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

[Phill4]

Pretty level-headed video for the most part from another sniper. I remember this guy from the video he did on Butler last year:

Some notes in [brackets]:

I've thought for a while it is possible the shot was "perfectly inperfect" the shot was instant death.
Possible that a clearly perfect execute shot would have left no room for doubt.

About the reweard,
Bill Ackman offered the ramson to anyone who had info that could lead to capture, then the alleged dad outs the son and becomes entitled to the reward, then online backlash and distrust , then the dad offers the money to the family of Kirk.. Little sequence if events i found worth keeping in mind

 

[Miracle]

Was Kirk, perhaps, 'not meant to' die?

A ricochet off the top edge of your armor plate and straight into your jugular vein seems extremely unlucky, and it supports the government narrative that Kirk was 'killed by an amateur lone nutter' (although that doesn't exclude prior manipulation of him by 'experts').

Kirk's chances of surviving a 30.06 cal bullet from 140 yards directly into his plate would have been, what, 50-50?

If the plan was to shoot Kirk and not have him die, what would be the pay off be to the conspirators? I'm not sure I see it.

 

[Fluffy]

What if there was no bullet and Charlie was killed with a direct energy weapon of some kind?
They’re invisible to the naked eye, silent, precise, virtually undetectable until after the fact.

 

[Phill4]

Jimmy Kimmle is a left wing late night show host , he got fired over the following statement, the main part:

"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."

I'm curious to see what people think about this.


Is this "celebrating" or a fair assesment and valid opinion.

His joke revolved more around Trump than Charlie but still the quoted segment above is the part that people are bringing up.

Kimmle was a diabolical puppet during covid, so i have no sympathy for him whatsoever and probably deserves jail over it, but is this a bit of a double edge sword?

 

[Ruth]

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.

I found this video really interesting. The presenter (Zeb Boykin) makes a case for a shot coming from behind (3.37 min). He believes that you can even see the bullet (in one frame), and recognises that it could be a fly or an insect.

At (5.08 min) This is the supposed "body armour shot". He demonstrates why that is not the case and why he thinks this occured due to a microphone cord and where it was wraped, that he demonstates.

His theory is that neck wound is an exit wound, not a ricochet, or an entry wound. Video is also age restricted, so you have to click on it to view. I don't know what that age limit is.

 

[Ruth]

What if there was no bullet and Charlie was killed with a direct energy weapon of some kind?
They’re invisible to the naked eye, silent, precise, virtually undetectable until after the fact.

Bullets tend to be more dramatic (and guns also noisy) and Charlie definitely has some kind of (potentially) an exit wound on his neck. The autopsy should be able to shed some light on how he died and whether his neck wound was an entry or exit wound.

 

[Ruth]

Kimmle was a diabolical puppet during covid, so i have no sympathy for him whatsoever and probably deserves jail over it, but is this a bit of a double edge sword?

It looks like it. Talking heads come out with some outrageous statements (which presumably they didn't write) and wonder why there's no support for their opinions anymore. Well ok, maybe it's more a case of "falling on their sword"?

 

[Voyageur]

I haven't followed too closely all the developments and details, but so far the alleged tex message exchange appears to me as most bogus of all.

Whatever it was (in a way, said messages were alleged statement - by gunman perpetrator and lover witness), it was a strange, there were many 'I's, and daresay a staged back and forth in what others have pointed out, until proven otherwise (IMO).

This brief exchange was somewhat odd, and don't think it was specifically mentioned:

Roommate: (establishing premeditation with a capital P) "How long have you been planning this?
Robinson: A bit over a week I believe. ...

The roommates statement is placed as a question (allegedly by text message.) and lays down the path of intent. Was it spur of the moment or planned. Planning and plotting by the lone gunman is a valuable script, yet here at this point it is sketchy in terms of aloneness doing the crime.

As for Robinson, right, hmm (and could be wrong), it was not 'maybe a week.' Not 'about a week,' or 'over a week,' it was "a [bit] over a week [I believe].' Do you believe it? The exchange seems to need/want people to believe it, and it needed to be reinforce, 'a bit.'

It would be interesting to hear what the witness statement analyst, Peter Hyatt would have to say on the whole exchange (he was the guy who assessed the statements of the McCanne's back in time).

Just something I noticed in the Frank Turek video. While they were racing to the hospital, Frank mentions @3:15 starting CPR on Charlie but recounts nothing about having to remove any body armour to start compressions.

That is a good point, it would be impossible to preform CPR without removing, although as Beau said, he may have forgotten. It also makes me think that if they had removed it, it may not have have been easy - would that have been remarked upon?

Suppose, those close to Kirk in the know eventually will end up addressing this. The FBI sure is not.

 

[Ruth]

That is a good point, it would be impossible to preform CPR without removing, although as Beau said, he may have forgotten. It also makes me think that if they had removed it, it may not have have been easy - would that have been remarked upon?

Was he actually wearing body armour? The autopsy should be able to clear that up.

 

[Ruth]

7.35 minute video on how the FBI is about to "close the case". Incredible!

 

[Voyageur]

Was he actually wearing body armour? The autopsy should be able to clear that up.

After watching the guy @Approaching Infinity highlighted above, kind of have to agree, he wasn't - has anyone officially said, I've not heard.

The downgrade image clarity of videos (many) make for lot of speculation.

 

[aragorn]

Pretty level-headed video for the most part from another sniper. I remember this guy from the video he did on Butler last year:

Some notes in [brackets]:

This was an excellent analysis! It's starting to look like the CK shooting was a similar setup as with Trump's shooting at Butler: the real shooter was, indeed, the 'patsy' but there were other (intelligence) people involved, who had for some time prior (maybe years) nugded, radicalized and brain washed the 'patsy' and his close circle of friends. Isn't that's what the FBI and other agencies have been doing for ages, inserting their own double agent in disguise into a group that has some grievances, who then 'gives them ideas' and programs/hypnotises them to kill someone or to bomb a target? Maybe as with the Manson case, drugs were distributed freely to the radicalized group to enhance the programming? I wouldn't be surprised if one of the main handlers was this lover, his roommate. The prior knowledge of the shooting that was posted on X were probably by individuals in this group of 'friends' that just couldn't hold their silence.

So, if the 'patsy' was, indeed, the real shooter, why don't they release the HD footage and other evidence? Why the bogus text messages? One reason I can think of is that this is because other suspicious individuals can be seen in some video footage, maybe guys in black outfits and balaclavas who are aiding the shooter in some ways (securing the area, signaling the shooter when it's safe to proceed, keeping 'real' security and police distracted etc.). These could be professionals connected to Mossad or some other agency, and to cover up that connection the videos are not released. Same goes for the bogus text messages: as since JFK, they want to make sure that everyone believes that the shooter acted alone. And because the whole US ledership is blackmailed by the Zionists, they play along.

Just some musings that maybe off.

 

[lilyalic]

After watching the guy @Approaching Infinity highlighted above, kind of have to agree, he wasn't - has anyone officially said, I've not heard.

The downgrade image clarity of videos (many) make for lot of speculation.

From his video it doesn't look like he had any type of body armour, and his speculation is that the necklace (long silver chain with a cross) is what pulled the t-shirt up, and the top image with the red arrow is either the necklace or some type of wire (although from other segments of the video it doesn't look like he was wearing an earpiece either) it's very strange.

 

[Niall]

I found this video really interesting. The presenter (Zeb Boykin) makes a case for a shot coming from behind (3.37 min). He believes that you can even see the bullet (in one frame), and recognises that it could be a fly or an insect.

At (5.08 min) This is the supposed "body armour shot". He demonstrates why that is not the case and why he thinks this occured due to a microphone cord and where it was wraped, that he demonstates.

His theory is that neck wound is an exit wound, not a ricochet, or an entry wound. Video is also age restricted, so you have to click on it to view. I don't know what that age limit is.

Already posted multiple times, discussed, and 'debunked' - or, rather, eclipsed by better information/analysis.

 

[luc]

And because the whole US ledership is blackmailed by the Zionists, they play along.

Been thinking about the position of Trump and gang (and other administrations before) in a situation like this. It should be clear that at least some of them knew or suspected what was going on from the start.

Even assuming they overall have good intentions, they are then facing a dilemma: "go public" with this, in the sense of allowing a real investigation which would uncover at least parts of the plot, leading back to Israel/the Israel-DeepState complex? That would be political suicide, and perhaps literal suicide. The time is not ripe for any such thing, not yet anyway. So the only choice left is to cover the whole thing up, and maybe use some of the momentum for their own political goals as a sort of participation trophy. But this of course makes them even more vulnerable to blackmail, since they are now implicated in the plot. So even without prior blackmail, they are completely cornered and have only one option: cover-up. It's pretty brilliant in a diabolical way, and it's obvious why "they" would go for that play.