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

[Fluffy]

Hey! Let's shoot holes into the whole Charlie Kirk is Dead, um . . . theory? (pun intended)

The Weird Theory of Kirk's Fake Death
Laurent Guyénot


You'll have to read this for yourselves, folks, and draw your own conclusions.

Not even remotely buying into that one.

 

[ELT]

A shooter watching Charlie doesn't need a signal to shoot or know when a good shot is available because their eyes would be on Charlie. Even if a signal was needed using a visual signal adds an unnecessary step. The more reasonable signal to use would be an auditory one since that would allow the sniper to stay on target the whole time rather than having to wait for the signal to then put Charlie in their sights, set up the shot, and take it.

I think an explosive of some kind is unlikely to have been the cause of Charlie's death, but a signal for that is also an unnecessary step as whoever was holding the detonator could place themselves to have the perfect view where any signaling would be unnecessary.

But let's say for whatever reason they needed signals and those signals had to be visual.

The guy on the stage would be visible to everyone who saw Charlie as Charlie's head is on the same level as the neck of stage guy so there's no need for crowd guy.

Also, crowd guy is facing Charlie and his movements are obscured to the vast number of people in the area. The only place where you could see crowd guy but not stage guy is behind/above Charlie and to his left. But that means you don't see Charlie either and would require sending yet another signal. This is why I said it would make more sense for it to be crowd guy signalling stage guy to send the signal.

Since we can reasonably assume that visual signals weren't necessary and therefore probably weren't used, the only thing that makes sense is two guys on a hot day decided to adjust their shirts at around the same time.

Unless there were more than one source of harm, to insure success.
The signals would have served to coordinate them all as to give the illusion of only 1...?

1) Robinson for the noise show, may not even have hit Charlie, 2) a sniper from the back-right side, creating the spectacular exit wound

3) a detonation of the mic battery pack for back-up.

Explaining why they quickly rebuilt the square soon after the event, why the camera at the back has been taken out quickly (even if Candace says there's nothing on the video), and also that mysterious plane owned by an associate of the Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, that took off shortly after and disappeared from radars, before reappearing at base.

Joe can flesh it out more, but his thinking is that you've got two guys somewhere up high with line-of-sight. One fires off a round that doesn't even try to strike Kirk, it's just fired overhead somewhere, or just a blank bullet, and the other simultaneously detonates the booby-trapped mic/battery-pack on/under his shirt. Robinson is over there at another location, the Losee building, where he's meant to be seen, thus drawing attention to him. The gunshot provides, well, the loud gunshot sound, but the hi-tech device guarantees his death (and, perhaps, the second, odd, slightly-off-time-wise 'thud' sound that's heard).

 

[Voyageur]

You'll have to read this for yourselves, folks, and draw your own conclusions.

Had read it earlier today on account of Laurent Guyénot writing it (would he be supporting a Boston Marathon type actor theory and why), and watched the video he links to. Laurent certainly attaches to it (discounting the mason aspect, as he says), and it is 'out there' indeed.

The aftermath part with the body of Kirk being carried to the vehicle, with what appears to be positioned camera people (the one woman in particular) was interesting for certain reasons that are not set, that are outside Laurent's read on the speculations.

Whatever the case, and Butler was odd enough, this one (if one discounts the narrative shooter), is very odd on the surface, and if the narrative does not hold up, or a close facsimile to it, it boarders on the diabolical.

A: Take note however, that there are those at 4D STS "HQ" who take some pleasure fomenting wars and confusion for sport.

That is a spooky quote from the C's, and one might take that to also mean that the 'fomenting' is done through influencing 3d to carry out prime directives.

 

[Ruth]

They didn't rig the Butler podium to explode when they tried to kill Trump and he was a much bigger target, so I think it's only logical that we use Butler as a reference. The setup there was relatively clean, a patsy and a cleanup crew, so if they didn't need such a complicated undertaking to take out the President of the USA I don't think it's reasonable to suspect they'd need more than the same to take out a lower profile target.

It did occur to me that "they" may be hoping that everyone does that (makes a connection between the two and assumes the method has to be the same too). If you remove the relative 'importance' of a target (it's just a target - one person), then multiple things can be dissimilar.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Watching Paramount Tactical's latest stream:

Even though he's said he changed his mind and didn't think Charlie was wearing body armor, it looks like he's keeping it open as a possibility, and even leaning in that direction again, despite Erika's statement. One point he's made a couple times over the past week is this: Charlie is wealthy and quite high profile. He would have access to custom-made, form-fitting, high-quality body armor that is designed to be very low profile. (One advantage to this is to give the impression to any would-be shooter that you are NOT wearing armor, so they are more likely to shoot you in the chest than the head, which is a trickier shot. If they see you're obviously wearing armor, they are more likely to go for a head shot.)

Anyways, according to Gary, he thinks it is entirely possible that if this were the case, the manufacturer/supplier would require an NDA not to disclose anything about the body armor - even in the event of the wearer's death.

 

[Ruth]

Not sure what exactly happened with that shirt mic. This Redacted vid previously posted goes into the subject beginning at 12 minutes:

Presumably on his shirt, you have a microphone, held in place by a "very powerful magnet" which is on the other side, or inside his t-shirt holding the microphone in place. Then, it's said that he's wearing a necklace with a cross, which I presume is metalic. All three of these items came off (rapidly). Could the magnet have interacted with both the chain and the necklace in a way that would cause movement of the t-shirt?

 

[BHelmet]

Can you unequivocally, absolutely without any doubt rule this out?