Charlie Kirk is dead... A sad day in history

[JEEP]

So, I just sat through the 3.5 hours of Defcon Zero. A lot of pertinent dot-connecting info presented. It was good that I waited it out to almost the very end as one of the rumble questions was about the palm pistol. They ruled it out as there would be a muzzle flash, adjacent people would have moved away, and the sound would not be like that of a rifle, which is agreed was clearly the distinct sound heard. Plus, in a breakdown of the assassination to determine what happened, I paid attention to the brown shirt man's hand - it did not recoil at all (he was part of Charlie's team as well) and no muzzle flash either.

Charlie was NOT wearing a bulletproof vest

If that's factual, then that nullifies Defcon Zero's explanation of Charlie's neck wound, a frontal entry wound either caused by the bullet hitting the vest and it or the vest fragmented and made the neck wound. Not a rickoshay. Probably went on to cause fatal brain injury, likely instant death based on Charlie's body reaction. However, they also showed his body response to the initial impact that indicated a shot from the front (ruling out side or back) as well as a view of his back against the chair and said that definitively showed he was wearing a vest. Plus, they mentioned ceramic at one point, so was metal even part of the vest? I don't remember the specifics of what vest he was thought to be wearing other than 1/2 inch in thickness.

Except that something obviously did interfere with the shirt. So far, the only explanation for that that makes any sense is a bullet hitting near the edge of an armor plate (see the video from SummerLite).

Sonar21 posted an explanation for the movement of the shirt - not what has been proposed heretofore. Rather this:

Let’s start with the shockwave of the bullet. A bullet moving through the air at a supersonic speed creates a shadow in the air as pictured in the photo at the top of this article. I am posting the full video of the examination of supersonic versus sub-sonic rounds, i.e., a supersonic round travels at a speed greater than 1,125 feet-per-second. The bullet that killed Charlie Kirk was a supersonic round.

This is followed by a vid showing the shockwave in a demonstration:

[NOTE: Apologies are made regarding using breakdown of graphic assassination images to detail the shockwave effect.]

1. This is the image showing the moment before Charlie is shot. Note the lettering on the front of his T-shirt.
2. The next seven images represent a total elapsed time of 1 second, but a lot happened in that brief moment in time. In the next photo, Charlie’s head pitches forward slightly — down and to the left — as his T-shirt climbs upwards. This is the moment the shockwave and the bullet hit him. It is the compressed air from the shockwave that moves the T-shirt upwards, as you can see from the lettering. Punch yourself in the neck over the carotid artery and see which way your head moves if you want to verify that a strike to that part of the neck will result in the head moving forward.
3. The next image shows the T-shirt still moving upwards and Charlie’s head continuing to move down and to the left.
4. In the next image, the shockwave has passed and the T-shirt returns to normal. This image alone proves that the shot came from the front. A shot from behind would not have produced this movement in the T-shirt. Notice also that Charlie’s head is starting to move upwards. This image also disproves the claim made by some that the wound to Charlie’s throat was an exit wound. If it had been an exit wound, you would see a spray of blood moving away from Charlie in line with such a bullet. That did not happen.
5. In the next photo, you can see the start of the flow of blood from the entrance wound and, if you look closely at the left arm, the start of a muscular/neurological reaction to the bullet, which is striking on or near the cervical spinal cord. Even if the bullet did not hit the spinal cord directly, the shockwave from the bullet carries sufficient force to cause neurological impairment.
6. In the next moment, the blood flow increases and Charlie’s body begins to stiffen dramatically, as he starts moving to the left.
7. Charlie’s arms continue to move upwards, but in a stiff, unnatural motion.
8. In this final frame, the blood rushing from the shattered carotid artery is akin to a flash flood and Charlie’s body continues to move to the left.

So, if the above explains the movement of the shirt, and there was no vest, did the bullet strike the neck directly? Defcon Zero said that a direct hit by the presumed rifle bullet would have done a lot more graphic damage than what the neck wound showed. So????

Additionally:

I also want to show you a video that demonstrates that it is not difficult to hide a Mauser rifle with a scope in your pants leg and move around. The man in the video places the rifle in his right pants leg and then proceeds to walk, including walking uphill to simulate climbing stairs.

It's a 1:09 bitchute vid in the article. Defcon Zero scrutinized the roof footage and thought it did look like a rifle was being carried, but after he hit the ground and walked off, not so much? I'm not sure now on that point. The clothes changing bit is puzzling, but he must have done recon to know to crawl to the prone position to avoid cameras. They agreed that he is the shooter, but very likely MKUltra/voice to skull tech utilized on him.

Blunders UTAH govt. doing is to dilute the case. Most probably, this kid will be 'suicided'. They suspect Kash Patel removing FBI's Utah head on the morning of Aug 10th (before shooting) meant to facilitate this.

My impression from the Defcon Zero vid is that Kash is playing along intentionally (they showed that Dan Scavino lion vid) and due to following Trump's orders. He removed Utah FBI head to ensure Tyler doesn't get suicided. They think he likely will get killed though.

One last thing that's more than odd. Checked on Tarot with Janine/Beyond Mystic and they showed two pics of Charlie's hand that was bizarre. I looked for it in the vids of Defcon Zero, and it looked that way to me, too. First, you can see Charlie's wedding ring on his ring finger. But moments later, the ring is on his pinkie finger! How could that be? Very, very weird.

 

[Cosmos]

A recognition that a 'great soul' had been snuffed out?

My bet is on something like that. And it might not even have been because “a great soul“ was killed but simply a nice, decent and ordinary guy as most people are (with all their flaws) that happened to work himself (more or less out of nothing) into a position where he already spread some very basic types of decency that many in this day and age have become numb to or have forgotten. And maybe also because his life story seems to be an almost archetypal description of an ordinary guy with many flaws and errors working on himself and his errors and becoming a better being through work instead of just coming into the world “perfectly formed“. A story most people can appreciate and might recognize at some level that they could and maybe should emulate in their own ways too. And maybe also because he left behind a wife with two young children. And maybe additionally to that because if he could have continued in the way he did he could very well have been an even greater force for good, possibly not only within America. Most certainly, I was and still am very touched about the whole thing. It reminds me of princess Diana‘s death too.

 

[RedFox]

First, you can see Charlie's wedding ring on his ring finger. But moments later, the ring is on his pinkie finger! How could that be? Very, very weird.

I saw an analysis of this. They worked out that the ring is the type that has a catch/hinge on it, that means it can be removed from a finger easily.

*edit to add*

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966109062463901864

 

[Aeneas]

Anyone knows who this Patriotic Blonde is?

I saw this yesterday from her and I thought it was interesting and a possible sign that Israel is losing support from areas of the conservative movement. Here she gives a public apology to Candace Owen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967927729950498884

I want and need to publicly apologize to Candace Owens (
@RealCandaceO
).
In the past I have publicly ridiculed you on your stance over Israel. I did not want to believe that America was being controlled by Mossad.From the FBI's blatant coverup of the Epstein client list due to the names it contained, to the murder of Charlie Kirk for beginning to openly question who is actually in charge of our government, the events of the last several months and weeks have proven me wrong.I apologize.

The Patriotic blonde has 85.2K followers and she describes herself as constitutional conservative.

 

[Aeneas]

He's done it again! Netanyahu with another 'televised address to the American people':

He is certainly protesting too much. Interestingly the site "The Times of Israel" clearly didn't get the memo as they portray Charlie Kirk as not a friend of Israel.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968486185095020979

The Times of Israel isn't playing along with the Charlie Kirk farce.

"Charlie Kirk was an extremist: racist, misogynist, fascist. Undeniably, Kirk was an evil man who dedicated his life spreading hate. "It is doubtful that his devotion to Israel stemmed from genuine solidarity with Jewish history and Zionist ideology, which sought to find a safe haven for the Jewish people. More likely, it was rooted in his evangelical belief that the return of Jews to the Land of Israel is a step toward a messianic end-times prophecy."Either way, Israel should not be flattered."

It could also just show the conflict within the elite in Israel and that not all are behind BB, perhaps some even deliberately undermining him.

 

[Seato]

On the matter of cancelling people Jimmy Kimmel has reportedly been pulled of the air (not fired yet) by ABC (owned by Disney). This appears to be the decision of the Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair which own a number of ABC affiliates and local channels. So, the pressure seems to have come through from the local broadcasters and upwards.
Article on the matter by the New York Post.

This is in response to his recent comments on the assassination. They are pretty tame when it comes to leftist rhetoric just trying to frame the assassin as MAGA. I believe this is the comment in question unless I’m missing him saying something else.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

It may be worth noting that a lot of the late-night talk shows including Jimmy Kimmel’s show have been suffering poor ratings and returns for some time now; Stephen Colbert's show was cancelled earlier this year. So, it is harder for the higher management to justify keeping the show in the face of internal opposition. It speaks to the mood in the country that they felt able to use these comments to justify cancellation.

 

[Brewer]

So, if the above explains the movement of the shirt, and there was no vest, did the bullet strike the neck directly? Defcon Zero said that a direct hit by the presumed rifle bullet would have done a lot more graphic damage than what the neck wound showed. So????

Doubt it would move the shirt like that, a point blank 50 cal barely moves flour and what does move is probably caused by the muzzle blast.

I hunt deer and make my own bullets, here's a 30-06, left, compared to my homemade 30-30 on the right.

Though same caliber and similar bullet weight the 30-06 has 40% more propellant than my 30-30 giving it about 25% more muzzle velocity. At 100 meters the 30-06 still has more energy than my 30-30 at the muzzle, here's what it does to a deer's heart at 40 meters. The entrance is at the center, the bullet hit no bone nor did it tumble during it's entrance. On the right is the exit wound of another deer, that's lung tissue, protruding through the chest wall, range 30 meters.

As you can see the effect is devastating, the ballistic tipped and boat tailed projectiles I load add considerably to the damage and you need it, the first deer ran 30 meters with this heart damage, second, 10. I don't know what type of projectile was used in the assassination but that neck injury doesn't look like your typical entry wound. Humans are soft skinned compared to large wild animals but I've taken softer skinned animals, young pigs, young deer, feral dogs, foxes and cats. Every entrance wound is a small hole with little blood, the bleeding occurs in the chest cavity or the exit wound. The only times I've seen an irregular entry wound is when a shot has passed through one animal and hit one directly behind it. By this time the bullet has deformed and maybe tumbling, leading to a messy, bleeding entrance wound. I've also seen large irregular holes on animals shot with heavy flat nosed solid projectiles from shotguns. As a medic I've seen one self inflicted bullet wound, a .22LR rimfire to the head, suicide, once again small entrance hole, no exit, bullet remained in the skull.
If Charlie's neck wound was a direct hit then the exit wound would be of a magnitude greater, especially if the assassin used a ballistic or soft tipped bullet like I do. There would have also been blood splatters over the backdrop which itself would've had a hole in it larger than .30 cal, or irregularly shaped due to tumbling or even multiple small holes due to bullet fragmentation.
I don't know what hit Charlie, I don't know why his shirt moved in such a way if he wasn't wearing armor.

 

[Cosmos]

Speculating:

If the assassination of Kirk was in big parts to stop Candace, could it be that someone/something is actually thinking that what she is digging into with the whole Macrone/Brigitte affair is more dangerous than what has happened now? In other words: could one goal be to “distract“ Candance from continuing her research into the Brigitte story because it could lead to more dangerous exposures compared to the Israel thing? If you listen to what the Ex german elite family member is claiming, one could certainly think that the real powers hide/operate behind official labels/layers such as “Israel“ or “Mossad“. And maybe Candace is getting closer to exactly such forces by the Brigitte story and they needed something strong and quick in order to distract her? If so, so far such a tactic would seem to have worked quite well.

 

[Alma.Innovadora]

The first is about the emotional impact of this. It seems that a lot of people (even if they where not aware of him/his reputation) where deeply impacted emotionally. So I'm curious what that was?

Well, now that you mention it, certainly this experience will have served as a trigger, on some level. Until now I had not cared about this issue because I had read information about Charlie Kirk supporting Israel and even the death of Palestinians, receiving money from Israel to support their plans, turning a blind eye on Palestine, deceiving others, etc.

So I was not surprised, "uff!, again themselves getting out of the way, nothing new under the sun."

But I've been thinking about this section for 3 days as if something caught my attention.

When I saw the videos together with Ben Shapiro, where C.K commented that Israel's way of acting should be questioned, it was obvious that he had signed his sentence. Besides that Shapiro's face was a whole poem, all he needed to say was "you made a serious mistake friend".

It struck me that C.K was described at the last moment as "a person who, at the end of his days, was beginning to see the light, to have enough consciousness to question what Israel was doing, but too late."

I know nothing about C.K, and it's quite a different contrast that I read here about C.K but if we talk about "a great soul", I see him more as an example of what happens with someone who is not fully aware of reality and gets so involved with false knowledge, lies and deception that when he wants to turn the helm, it's too late.

He's already so exposed, even that brief flash of knowledge isn't enough to protect him. Almost as if it were the only way to be able to continue later as a STO.

 

[Seamus]

I have some patients at my clinic who will probably bring it up when I see them in the next couple of days, I'll report back.

I spoke with at least half a dozen people about this, mostly more conservative people but a couple more liberal and all of them were horrified by the shooting.

One of the most liberal made a comment about a bomb threat at a memorial service and said "come on y'all!" but didn't say much else. She's usually quite open about her opinions so I was surprised she didn't say anything about the shooting itself.

I heard a few comments about the reactions to the shooting. One more liberal lady was complaining about people putting flags on their trucks "how's that going to help?". One person complained about people saying bad things about Charlie, he was very angry about it.

In general everyone seemed to agree that it was very much against American values of free speech and open discourse.

In general they seemed to be on board with the mainstream narratives around Tyler Robinson. I pointed out some of the inconsistencies of the official story especially about the supposed weapon, its location, its absence in the photos etc. One man insisted that the videos showed him carrying "something long that could be a gun" which I thought was interesting because I've only seen videos of him carrying a small backback that would be too small to hide the rifle even if it was broken down. We aruged about that a bit and then I let it drop.

 

[Ryan]

He also describes how Eastern Europeans, specifically Poles, developed their own natural immunity using natural language. People work with what they have, even when it's not perfect. So I don't think it's that black and white.

This type of natural language is usually developed consciously as a response to doubletalk though. I don't think the current mainstream usage of "left" and "right" really qualifies as this. If anything, those terms have been degraded to hollow tropes that now carry very little relevant information. Another example would be, "anti-semitic". Our understanding of that term is so vastly different to mainstream usage that there's virtually no point in using it, and that shows in the way we use it, which is mostly for ironic and comedic effect.

I guess the evaluation of ways and means is always individual though. Some see "difficult, but possible" where others see "impossible". I'd like to think the program could continue to change regarding the US, but Israel's absolute death grip on the levers of power there just doesn't make that outcome seem very realistic to me at this point.

Now, if everyone learned the language of ponerology, that understand could come muck quicker and with less trial and error.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[Moine]

So I'm curious what that was?
HAARP? i.e. emotions amplified deliberately, before any 'data' can come in.
A recognition that a 'great soul' had been snuffed out?
Something else?

Have you ever heard of the "two-minute hate" from George Orwell's 1984? It was basically a routine, govern-mentally orchestrated and nationally involved catharsis, which not only drained you hormonally, emotionally, and physically, but it also made sure that your "anger" was directed at officially sanctioned targets, and not at the state itself (involving those who ran the state).

I guess in 2025, it's going to be a two-week hate at the very least, from how things are going.

Now, morally upright people die every day, due to innumerable causes -- innocents (those under the age of maturity) also die due to innumerable causes. Many might have been unremarkable, some might have strayed from sight due to shyness; others might have done the socially proper thing throughout their lives, while a few might have approached every new day, and every new person, with an openness and a fecund smile that most would enjoy. I hear nothing about the vast majority of them, aside from when they're included in casualty statistics.

Yet when anyone well-to-do, well-connected, or well publicized dies, there's an immediate media campaign to make everyone feel bad about the loss; in reality the person in question was at best a complete stranger to everyone else, not being involved in their lives or families at all.

The Ancient Greeks would have known this as tragedy:

Wikipedia - Tragedy

A tragedy is a genre of drama based on human suffering and, mainly, the terrible or sorrowful events that befall a main character or cast of characters. Traditionally, the intention of tragedy is to invoke an accompanying catharsis, or a "pain [that] awakens pleasure," for the audience. While many cultures have developed forms that provoke this paradoxical response, the term tragedy often refers to a specific tradition of drama that has played a unique and important role historically in the self-definition of Western civilization.

It's why televised programming works so well -- it pulls you in and entices you to become captivated and enraptured by whatever story is being presented. It's why the C's note any changes to "reality" as being "program changes, or changes in programming", because most of reality is a televised deception that is a hundred times removed from not only the truth, but also everyone's personal experience of it -- mostly being remote.

That's my functional take of what everyone around the world seen.

 

[Beau]

Ron Unz reports what Trump insiders and Kirk's close friends think about who killed him:

Therefore, a few hours after hearing of Kirk’s death, I very gingerly raised these possibilities with someone well situated in conservative circles who personally knew Kirk, and was shocked by his response. He unequivocally told me that everyone in Kirk’s circle, even including important Trump Administration officials, suspected that Israel had probably killed the young conservative leader. While such beliefs might not necessarily be correct, I was astonished that they were apparently so widespread without even a hint of those notions reported anywhere in the mainstream or conservative media.

Harrison H. Smith tweeted that he heard the same thing, but from Senate Republicans.

 

[Windmill knight]

Wasn't Nick Fuentes supposed to be totally anti-Israel? One would think that he would at least consider the 'Israel did it' hypothesis, but for some reason here he sounds like Ben Shapiro. What's up with that?:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968526153783619869

 

[hiker]

If Charlie's neck wound was a direct hit then the exit wound would be of a magnitude greater, especially if the assassin used a ballistic or soft tipped bullet like I do. There would have also been blood splatters over the backdrop which itself would've had a hole in it larger than .30 cal, or irregularly shaped due to tumbling or even multiple small holes due to bullet fragmentation.
I don't know what hit Charlie, I don't know why his shirt moved in such a way if he wasn't wearing armor.

Yeah, it’s quite perplexing if there was no bulletproof vest: a direct hit from a rifle bullet to the front of Charlie’s throat would have caused a larger and more graphic exit wound in the back of the neck.

SummerLite also posted this video. At around 1:17:00 they share a video of a guy shooting rifles at body armor plates. In the slow motion you can see some of the fragments deflect. To get most of the points these guys make, watch from around 1:13:00 until around 1:35:00. Quick summary: motion of shirt, body, and head suggests impact coming from the front; no sign of any impact to the neck or head from the side or behind; if the hole in his neck was an exit wound, you would see an initial spray of blood and flesh followed by bleeding, instead, the blood gushes forth after the wound appears.

On the other hand, if there was a vest involved, and the bullet came from the front and hit it at the upper edge as shown in the video, fragments from the bullet and/or the vest could have been deflected to his neck. They further explain that when the bullet hits the center area of the vest, it holds well, but when the impact is in the exterior of the plate, it pops and explodes (at 1:19:15).

Makes one wonder, if the bullet had hit somewhat lower on the vest, would Charlie have had a higher chance of surviving?

(Btw, the link to the video seems to lead to a different YouTube clip, I think here's the correct one.)

I missed this earlier. Gary at Paramount Tactical heard back from his contact who he says is close to Charlie's people, who told him that the forensic report states (allegedly) Charlie was NOT wearing a bulletproof vest.
View attachment 112028

There seem to be several ”inconsistencies” with the official narrative (as usual). Perhaps this is one of them?