In his five-part dressing-down of Gerald Posner’s Case Closed, Martin Hay deems the chapters dealing with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to be even worse than those on Lee Harvey Oswald. Click here for a systematic analysis of all the ‘JFK evidence’ featured in the 1993 book.

Below is a snippet of this evidence and what’s wrong with it.

Gerald Posner’s JFK Evidence: The Overarching Theme

Hay begins Part 3 of his five-part review by providing an overview of the JFK evidence shared in Posner’s book. The British researcher concludes that Posner behaves no better than a lawyer with loose morals when portraying the evidence related to the JFK assassination.

Instead of providing all the evidence, Posner includes what suits his skewed perspective on the assassination. He betrays his true objectives by actively hiding the controversial nature of certain evidence.

Take the heavily-contested single bullet theory. Posner loses all credibility when he relies on the Warren Commission’s scientifically improbable theory to make his case.

Twisting the Words of Linnie Mae Randle

Linnie Mae Randle was the sister of Oswald’s co-worker Buell Frazier. She saw the former approaching their house on the morning of the assassination.

Posner’s Perspective: Randle describes the alleged assassin holding a ‘long package’ along his side. Wrapped in brown paper, Oswald held one end under his armpit while the other swung in the air. Posner also claims that Oswald handled the package as if it were heavy.

The Truth: Turn to page 248 of Volume 2 of the Warren Commission, and you’ll see that Randle never described Oswald this way. She said that he carried the package by his side while laying a hand over the top, and it was close to the ground as he walked.

To an unsuspecting reader, this detail might seem ordinary. However, it makes more sense when put in the perspective of the alleged weapon used in the assassination. You see, the Mannlicher Carcano was 34.8 inches long. The bag that held it wasn’t nearly long enough to hold the rifle. As for the package seeming too heavy, Randle said the wrapping paper holding the object, not the object itself, seemed to be a heavy type.

 

Finding Patterns Where There Are None

Posner claims that Oswald showing up at Frazier’s house was unusual because Frazier usually picked him up for a drive to his place.

There is nothing unusual about Oswald walking to Frazier’s house, as the latter told the Warren Commission that he usually picked Oswald up ‘around the corner.’ Other times, he would pick him up at the house. Sometimes, Oswald would walk down the sidewalk as Frazier prepared to pick him up. On that day, Frazier was running particularly late, so Oswald showing up on his own wasn’t as unusual as Posner makes it out to be in his book.

Check Out the Review for More on the Posner’s JFK Evidence

There is more to Posner’s JFK evidence than meets the eye. Check out Hay’s book review, which is more organized than the haphazardly put-together narrative the book attempts to sell.

Keep supporting Kennedys and King as it draws closer to the truth behind the JFK assassination. Share your material and contributions regarding the political assassinations of the 1960s.

Get in touch for further assistance.

Gerald Posner’s Case Closed came out in 1993, and we must say it has aged like milk. Martin Hay deserves a medal for putting himself through the wringer for something as inane as this book, considering what we now know about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Today’s blog will recap Hay’s five-part review of Posner’s poor attempt at deciphering the most notorious assassination of our time.

Skewed Priorities

At 640 pages, it’s safe to say that Case Closed is a chunky book, and Posner spends around 215 pages on Lee Harvey Oswald. Do we take issue with that? No, but we do take issue with spending more than 30% of the book on non-existent rhetoric.

Indeed, Posner spends those 215 pages painting Oswald as this violent maniac with the makings of an assassin. And not just one of the assassins, but the only person in Dealey Plaza on that fateful afternoon.

A reader who has gone through the forensic evidence that contradicts the lone gunman scenario will have a hard time buying what Posner is selling in this book, not then and certainly not in light of all we know now.

Cherry-picking the Truth

Once Posner established Oswald as assassin material, the next step was to prove that his shooting skills were decent enough to take out a slow-moving target. He went for the low-hanging fruit: Oswald’s time in the Marine Corps.

First, Posner tries to explain why an alleged communist joined the Marines. He quotes Oswald on this, saying he did it to follow in his brother Robert’s footsteps. Posner also mentions Oswald’s brother John’s testimony, citing their mother’s oppression as the reason for enlisting. Although this quote is authentic, it doesn’t hold in the face of Robert’s claim that Lee could handle their mother better than he and John.

 

Next, Posner tries to prove that Oswald couldn’t take well to the Corps because other Marines mercilessly bullied him. However, Sherman Cooley, a fellow Marine in the same platoon as Oswald, said other Marines teased him for being a bad shot.

In Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt, Cooley says that Oswald was so bad with a rifle that he would have picked him as his shooter. He also said his coordination with a rifle makes him an unlikely candidate for killing JFK. Cooley isn’t the only one with this opinion. Hurt interviewed over 50 fellow Marines. They agreed on Oswald’s inability to hit the target.

Marina Oswald’s Contradictory Statement

Marina’s testimony seems contradictory to anyone who has studied her statements, as much as Martin Hay. They don’t flip-flop so much as change from depicting Oswald as a loving husband and father to an abusive husband who used physical force to inflict pain in every possible way. Predictably enough, Posner ignores her initial rhetoric and talks at length about Oswald, the abuser.

There’s much more to Hay’s review of Posner’s 600+ page attempt at portraying Lee Harvey Oswald as the only culprit behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. Once you have read the first part, read the next four only at Kennedys and King. Keep supporting our cause to bring the true killers of political figures like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the Kennedy brothers to justice.

Get in touch for further assistance and inquiries.

With all the controversy surrounding the unsolved JFK assassination, it’s easy to forget that we’re just as far from finding the real perpetrators of the RFK assassination. However, Lisa Pease’s A Lie Too Big to Fail reminds us why we should care about the accused and the victim of this unfortunate incident.

Below are some highlights from our review of what we believe is one of the most insightful reads regarding the RFK assassination.

The Accessibility of A Lie Too Big to Fail

Many things are assumed with a case as old and cold as the Robert F. Kennedy assassination. Writers and so-called experts often write as if the reader would know specific facts about the event that happened nearly 60 years ago.

For some, picking up a book about a political assassination this old is like starting a connected trilogy from the second book. Lisa Pease’s A Lie Too Big to Failis accessible because it covers everything we know about this assassination while avoiding conjecture, conspiracy theories, and disinformation.

She also engages the reader with never-before-explored motives and information, sharing them so that they are instantly hooked on the subject matter.

 

Covering All Bases; Claiming Nothing

You won’t find a single line in Lisa Pease’s literature that might indicate a claim. The author’s work is well-researched and thorough, but she doesn’t claim to have solved the case.

Pease analyzes the involvement of the mob, private military contractors, and the CIA in this high-profile assassination. She doesn’t discount Thane Cesar, the anti-Kennedy security guard who stood beside Kennedy the night of the assassination with a gun, as a suspect. Cesar leaving Ace Security right after Kennedy’s death is nothing, if not suspicious.

Lastly, Pease gives Richard Nixon the benefit of the doubt but shows a diary entry that indicates his brother Don might have known about the assassination plot.

A Rational Discussion on Actionable Hypnosis

Most readers struggle to wrap their heads around actionable hypnosis because it being real is the stuff of nightmares. Imagine blacking out and having your body controlled like a string puppet.

While actionable hypnosis sounds like something out of a bad movie, Pease provides a rational perspective on Sirhan’s possible programming before arriving at the crime scene.

She uses existing examples of people who were hypno-programmed to prove how Sirhan could have acted against his will and knowledge.

With a book like A Lie Too Big to Fail, you don’t have to read more into the RFK assassination, but you can advocate for Sirhan’s release. Stay tuned for Sirhan’s next parole hearing, and you can write a letter to the Parole Board seeking his release. You can also explore our archives for more information about the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Contact us for content requests and suggestions.

It was a little over 65 years ago to the day that an unknown assailant callously shot down Dr. Martin Luther King when the latter stood on the second-floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel. Amid speculations about who might have killed him, let’s take a moment to celebrate the legacy of a great leader gone too soon.

Click here to delve back into the MLK assassination once you’ve had enough of the following facts.

1. MLK was Awarded His Doctorate at the Age of 25

Dr. Martin Luther King became a Ph.D. holder at 25, or according to some records, 26. He began his higher education when he was only 15, entering Morehouse College after skipping two grades. Four years later, he graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in sociology. He was 19 at the time.

King then enrolled at Pennsylvania’s Crozer Theological Seminary for further studies. Three years later, he graduated as a valedictorian. At last, King enrolled in a doctoral program at Boston University, where he was awarded his Ph.D. at the age of 25.

2. He Wasn’t Born “Martin Luther King”

One of the most interesting facts about Martin Luther King is that, like his father, he was named “Michael King” at birth.

He would have that name for five years, adding “Luther” after his father visited Germany for a Baptist World Alliance conference. It was there he heard about a protestant reformation leader called Martin Luther. A monk and a theologian, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses challenged Catholicism and revolutionized his country.

The story inspired Michael King Sr. so much that he changed both their names to “Martin Luther King” upon returning home.

 

3. MLK’s Mother Met the Same Fate

Six years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, his mother Alberta met the same fate. A 23-year-old assailant fatally shot her at the Ebenezer Baptist Church during a service.

The shooter’s eventual death sentence was commuted to life in prison because the King family opposed the death penalty.

4. The King Family Helped Julia Roberts

In a recent interview, Julia Robert revealed that the King family paid her “hospital bills.” Robert shared that her family was close with the King family before she was born because her parents had enrolled King’s children in their acting school.

When Roberts was born, her family couldn’t afford the hospital bills, but King’s wife, Coretta, was happy to foot the expense.

Get Back to the Assassination of Martin Luther King with Kennedys and King

No fun fact about Martin Luther King can trump the events surrounding his assassination. At times morbidly fascinating and frustratingly complex, they create enough reasonable doubt to suggest that someone other than James Earl Ray was behind his death. Explore existing evidence and avoid poorly-researched literature regarding the MLK assassination with the help of our platform.

Contribute your time and resources to our platform

Arun Starkey’s claim that Oliver Stone’s JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, are based on Jim Garrison’s findings is absurd. As the person who wrote the script for the 2021 film, DiEugenio knows that’s not true. Click here for a more comprehensive analysis of Starkey’s Far Out film review.

Before that, check out a preview of our rebuttal below.

Did Starkey Ever Read the Companion Book?

Does Starkey know a companion book to the 2021 documentary called JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass exists? He would’ve been less tempted to publish his hit piece if he did.

Starkey most likely watched JFK: Destiny Betrayed and disregarded the evidence in the film, prioritizing Tim Weiner’s arguments over the voice of reason. The companion book contains 500 footnotes related to the statements in the movie.

The Answer to Oliver Stone’s Divisive Power

Starkey uses many words to convey a simple message: Oliver Stone’s work is divisive and controversial. He accuses the JFK expert of touting conspiracy theories while doing the same throughout his article.

Starkey refers to Stone’s 1991 feature film JFK Revisited to drive this point home. He’s a little late to the party because everyone who has studied the JFK assassination long enough knows why Oliver Stone’s documentaries are divisive.

It’s not because they rely on conspiracy theories but because they call out the media jumping on the findings of the Warren Commission before they came out.

 

Where is the Assassination Records Review Board?

We must stop and ask Starkey, “Where are the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) findings in all this?” The entire point of the 2021 film was to discuss the origins and discoveries of the ARRB and hear about them through three of its most influential members.

Not only did Starkey completely sidestep this significant point, but he also ignored the new developments that are as far from conspiracy theories as can be. You can’t theorize Kennedy’s autopsy or the ballistics evidence, but Starkey doesn’t want any part of that. He only cares about what Tim Weiner wrote in his Rolling Stone hit piece. Click here for our choice words for that malarkey.

Rise Above JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories with Kennedys and King

With President Kennedy’s 60^th death anniversary fast approaching, it’s more important than ever to steer clear of the propaganda and conspiracy theories regarding the John F. Kennedy assassination and the political murders that occurred in the same decade.

The only way to learn the truth behind the JFK assassination is to debunk the lies as soon as they take center stage online.

Contact us to draw our attention to similarly baseless articles.

In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed the National Security Agency’s covert spying programs and showed how it watched its citizens through tech companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

He stole corroborating documentation from the NSA only to make it public knowledge. His well-intentioned actions split the public into two schools of thought: One saw him as a patriot and the other as a traitor.

Some three-odd years later, Edward Jay Epstein, a proponent of the second school, wrote a book called How America Lost Its Secrets, accusing Snowden of being a spy for China, Russia, or both.

Click here if you’re interested in our take on Epstein’s findings. Alternatively, keep reading our critique of the op-ed disguised as a work of non-fiction.

The Accomplice Theory

Epstein believed that Snowden didn’t have enough sway in the NSA to gain access to top-secret files. He proposed several theories related to someone inside the NSA who might have helped him with the following:

• Get hired at the agency’s data center.
• Discover global spy programs.
• Discover security traps at the data center.

Epstein’s accomplice theory goes as far as positing there might have been a spy in the NSA before Snowden started working there as a contractor.

Unfortunately for Epstein, the FBI explored this theory right after Snowden’s bombshell revelations and came up empty. There was no such accomplice within the agency; it was all Snowden.

 

The Speculation

We urge you to read How America Lost Its Secretsif only to see the number of times Epstein betrays the weakness of his arguments with speculative phrases like “could have,” “should have,” and “might have.”

Even when Epstein hasn’t used these phrases, he has portrayed assertions as facts and quoted people who are either senile or lying. If the fictional “level 3 sensitive compartmented information” is any indication, most of the book flows in this worrying direction.

Snowden in Hong Kong

The problem with Edward Epstein’s findings is that they are seldom corroborated with evidence. This is evident in his claim that Snowden arrived in Hong Kong on May 20 and checked into the Mira on June 1. Epstein doesn’t know what he did during the 11 undocumented days, but he is aware—who knows how—that he sent Glenn Greenwald 20 top-secret NSA documents on May 25.

He also “believes”Snowden may have been staying with his Chinese handlers during this time. As you might have guessed, there is no evidence of these claims. It’s Epstein’s word, which he cunningly wants the reader to believe is based on what the hotel staff told him. It’s not. The staff only said that Snowden checked in on June 1 with his real name and credit card.

Epstein’s Findings About the JFK Assassination

Epstein’s 2017 book is the latest in a series of books and articles riddled with conjecture, speculation, and misinformation. Kennedys and Kingcares because much of what he writes is related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Help us debunk such literature as soon as it’s published and pave the way for the truth behind the JFK assassination. You can do this through donations or multimedia contributions.

Get in touch for inquiries and updates.

On September 26, 2022, the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipelines experienced a series of underwater explosions and leaks. These pipelines mainly belonged to Russia and transported natural gas to Germany through the Baltic Sea.

These pipelines weren’t functioning due to the European Union’s boycott of Russia following the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. However, they still contained natural gas that started leaking once the explosions occurred.

While there are theories, no one knows who did it—that is, no one except apparently Seymour Hersh. This article criticizes his latest misinformation attempt and its negative impact. 

With a title like “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline,” Hersh starts with who he believes bombed the pipelines. His reasons for thinking, while porous and easily refuted, aren’t without a ripple effect.

The Smoking Gun (Or Lack Thereof)

We won’t link to the Substack article because it doesn’t bear reading. Hersh’s words may appear valid and make sense to the untrained eye. However, as one article said, they lack “a smoking gun.” 

Hersh claims that the US and Norway conspired to bomb the pipelines. He quotes “a source” when stating his reasons for doing so, and that’s where it takes a turn for the bizarre.

 

Jens Stoltenberg’s Alleged Support

Hersh claims that Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s former prime minister and the 13th Secretary General of NATO, was in favor of the attack for two reasons:

• He was a hardliner and an anti-communist.
• He had worked with the US intelligence since the Vietnam War.

The first claim might be accurate, but the second is problematic because it wouldn’t make sense for Stoltenberg to support US intelligence during the war in Saigon. Here’s a concurrent timeline of the NATO general and the war:

• President Johnson sent the first batch of troops to Indochina in 1965.
• Stoltenberg was six at this time, having been born in March 1959.
• The last American troops left in March 1973.
• Stoltenberg would have been 14 at the time.

Stoltenberg couldn’t have supported US intelligence during the Vietnam War even if he wanted to. He was too young to be of any help to the powers that be at the time.

The Multiplying Effect of Misinformation

While the US and Norway denied Seymour Hersh’s claims, every other news outlet reported it like breaking news. From Russian propagandists to Sky News, the story created ripples everywhere.

Some outlets saw the self-published piece for what it was and avoided reporting on it. While they reserved their two cents, they felt it necessary to report how Russia saw the piece.

All said, what should have died with a simple denial was reported enough to be seen as the truth. It was misinformation 101, but it was what the other side wanted to hear, even if it resulted in a bigger war.

Not the First or Last from Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winner, so his word holds some sway in international forums. However, Kennedys and King is aware of his ongoing misinformation campaigns regarding Osama bin Laden and President Kennedy.

Proceed to our complete article for the specifics and help us beat the misinformation surrounding the political assassinations of the 1960s through fact-checking, lobbying, and the odd email.

Contribute to our platform to help us continue our fight for the truth behind JFK assassination.

Malcolm X divided a nation for the better part of his civil rights campaign. This blog isn’t to pass judgment on his activism. It’s to drive home the point that his words held power at a time when African Americans hardly held any sway with the white elite.

Kennedys and King marks this Malcolm X Day with the following words.

“We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us.”

Malcolm X didn’t believe in unprovoked violence but wasn’t entirely against the v-word either. The activist made this statement during “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech at the King Solomon Baptist Church on April 12, 1964. 

He was alluding to the Black people’s right to defend themselves should harm befall them in their struggle for equal rights. Although Malcolm occasionally lost patience, he was for displaying and using arms to protect himself and those around him and taught his support to follow by example.

“Dr. King wants the same thing I want. Freedom.”

Martin Luther King is often portrayed as the nonviolent figurehead of the civil rights movement to Malcolm’s violent and radical activist. Here’s the thing: Humans are complex creatures, whereas history is about perspective.

There’s no saying how much of what we know about these people’s personas is accurate and how much is adjusted to fit a narrative. Some say Malcolm’s faith led to him getting painted in a negative light.

If we, too, adjust our perspective to the setting of the words above, we may see Malcolm’s nonviolent tendencies, especially those he showed more toward the end of his life.

“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing.”

These words are essential because of their relevance in our nation today. Systemic racism is a reality. Everything from education to healthcare to law and order is rigged against African Americans more than other racial groups.

Malcolm’s prediction of a clash came true during the nationwide marches after the death of George Floyd. To be fair, Malcolm followed this statement with, “I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think it will be based on the color of the skin.”

This Malcolm X Day: Walk Through the Formative and Final Years of Malcolm X Online

The volunteers at Kennedys and King are nothing if not fair in their assessment of Malcolm X, who remains one of the most misunderstood activists of the civil rights movement. See the movement and its leaders from a different angle.

Question everything you know about the Malcolm X assassination now that his family has decided to sue law enforcement and intelligence for the roles they played.

Reach out for feedback and inquiries.

The only good thing to come out of the Netflix docuseries Who Killed Malcolm X?, according to this Joseph E. Green review, was the renewed interest in the Malcolm X assassination. Unfortunately, the rest was an unholy mix of omissions, baseless theories, and shock-value fodder.

Below are some of these shortcomings in more detail.

Casting the Spotlight on Internal Conflicts

The series invites Abdur-Rahman to explore some questions while conveniently leaving out others. It fixates on the internal conflicts of the Nation of Islam (NOI), about how Malcolm rose through the ranks to a point where he threatened Elijah Muhammad’s supremacy.

The two drifted apart, with Malcolm leaving NOI soon after. However, things turned ugly when Malcolm revealed Elijah’s affairs and his illegitimate children and lost favor with many NOI members and supporters.

The Netflix documentary focuses on this bad blood at the time of Malcolm’s death. Fair play to the producers. However, it doesn’t even hint at the harassment and spying by the NYPD, FBI, and CIA that was also going on at the time of the murder.

Omitting Facts Surrounding the “Assassin”

Who Killed Malcolm X? did a decent job documenting the assassination but fell prey to more omissions. Let’s start with what it got right.

It’s established that Malcolm X was killed at the podium of New York City’s Audubon Ballroom. Everyone was distracted by a fake scuffle as Malcolm walked up, and a smoke bomb was thrown inside the room.

During this time, a man walked up to Malcolm, shot him with a shotgun, and escaped through a side door. Two more men with pistols rushed up to Malcolm, lying on the ground, shot him again, and fled through the back entrance.

One of three assassins, William X Bradley, was caught while escaping. The Netflix series documents this as some shocking and exclusive reveal even though everyone who knows about the Malcolm X assassination knows this. However, our problem lies with the docuseries’ omission of the government protecting Bradley after his capture.

 

Ignoring the FBI-shaped Elephant in the Room

The docuseries quickly pointed out the lack of many police officers in the Audubon Ballroom that day and their reaction, or lack thereof, after Malcolm was shot. It fact-checks this point through several witnesses.

However, it fails to mention the presence of several FBI informants and infiltrators in the room. An infiltrator, John X, met with the shooters shortly before the shooting, whereas another, Eugene Roberts, was the first to reach Malcolm’s body and attempt CPR. The latter is peculiar because an FBI infiltrator was also the first to get to Martin Luther King when he was shot.

Who Really Killed Malcolm X?

Malcolm X left a controversial legacy. For the better part of his activism, he was a separationist, but that doesn’t justify his murder. Since this docuseries has drummed up interest in the Malcolm X assassination, help us take it all the way: Help us have the assassination reinvestigation. Read more reviews and articles, check out resources, and contribute in any way possible.

Get in touch for inquiries and comments.

Many believe Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill General Edwin Walker months before he assassinated President John F. Kennedy with the same weapon. It’s high time someone finally called out this lie presented as a historical fact.

Read our contributor Scott Reid’s latest review of the unsuccessful Edwin Walker assassination to know once and for all if Oswald killed Walker.

Below is a recap of the review, starting with the events of that fateful night in April 1963.

What Happened on April 10^th 1963?

General Walker was inside a ground floor room of his property on Turtle Creek Boulevard doing taxes when something resembling a firecracker rang out. He realized it was a shooting when he spotted a hole in the wall beside where he was sitting. It only missed him because it ricocheted off a wooden window frame.

An injured Walker went upstairs to grab his pistol. He heard a car pull away but failed to spot the shooter. The police were called, and the bullet was recovered in a different room soon after.

 

The Suspiciously Timed Break in the Case

Despite General Walker’s swift action, the case remained largely unsolved. A man named William Duff was arrested to no avail. It wasn’t until after the JFK and Oswald assassinations that Oswald was suggested as the one who shot at Walker.

In fact, Walker made this suggestion in an interview with a right-wing German newspaper. The remaining pieces “naturally” fell into place after Oswald’s widow, Marina, sent a Russian book to law enforcement through her friend Ruth Paine.

The book contained a note first seen by Marina after the attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker. Marina also alleged that Oswald had arrived home late on April 10th and confessed to the attempted shooting. She said Oswald buried the rifle and unearthed it for the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Her testimony was enough to ensure Oswald went down in history as someone who attempted a killing before successfully killing a President.

Why Oswald Couldn’t Have Attacked General Walker

Let’s suppose Oswald did write the note Marina forwarded to the police. The note’s contents still don’t prove Oswald conspired to kill General Walker. Below are some of the problems within the note:

• It doesn’t specify the dangerous activity to be the assassination of General Edwin Walker.
• It doesn’t mention Walker.
• It isn’t signed or dated.
• The FBI drew latent prints instead of fingerprints from the note.

Kennedys and King’s Take on the Attempted Assassination of General Edwin Walker

Oswald was as responsible for the attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker as he was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you believe one, you assume the other. We believe none. Get out hot takes on the JFK assassination and the events surrounding it, and support our platform so that we can help bring the truth to light.

Get in touch for inquiries and feedback.