and we must not forget the historical and cultural echoes lurking behind these claims. the fbis cointelpro in the 60s and 70s showed how easily american institutions could frame activists, forging documents and planting false narratives. the nyc mafia trials of yesteryear revealed how law enforcement and criminals sometimes danced hand in hand. its not tinfoil-hattery to recall these precedents; its prudent. when the stakes are this highbillions of dollars, major political reputations, entire industries teetering on antitrust edgesthe truth rarely emerges unscathed. to grasp the full insanity, consider again: the police said they knew the gunman but held back the name; then they claimed they never suspected mangione until the last minute. they present a cartoonish scenario where a supposedly cunning killer leaves a buffet of clues scattered around midtown like candy wrappers. they rely on dubious witnesses and blurred camera feeds. the official timeline staggers like a drunk in an alley, propped up by hasty explanations and media hype. unless we start probing deeperand we will, soonthis narrative will remain a half-painted canvas, each contradictory stroke meant to distract us from the canvas frame beneath. the question lingers: how does one reconcile these glaring inconsistencies unless theres a deliberate effort to pin this crime on a chosen scapegoat? when we step into the next layers of evidence, remember these shifting sands of the official timeline. they set the stage for everything that follows, from phantom eyewitnesses to suspicious manifestos. if the cops themselves cant keep their story straight, how can we trust their conclusion that mangione is our man?
United States