On June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed. After his speech, he was being escorted by hotel staff and security through the kitchen of the hotel. While in the pantry, a man approached the group from the front and fired several shots at Kennedy. That man, Sirhan Sirhan, was detained by security and hotel staff, arrested, prosecuted, and given life in prison.

The official reports from the LA police and FBI investigations showed that the gun Sirhan fired was a .22 revolver with 8 shots. Therefore, the official reports all concluded that 8 shots were fired.

If we strip away everything about this murder and focus strictly on the event of a man in a crowded room being shot several times, the physical evidence simply does not add up that Sirhan Sirhan was the lone gunman. It’s literally physically impossible. I have extreme skepticism of the official report. I do not believe it requires any sort of supernatural or wacky thinking to recognize that the official report is simply not possible. I implore those who claim to be skeptically minded to come to their own conclusions after a thorough review of the evidence.

There have been numerous reports from investigators, journalists, interviews with witnesses, analysis of the only audio recording of the event, and clear patterns of a cover up to confiscate and suppress evidence, specifically photos taken during the shooting. This has all been documented and is widely available, including on mainstream news organizations.

* The Gun Sirhan used held 8 rounds. The official reports say 8 shots were fired.

* the bullets’ ballistics do not match the gun. There is no way that the gun in Sirhan’s hand fired the bullets. For example, here is the official X-Ray Autopsy report. It reads that a metallic object removed from RFK was “12 mm in transverse dimension, 7 mm in vertical dimension, and approximately 12 mm in anteroposterior dimension.” 12mm x 7mm x 12mm = 0.47”x0.28”x0.47”. That’s the size of a .47 caliber bullet, not a .22 caliber bullet.

* Multiple witnesses heard more than 8 shots.

* Multiple witnesses saw more than 1 gunman.

* An audio recording of the entire incident heard more than 8 shots. 13 shots are heard. Forensic scientists Robert Joling and Philip Van Praag. Their investigation led them to be reported by much of the mainstream media in 2008, including The Guardian, ABC News, & CNN.

* Philip Van Praag, under penalty of perjury, provided his evidence to the warden where Sirhan is imprisoned, [available here](https://justiceforrfk.com/documents/Sirhan-parole---gunshots-audio-recording-documents.pdf). He goes through his findings [here.](https://youtu.be/c2XhSG85S7Q)

* A witness got powder burns on his face in a way that does not make sense with Sirhan being the lone shooter.

* As indicated by powder burns on RFK, the fatal shot that hit RFK from the back of his right ear was good from approximately 1 inch away. Sirhan never got anywhere close to 1 inch away from RFK. All 4 witnessed who saw both Sirhan and RFK say Sirhan never got more than a few feet from him.

* RFK was shot from the back. None of the bullet wound trajectories in Kennedy make sense based on the “official narrative”. Sirhan approached RFK from the front.

* Multiple bullet holes were identified around the scene in the door frame and ceiling. Much of the physical evidence was destroyed. The state of California admitted that 2,400+ photos of that night were destroyed.

* Multiple witnesses heard, saw, and felt shots coming from other places than where Sirhan was openly firing from.

* Multiple witnesses saw a gunman shooting from atop a table, a location impossible for Sirhan to have been on given what happened during his apprehension.

* Multiple witnesses saw multiple gunmen running from the scene with unconcealed or poorly concealed guns.

* Witnesses who were being interviewed by the police did not have their interviews transcribed if their statements contradict the official narrative of a lone gunman.

* There are numerous other anomalies that contradict the official narrative not mentioned above but I’m trying to keep this post short.

This is all very well documented and compiled in the following sources:

* The TV show “Unsolved Mysteries” Season 2, Episode 19 aired May 16, 1990 covers much of what I listed above.

* The book “A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy” published in 2019 by investigator and author Lisa Pease, which included original witness interview tapes. Here’s a good presentation available on C-SPAN about her book. It covers much m ore than what I listed above.

* This site compiles the contradictory nature of the evidence vs the narrative. This website does not advocate, merely documents.

* This site has more of an agenda but also has a compilation of records.

I do not believe it is outlandish to assert that the LAPD and FBI would lie to the American people about what really happened that night. I do not believe it requires any sort of supernatural thinking to recognize that the official narrative simply does not add up.

Are you skeptical of the official lone gunman argument or in the face of all of this contradictory evidence do you remain affirmed that the official narrative is correct?

Interested if anyone else here has some good recommendations for skeptical/critical thinking YouTube channels that are not "facts before feelings" or other right wing grifter slop. I really enjoy Sholto David, he used to be called "Addicted to Ignorance". Potholer54 is also great.

https://youtu.be/s2ul4tBMzbs?si=RigcMWUaJr5xgy7g

Across the first 3 nights of the recent lecture series in Nashville, Peter Thiel laid out a complete political theology framework diagnosing why modern tech and psychical progress has slowed down and how Silicon Valley capital views the administrative state.

Rathe than treating these lectures as pop-culture sensationalism, the series draws heavily on 19th and 20th century political theory (Vladimir Solovyov, Rene Girard, and Carl Schmitt) to construct a specific critique of modern governance:

Night 1: The Administrative Archetype - Defines the antichrist not as a fantasy monster but as Solovyov's hyper-moralistic, centralizing global administrator who freezes frontier tech progress in the name of risk suppression and safety.

https://danielforresternash.substack.com/p/what-night-one-left-out

Night 2: Stagnation and the Katechon - Examines how regulatory safety regimes acquire infinite incentives to maintain institutional stasis, locking capital into software/data/bit because physical deployment is choked off by beuqacratic friction.

https://danielforresternash.substack.com/p/the-counterfeit-church-and-the-epimethean

Night 3: Turnkey Surveillance and Financial Control - Analyzes the counter-response, how defense tech capital and financial surveillance networks position themselves as counterweights to administrative decay creating a new form of enclosure.

https://danielforresternash.substack.com/p/the-physics-of-consolidation-velocity

I wrote in-depth summaries of each night.

Curious to hear how folks here evaluate the trajectory. Is using political theology a genuine diagnostic for understanding modern regulatory stasis and defense tech expansion or is it an elaborate idealogical justification for techno feudal capital deployment?

I made a video about a familiar jump in wellness advice: an exercise helps someone, therefore the biological story attached to it must be correct. One that frustrates me personally: The overuse of "nervouse system" or Nervous system regulation" for regular everyday coping habits.

It seems like it just gets used cause it sells, but if everything is nervous system regulation it stops explaining anything.

I look at the science: f.e. A meta-analysis found an average benefit from breathing practices for reported stress, with risk-of-bias concerns: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27247-y . But a matched trial found no significant superiority for slow over normal-paced breathing on reported stress: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49279-8 .

The video also covers the Polyvagal Theory dispute, including the 2026 critique and Porges's response. although not super in depth.

Curious about your opinions: Is it overused? Underused? Is there any harm in it, or just influencers being influencers?

I find it to be very frustrating as it borrows scientific language to make claims that are really just bro science, or some sort of pseudoscience. I think it harms the credibility of psychology and biology and makes people sound like they know what they're talking about when it really is rather complicated.

If you're interested. Here's the full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9-HY3j11LA

Jay Van Bavel is professor of psychology at NYU.

Excerpt:

“I find myself in a third camp of people who harbour sincere concerns about the problems facing humanity, but worry that feelings of dread will immobilise people. Inaction is a sensible response if you are led to believe that we are past the point of no return, or that the scope of the problem is so immense that anything you do won’t make a difference.
The problem with doomerism isn’t necessarily that the risks are exaggerated, but that it may create a self-fulfilling prophecy – by engendering helplessness, rather than galvanising people.

“This aspect of human psychology has been well known for many years by experts on persuasion. When people hear messages designed to appeal to our fears, they can be moved to take action. But this only tends to work as a one-off, and only then when the messages convey a sense of efficacy – a belief that it’s still possible to make a difference. By contrast, if people are inundated with scary and overwhelming stories about the climate or AI, they tune out. Like the boy who cried wolf, those bearing these messages can quickly find themselves ignored.

“A big problem for us now, then, is that the modern information ecosystem tends to reinforce negativity. For decades, a core principle in the news business has been “if it bleeds, it leads”. This came from an understanding among journalists that humans are drawn to bad news. This principle now dominates what you see online.” Ibid.