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

[Bluegazer]

It's an artefact of the video compression. The chair was sitting in front of the table and the guy just picked it up and threw it out of the way.

And it's strange. Because, as I've read and several people have pointed out, how is it possible that with the quality of today's cameras you can get such a poor image? Yes, the simplest and most sufficient explanation is the most likely, but not necessarily the true one, considering the other inconsistencies that are being reported. I admit that when I see this, I find it difficult to think in purely materialistic terms...

 

[JEEP]

considering the other inconsistencies that are being reported

Yes, well that ring changing fingers still baffles me.

 

[Ryan]

There does appear to be a reddish circle in the ear, but that could be bleeding from the earpiece being violently extracted by the shockwave impact.

It looks to me like the jolt of his head causes the earpiece and wire to fly out of place. Those earpieces normally sit fairly loosely and can be dislodged by sudden movement. Assuming the bullet was supersonic (apparently most rifle ammunition is of that type), that could explain the shirt. And wherever the bullet hit, it doesn't seem visible from that camera angle, which again raises the question of, "why no exit wound"?

Because, as I've read and several people have pointed out, how is it possible that with the quality of today's cameras you can get such a poor image?

It's not the full image; it's a zoomed-in portion. And that doesn't also take into account that the source footage might have been downsampled to make the video size smaller, either pre- or post- upload. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[seek10]

And also note what she says about Kimmle getting fired:

I think that is important point from yesterday's podcast. They (whoever pulling the strings) are using reactions to this incident to impose draconian rules. It mainly benefits CK's killers as in the phrase "never let a crisis go unused".

 

[Bluegazer]

It's not the full image; it's a zoomed-in portion. And that doesn't also take into account that the source footage might have been downsampled to make the video size smaller, either pre- or post- upload. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Yes, it could be. Perhaps the video was uploaded in the heat of the moment, and the user didn't pay attention to the video's bitrate or which codec was used. Also, when you upload a video to social media, there is a drop in quality due to the limitations of their servers. Although, it's quite surprising what today's smartphones can do when you dig a little deeper into their video capabilities.