How can I manipulate people into thinking how I want them to think?" But that is exactly and precisely the mindset of all those we're struggling against, isn't it? Don't fall into that trap.
The reaction itself is not a matter of choice. It is as unavoidable a reaction as hunger or thirst or fear of heights. It's not a choice and you can't tell anyone to choose to feel some other way, or to fault them when they fail to.
Normies don't hold it as a dear principle that men did or did not walk on the Moon. They way they work is that the "authorities" have all said that men walked on the Moon, and thus it is true.
When you say it isn't true, what they're hearing is that everyone they have put their faith in to run the world in an orderly way is either a dumbshit or a liar. Nothing Big Daddy and Big Mama say can be trusted, and who knows how malevolent and powerful they may be given that they have gotten away for so long with such a grand deception.
Of course they reject that. It's the only "sensible" thing to do. And it's as easy as snapping their fingers and telling you to go away.
It's not about changing how other people work, any more than you could walk into an insane asylum and tell everyone to "snap out of it", but you can change yourself.
Once you accept and internalize this understanding, you will see the world and other people differently. You will think differently and take different actions than you otherwise would have. In exactly what ways I could not possibly predict, but it will be myriad and inevitable. Margaret Mead once said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
You see, she recognized the functional application. I have only explicated the principles behind it.
The subtle effect is that these people do not want the truth or, more precisely, will find or invent a way to reject any claims that cause destabilization as being something other than the truth.
You might as well try to decide which is the better football team in a game where both are cheating. The issue of "better" ceases to exist.
This is all subconscious and not subject to direct inspection. It has never been studied academically for certain reasons. Very few reflect honestly on themselves because very few even can.
It's quite common that people don't like pictures of themselves or the sound of their recorded voice. They find it deeply disturbing, and that's because it does not match how they think they look and what their voice sounds like to themselves.
That's gross physical appearance and easily shown to onesself. How much more difficult is it to to examine one's own consciousness, let alone one's own subconscious. And how objectionable would one find it? It is all easily avoided.
The other manifestation of this fear is on a deeper and more intractable level. It has to do with differing levels of consciousness is humans, and the vast majority of humans are utterly driven by this fear.
Have you ever noticed the negative reaction is normies when you tell them, say, that the Moon landings were faked? The more evidence you provide, the more intense the reaction gets.
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Conspiracy theorists are not exempt, but only operate one level higher. Try to tell them it isn't all down to the Jews or the Freemasons or the rich or whoever else they have "figured out is really behind it", and they will object more and more aggressively and less and less objectively.
What is really going on? It's the same phenomenon in all these cases: fear.
You see, in each of these, the person's subconscious has quickly decided that what you're saying is plausible and, further, it is a threat not only to their worldview, but to their very sense of self. If they were wrong about these very basic things, then what else might they be wrong about? Has their whole life been lived under deep deception? What are they now vulnerable to?
Exposure to such information is as fearful to them as telling a child he or she was adopted and that their mommy and daddy are not who they think they are. IOW, it is terrifying.
With bears and COVID and Republicans, they have to keep reminding us incessantly that these things are to be feared. Without that, the threat dissipates and the fear is forgotten because it was almost totally phony all along.
The fear I'm talking about never fades. No one told anyone to be fearful of these things because it is self-generated on a primitive level. There is essentially no way to talk anyone out of it.
The basic conditions generating it can be altered, but that's a story for another day.
Thank you very much! I appreciate the support!
Stay tuned because the story gets strange by the time we get to the end of the 5-part "tire arc". Then one more connected post even stranger than that.
Here's a little anecdote to pass on if you're chatting with someone from Akron. It didn't make the cut because, as you know, I've got to snip these red strings somewhere:
The US Navy used to run a fleet of zeppelins, and one of them was the USS Akron, made by Goodyear-Zeppelin. It was huge, almost the same size as the Hindenburg.
She experienced a bunch of misadventures and finally, in 1933, she crashed into the Atlantic in bad weather (or so we are told). The first ship on the scene was the USCG cutter USS Tucker. The last post was, of course, about Salem Witch Preston Tucker.
Turns out the ship was formerly a destroyer, and her namesake was Commodore Samuel Tucker (1747-1833). He was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts, which is that big peninsula just southeast of Salem.
There'd be a lot of backstory to explain the significance to anyone you were telling that to, but if you got through it, I suspect they might say, "You're just making this shit up, right?"
To be completely frank, I've fallen off the track of even being able to guess who might be up to what in this situation, and that's even knowing the following....
The nexus between the JFK assassination and MK-Ultra is that Jackie did it, specifically that she was both a programmed assassin and a "Presidential Model". It surprises me that no one seems to realize this is where they got the name.
That didn't take 40 boxes or even 40 words to state the core thesis. Analyzing the evidence of the event under that thesis, you realize 98% of what passes for "JFK research" is meaningless irrelevancies and red herrings. That's the point of it.
It was a Salem Witch operation. JFK was one of them, he crossed the line against them, and he was sanctioned. Allen Dulles (whose mother was a Foster) was the CIA Director that JFK fired, his deputy Charles P. Cabell was fired with him, Earle Cabell was mayor of Dallas, and Lyndon Johnson took over when he was dead. The list goes on.
At this point, I still have no information to indicate that anyone in the Trump Administration knows any of this, and who knows how many moles there are. Seeing that Olivia Coleman is the ODNI spokesperson is a bit disturbing. But if I were a White Hat trying to do battle with these embedded scum, I'd play my cards hella close to the vest, too.
Not just that: the general public could never believe even the few simple paragraphs I've just written. They would never even entertain it. Perhaps the White Hats have concluded that there is not now nor ever will be a point to mentioning any of this to the public. It is deeply disturbing and therefore destabilizing.
And let me be brutally honest on this point: it is barely worth mentioning to supposedly open-minded tin foil hatters.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission where "the lid was blown off MK-Ultra" were limited hangouts courtesy of the Salem Witches. Thus, the Congressional intelligence oversight set up in the wake of that is kabuki. I've been planning to write a post on this for some time but still far from it.
The children's parents insisted during their trial they had always acted in the interest of the youngsters.
That's the single crucial sentence in the entire article. I believe 100% that they believe this 100%. The NPC level of consciousness begins with the assumption that they are a good person and therefore correct in their reasoning and actions. They are the hero of the narrative playing out in their own head.
If anyone reading this assumes that they are a good person and therefore correct in their reasoning and actions, you might be an NPC. If you never worry about that and aren't worried after reading that last statement, you're definitely an NPC.
Jailing them does nothing to alleviate the situation and can be compared to beating a dog for what is deemed a moral transgression. It helps nothing but it makes the low-consciousness feel better about themselves.
This is a severe phenomenon and deserves a serious explanation. I find that it confirms a major aspect of "NPC theory". That term should be considered only a handle which has no agreed definition. The definition and characteristics are what is being discussed.
Most of the human race--perhaps 80%--are NPCs. One big aspect of that is that they are already psychotic. Even that term is poorly understood by mainstream science, but the core of it which I consider vital would be loosely described as "detachment from reality".
They get a small but vital part of their idea of reality from firsthand experience, but most of what they believe is happening in the rest of the world comes from sources they consider "authorities": parents, teachers, priests and preachers, fancy people on TV, etc.
A main cue of "authority" is to make statements with 100% conviction. It's even called "speaking with authority". AI does that 100% the time. There are no cues being emitted indicating to someone that they should question what is being produced: "<beep> That's the best I can figure out about it for now. I could be wrong and you'll have to decide for yourself. <boop>." Never happens.
At no time have any authorities told them that what comes out of computers as something labeled "AI" cannot be inherently trusted and may be wildly incorrect, no matter how reasonably it is stated and how authoritative it seems. That's part of the psyop, actually. Thus, anything AI spits out is "reality".
But the AIs themselves are psychotic under the definition above. It's far worse, actually, because the AIs can never look out the window or consult personal experience and common sense to adjust their reality. Particularly if they're ingesting social media, which is full of the the lunatic rantings of everyone that owns a keyboard.
The feedback mechanism amplifies psychosis with psychosis with no natural governor. I suspect that what pulled these individuals out was that eventually they came into contact with a person they considered an "authority" who said, "That's all crazy bullshit. Put your fucking phone down."
If you're reading this and thinking, "That could never happen to me," you're almost certainly correct. That's my point: it does happen to some people because their minds operate in a fundamentally different way.
The paramount observation out of all this is to stop believing that everyone thinks like everyone else, just with the dials and levers set in different positions and different punch cards fed in. Not true at all.
Most will never "wake up" no matter how indispensable and persuasive the social media posts they read may be. The few that can wake up have to begin making decisions under that reality.
I think there's a useful meta-lesson from this incident:
There's a universal subconscious assumption that "They" are at all times malicious and that everything "They" do is inimical towards the rest of the human race. Thus, researchers find something bad and then look for who to pin it on. This methodology is entirely unreliable and often misleading.
There's nothing inherently bad about the use of anesthesia, so far as I know. Nothing unhealthful or immoral. (I mean, within reason. Don't go sniffing ether, kids!) So what's going on here.
My guess would be that the Salem Witches realized that the discovery and rollout of anesthetics was right around the corner. Therefore, They needed to be the ones rolling it out and everyone was going to hear first what They had to say about it.
Sure, yes, Their control over the science is long-term inimical but is in such a fashion as no one is ever going to detect Their influence. It's been almost two centuries and no ones has, right?
A note on AI consciousness: Before anyone gets to discussing AI consciousness, it should be understood that no one understands human consciousness, even in its fundamental aspect.
That's a strong claim, but the demonstration of it comes from anesthesiology. First note that even the "engineering" of it is so poorly understood that a dedicated specialist is required to administer anesthesia during surgery.
Wikipedia's article is excruciatingly long but manages to avoid the simplest of characterizations of the science of anesthesia: scientists know that it works, but they do not know at all how it works.
In about a decade since I first learned this, I have only heard it mentioned one other time. It's yet another one of those "informational black holes" that the entire culture gets steered around.
Think of it like this: if you discover that putting your cell phone in a microwave means that it won't ring when you call it, that is no demonstration that you understand anything at all about the science and technology of either cell phones or microwaves.
Even in that trivial case, virtually everyone would jump to the wrong conclusion unless they already knew otherwise. Not all microwaves block all cell phone signals.
Bonus: The "History" section of that Wikipedia page mentions that the first demonstration of anesthesia took place at Massachusetts General Hospital and involved a dentist named William Morton and a surgeon named John Warren. Next to the text is a painting by Robert C. Hinckley illustrating the momentous event.
Well, surprise or maybe not surprise: MA General is in Boston, next to Salem. Morton, Warren, and even Hinckley are all Salem Witch names.
Double Bonus: I haven't covered the Mortons before so it might not be immediately recognizable, but I'll just mention as one example the 22nd Vice President of the United States, Levi Parsons Morton. Yes, those Parsons.
The whole organization is to be considered suspect, but the scheme is much deeper than anything visible on the surface.
Back in 2001, Liberty Media acquired Liberty Digital. The founding president and CEO of Liberty Digital was Jarl Mohn. No one comes out and says it, but everyone assumes that's how Mohn became a billionaire.
Not true. That's merely how they laundered his secret inheritance to him. I wrote up who Mohn really was two years ago:
The new CEO of NPR is an obvious spook, but not obvious at all is that the CEO before last, Jarl Mohn, was a secret Nazi billionaire (not a metaphor) (conspiracies.win 4/19/2024)
Finally, note that Liberty Media isn't headquartered in Los Angeles or New York, but in Meridian, Colorado, which is part of the Denver metro area. Denver is, of course, a primary Stronghold of the Salem Witches.
As far as outsourcing thinking, I learned something recently which I found provides a crucial insight on this. It concerns something which would be considered humorous and trivial:
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men (Wired 4/21/2026)
The anomaly is buried deep in the article:
The same logic, however, apparently does not apply to left-wing influencer accounts, as Sam learned when he created a short-lived liberal counterpart for Emily on Instagram: “Democrats know that it’s AI slop, so they don’t engage as much.” (Sam’s explanation for why MAGA influencer accounts work is blunt: “The MAGA crowd is made up of dumb people—like, super dumb people. And they fall for it.”)
"Liberal Emily" was not accepted by them as an "authority figure", and getting their reality from "authorities" is what basically characterizes liberals. More precisely, the authorities they grew up with were liberal and their level of consciousness simply entrained them to that.
Obviously it's not that half of us are dumb and the other half are also dumb and so we're all dumb. Sam--who is dumb--doesn't get the subtle phenomenon that has been revealed (or confirmed, since I realized a while back that this is what was happening).
Detecting AI is a pretty advanced exercise of our powers of observation and reasoning. You can do it and I can do it and we see that even Democrats can do it. Mostly it's subconscious and happens almost instantly. We get a "feeling" then we can look for specific evidence.
The difference, though, is that our subconscious also decides when it is "permissible" for that reasoning to prevail. For Democrats in this instance, it was harmless to come to this conclusion so they "recognized" it right away.
On the flip side, Gavin Newsom has been CGI since early 2022. He even got reelected. No one seems to have noticed this. It's better than slop but still detectable. The difference, though, is that it's a worldview-shattering conclusion to recognize such a deception. So it does not get recognized.
Same thing goes for the recent very obvious Netanyahu AI fakes. Whatever individuals "saw" or "did not see", no one came away thinking, "Ohhh, given that, I've been the dumbshit and on the wrong side all along, haven't I?" No, the actual function of our consciousness is to protect us from such upsetting realizations.
Well, the consciousness level varies by person. To ensure the development of your consciousness, one should strive to think, "Ohhh, given that, I've been the dumbshit and on the wrong side all along, haven't I?" as often as appropriate.
... or face demerits for protecting sources who share important information at great personal risk.
When is the last documented case of a source who was harmed for sharing important information? If that number is above zero, we can compare it to the number of lying jackasses making up bullshit that got published by the mainstream media for propaganda and political purposes. Also useful to compare it to the number that were ever held accountable for generating and propagating bullshit.
The world is as it has long been, and Thucydides said it two and a half millennia ago in the Melian Dialog:
The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.
Much of what goes on in discourse and analysis of the world serves only to obfuscate this state of affairs. Trump is called a "king" by those who crusade for whatever they're calling justice that day, yet that king is constantly overruled by judges whose names you've never heard and who you most certainly never voted either for or against.
So who are the strong in this scenario? Where shall we say the power lies? No one seems to care to discuss that. It's not visible on the org chart, that's for sure.
So here, the problem lies not with AI and journalism, per se, but it is simply another authority for the NPCs to point to when they like what the machine is saying about that journalism.
The mere fact that anyone puts any faith whatsoever in anything labeled "journalism" these days is much closer to the trouble.
I find this misunderstanding reminiscent of and related to the larger issue of modern slavery.
I feel certain that if you asked any social justice warrior how many slaves there were in the United States, they would picture neck chains and auctions blocks and tell you there weren't any, since it had been outlawed by the Great Emancipator and the Thirteenth Amendment (he wasn't and it didn't).
Turns out they'd only be off by over a million:
MODERN SLAVERY IN UNITED STATES
The 2023 Global Slavery Index (GSI) estimates that on any given day in 2021, there were 1.1 million people living in modern slavery in the US, a prevalence of 3.3 people in modern slavery for every thousand people in the country. This places the US among countries with the lowest prevalence of modern slavery in the region (21 out of 25) and globally (122 out of 160), but represents the highest estimated total number of people in modern slavery in the Americas, accounting for over one-fifth of people in modern slavery across the region. While data on modern slavery are not aggregated at the national level – making the true number of cases reported difficult to ascertain – the National Human Trafficking Hotline (NHTH) reported receiving 10,360 reports of suspected human trafficking cases in 2021.
I like the part where none of the Democrat crusaders in their dashikis have ever bothered introducing legislation where the federal government would collect the numbers and add them up. Reparations yes, SUM() no.
Again, none of this is of any concern to SJWs since they have not been instructed by their TVs or social media feeds that they can signal their virtue over the issue. No avatars have been even temporarily changed because of this.
The current promotion of "Q = Operation Trust" is indeed fake demoralization propaganda, as you say. It's promoted by shills and amplified continuously by zealous dummies who love to be "right".
The difference is subtle and always left out. That's primarily because the dumb zealots are only up to parroting what they hear.
Firstly, Operation Trust was meant to identify real monarchists and anti-Bolsheviks. Do Qanons wish to keep their identities secret? Quite the opposite, and they only refrain from talking about it because they don't wish to start pointless arguments with inflamed and out-of-control zealots.
Secondly, Operation Trust was aimed at penetrating and disrupting any anti-Bolshevik organization. I mean, what exactly does anyone think Q penetrated and disrupted?
About the closest any of the trolls can come to a justified analogy is that Q is meant to keep anyone from taking action. This is how close Operation Trust came to that:
MUCR kept the monarchist general Alexander Kutepov from active actions, as he was convinced to wait for the development of internal anti-Bolshevik forces. Kutepov had previously believed in militant action as a solution to the Soviet occupation, and had formed the "combat organization", a militant splinter from the Russian All-Military Union led by General Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel. Kutepov also created the Inner Line as a counter-intelligence organization to prevent Bolshevik penetrations. It caused the Cheka some problems but was not overly successful.
If any of these fools think they're clever for discovering that Q derailed incipient military action, I'd say that's proof they've lost their minds and should stay away from keyboards entirely. They won't, because you don't have that kind of sense when you've lost your mind.
Haha, no one escapes! Henry was covered in a post a month ago concerning American manufacturers, the context being: American brands > Ford > Lincoln > Leland, and then actually mentioning Ransom Olds:
It used to be considered patriotic to drive an American car, but was it just a Salem Witch marketing campaign? (conspiracies.win 3/30/2026)
So this post starts at Olds and looks back the other way, even linking to the American carmakers post. But, you know, as mentioned in the post itself, you've got to start snipping the connecting threads somewhere to keep the whole thing manageable.
In this case, Leland was cut (metaphorically) because it's not a recognizable "Salem Witch" name and I want to keep the focus as sharp as possible.
Call it an unwitting limited hangout. Which do you think "They" would rather have people contemplating?:
(1) A mysterious figure had some tenuous association over two decades ago to the germ of an idea, and who years after that had some possibly incidental connection to an organization that is endlessly flogged in conspiracy theory circles as being involved in dark doings, but is only important because it serves to demonize the reviled enemy Donald J. Trump.
(2) Palantir is recording and analyzing every single thing you're doing on Polymarket. Everything.
As I've pointed out before, shitty research is it's own form of disinformation. "They" know this well and "They" know how ignorant and unwary people are of such dynamics.
Something I've never heard anyone mention: A couple of months ago when I looked into Polymarket personally--as in how it ran and how to set up an account--I read on their site that they did not allow accounts based in the US. I didn't even try to set one up.
They seemed to be serious about it, too, not just some wink-and-a-nod thing. It was more like, "We got in trouble with the CFTC back in 2022 and we won't risk that again."
But here we are and everyone's talking about Polymarket. Corbett discusses insider trading as something NO ONE is talking about, but doesn't mention that no Americans are supposed to be doing this in the first place as something NO ONE is talking about. Strange.
Here is a recent summary of the picture:
POLYMARKET REBELS STILL BETTING IN BANNED COUNTRIES USING VPNS (Sportico 4/7/2026)
While Polymarket said its new surveillance technology is going to safeguard its not-fully-launched U.S. exchange, it didn’t specify whether the tools would also be used to protect its separate international prediction market exchange, where about 98% of the company’s total betting volume and almost all of its controversy comes from.
There's another note about that surveillance technology. Corbett mentions that Admiral Poindexter was the head of DARPA back in 2003 when the idea of something like Polymarket came up and was shot down. He notes that Poindexter was later involved in the founding of much-maligned Palantir. Of course Corbett is aware of such things because he's one of the deepest and most thorough researchers out there, isn't he?
Well, he seems to have missed the news from 2026. From that same Sportico article:
Polymarket announced new integrity monitoring tools and procedures last month, highlighted by a partnership with data software firm Palantir enabling “world-class surveillance” of sports bets.
Deep and thorough researcher James Corbett always seems to have us looking deeply and thoroughly at the wrong things, which is perhaps why James Corbett is flourishing.
The secret cult of generational Satanists I have come to name the "Salem Witches" were heavily bound up in Quakerism, although I have yet to discern in precisely what way.
I completely discount the idea that this particular small group held any religion to heart other than what we might crudely call Satanism (there is a long story attached). My best guess, and the lines along which I would investigate if I ever get there, is that they created (or infiltrated and subverted) a sect that they could entirely control.
As for George Fox, I have no doubt he was one of these Satanists. There were, in fact, three Foxes--Hannah, Jabez, and Rebecca--involved in the fake Salem Witch Trials.
Just a simple search for "george fox salem witch trials" yields as the first result:
My Quaker ancestors: A Story of the Early Quaker Trials (Ancestry Archives 3/22/2015)
There is a people not so rigid as others are at Boston and there are great desires among them after the Truth. Some there are, as I hear, convinced who meet in silence at a place called Salem."-Henry Fell (in a letter dated 1656) June 27, 1658
So when I read that Professor Dutton titled his book, The Quaker Question: Exposing the Sect That Really Rules the World, I am not at all surprised. If only the professor had any idea how deep it really goes.
It was only in retrospect that I figured out "They" have been using this technique a long time. For those that think "conspiracy theory" was birthed because of the JFK assassination, they were using it back then too.
The simple and direct truth is that Jackie was an MK-Ultra assassin and she pulled the trigger. The are various items of evidence suggesting and even pointing strongly towards that conclusion. These are all subject to interpretation and argument, but the point is not to argue them here.
There is a certain piece of evidence consistent with that conclusion, which may be subject to interpretation but not to existence. That is, LHO's best friend in Dallas was George de Mohrenschildt. It turns out that a close friend of the Bouvier family, who almost married Jackie's aunt and who Jackie referred to as "Uncle George" was that same man.
While that's meaningless in and of itself, it is so ridiculous a coincidence that the only reasonable explanation--as wild as it may be--is that Jackie was involved in something very shady from childhood, and that same thing eventually culminated in front of the TSBD. All else is details of the journey.
After I found this out, my question become, "How was the fact of this relationship dealt with by the researchers that had literally written books on it, people that had studied it for years like Mark Lane, Vincent Bugliosi, G. Robert Blakey and others? What did they make of it? Had I missed something key that made it make sense?"
The answer is they didn't deal with it at all. Never mentioned it as if it was not worth mentioning. That is... not reasonable.
Numerous others had written books on the assassination, and probably much of it was based only on adding something to what the primary researchers had already said, not going back to question their faulty conclusions. Those primary researchers had already quietly steered everyone around the entrance to the tunnel that would lead to any important truth.
Sometime later I heard Mae Brussell--held up as a conspiracy theory legend--talking about the assassination of RFK. Which was totally and crudely faked, BTW. However, within about 20 seconds, Brussell's analysis had led to the Propaganda Due lodge in Italy and blah blah blah. I thought, "Oh I see, this bullshit has been going on forever, in all corners you would never expect. The hole is far deeper than I guessed."
The rule now boils down to, "The harder and deeper something is pushed in conspiracy theory circles, the more certain you can be it is not where you should be looking."